Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03228/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03228-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03228 EMC

AND JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Tavy A. Dumont (CSB #244946)

LAW OFFICE OF TAVY A. DUMONT

101 Cooper Street, Suite 223

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Telephone: (831) 288-0714

Facsimile: (831) 515-5013

tavy.dumont@dumontlaw.com

William E. Kennedy (CSB #158214)

CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY

2797 Park Avenue, Suite 201

Santa Clara, CA 95050

Telephone: (408) 241-1000

Facsimile: (408) 241-1500

wkennedy@kennedyconsumerlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

HEATHER L. NEWTON and the Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

HEATHER L. NEWTON, individually and on 

behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN DEBT SERVICES, INC., et al,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:11-cv-03228 EMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT, AND JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: June 30, 2016

Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.

Room: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor

Action filed: June 29, 2011

Trial date: Vacated

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 354 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 6
Page 1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03228 EMC

AND JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Heather L. Newton’s unopposed Motion for Final Approval of 

Class Action Settlement. Docket No. 344. 

On June 9, 2015, on a contested motion for class certification, the Court certified a class in this 

matter. Docket No. 313. On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff and Defendants Global Client Solutions, LLC

(“Global”) and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust (“RMBT”) (all, “the Parties”) reached a settlement in 

private mediation with the Honorable Rebecca Westerfield. See Docket No. 322, p. 6, ll. 26.27. On 

November 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, 

along with the Settlement Agreement and Release between Plaintiff Heather L. Newton and Defendants 

Global Client Solutions, LLC and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust (“Settlement Agreement”). Docket 

Nos. 322, 323-1. On November 30, 2015, the Court ordered supplemental briefing as to certain issues 

relating to the settlement, ordered certain changes to the parties’ proposed Notice of Settlement, and 

ordered Plaintiff to file under seal her attorneys’ time records to support a lodestar calculation. See

Docket No. 330. In response, the Parties filed a joint supplemental brief and revised proposed Notice of 

Settlement. Docket No. 331. Plaintiff also submitted a declaration attaching her attorneys’ time 

records, with an Administrative Motion to File under Seal. Docket No. 332. The Court held a hearing 

on preliminary approval on December 17, 2015, and on January 15, 2016 granted Plaintiff's Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of the Settlement; approved the form, content and manner of Notice of 

Settlement; and approved CPT Group as Administrator for all aspects of the settlement. Docket No. 

336.

In determining that the settlement merited preliminary approval, the Court previewed the factors 

that ultimately will determine final approval, as set out in Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 

F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004): (1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, 

and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the 

trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 

proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; 

and (8) the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement. The Court found that the first, 

second, fourth, fifth and sixth factors weigh in favor of approval, the third factor is neutral, the seventh 

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 354 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 6
Page 2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03228 EMC

AND JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

factor is inapplicable and, because notice of settlement had not yet been given at that time, it was too 

early to evaluate the eighth factor, the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement. Docket 

No. 336, pp. 7-9. 

CPT Group disseminated the approved Notice of Settlement on February 15, 2016. Docket No. 

345, Skey Declaration, at ¶ 7. The deadline for objection was 90 days later, Docket No. 336, p. 12, ll. 

6-7, and thus has passed. CPT Group received no written objections to the settlement. Docket No. 

345, Skey Declaration, at ¶ 11. The Court received no objections to the settlement. 

Now, having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement, and the Settlement Agreement,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Pursuant to this Court's class certification order of June 9, 2015 (Docket No. 313), the Class 

has been defined as:

All consumers in California who paid QSS directly, or indirectly through ADS, for debt 

settlement services during the four years preceding filing of the complaint, who opened a 

Special Purpose Account with RMBT to be administered by Global, and did not receive a 

full refund of all fees and charges paid to all Defendants.

2. For the reasons stated above and in the Court’s Order of January 15, 2016 preliminarily 

approving the settlement, the Court finally approves the Settlement Agreement set forth in the 

November 12, 2015 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Docket No. 322. The 

Court finds the settlement negotiations were conducted at arms-length and in good faith among counsel 

for the Parties, and that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are in all respects fair, reasonable, and 

adequate as to each of the Parties and the Class Members, and are consistent and in compliance with all 

requirements of Due Process and California law, as to, and in the best interests of, each of the Parties 

and the Class Members. 

3. No Class Members have filed timely requests for exclusion. The Class Members who did not 

timely request exclusion are bound by this Final Order and Judgment and by the Settlement Agreement, 

including the releases provided for in this Final Order and Judgment and in the Settlement Agreement.

4. The Notice of Settlement and the notice methodology that was implemented pursuant to the 

Settlement Agreement and this Court’s January 15, 2016 Order constituted the best practicable notice

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 354 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 6
Page 3

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03228 EMC

AND JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

under the circumstances. The notice provided due, adequate and sufficient notice of the settlement

approval proceedings and of the matters set forth in the proposed settlement, to all persons entitled to 

receive notice, and constituted notice reasonably calculated to apprise Class Members of their right to 

object to the proposed settlement and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. The notice fully 

satisfied the requirements of the Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all applicable 

requirements of due process and California law, and the January 15, 2016 Order of this Court. 

5. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel and Plaintiff adequately represented the Class 

Members in this litigation.

6. The Settlement Agreement and this Final Order and Judgment shall be binding on, and have 

res judicata and preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings encompassed 

by the Release in the Settlement Agreement, maintained by or on behalf of Plaintiff and all other 

members of the Class. 

7. Plaintiff Heather L. Newton and the Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, 

executors, administrators, predecessors, successors and assigns, have released and forever discharged

the Released Parties from the Released Claims (as both those terms are defined in the Settlement 

Agreement), and as to the Released Parties shall be forever barred from instituting, maintaining, or 

prosecuting any action on the Released Claims.

8. Global and RMBT, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, 

predecessors, successors and assigns, have released and forever discharged the Plaintiff, Class 

Members, and their attorneys from, and shall be forever barred from instituting, maintaining, or 

prosecuting, any claims for fees, costs, indemnity or contribution.

9. Each and every term of the Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the 

benefit of, Plaintiff and the other Class Members, Global and RMBT, and any of their successors and 

personal representatives (in their capacities as such), which persons and entities are intended to be 

beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement.

10. The Parties shall be deemed to have agreed that the releases set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement will be and may be raised as a complete defense to and will preclude any action or 

proceeding based on the Released Claims, as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement.

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 354 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 6
Page 4

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03228 EMC

AND JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. None of the above releases includes releases of claims to enforce the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement.

12. The Court approves a class representative services award of $7,500 to Plaintiff Heather L. 

Newton, and an award of attorneys’ fees of $348,091, and costs of $19,409, as set forth in Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Service Award, Docket No. 337.

13. Not later than fifteen (15) days after the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the 

Settlement Agreement, Defendants Global Client Solutions, LLC and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust 

shall forward $375,000.00 to the Administrator for restitution payments to the Class Members

designated in Exhibit 2 to the Settlement Agreement. Not later than forty (40) days after the Effective 

Date as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement, the Administrator shall distribute the 

payments to the Class Members by first class mail. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 

the Administrator shall distribute the $375,000 pro rata to each of the Class Members, including Class 

Representative Heather L. Newton, according to the dollar amount each Class Member paid in fees to 

all defendants combined, which dollar amounts are listed in Exhibit 2 to the Settlement Agreement.

14. To the extent that any part of the $375,000.00 in class relief cannot be distributed, by reason 

that the Class Member cannot be located using the procedures described in the Settlement Agreement, 

or because the refund checks provided to Class Members are not negotiated within 90 days of mailing, 

or for any other reason, the undistributed funds shall be donated, half to the Watsonville Law Center in 

Watsonville, California, and half to the Katherine and George Alexander Law Center in San Jose, 

California as cy pres.

15. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants Global Client Solutions, LLC and Rocky 

Mountain Bank & Trust shall pay for administration, class representative service award, and attorneys’ 

fees and costs by delivering a check in the amount of $375,000.00, addressed to and payable to the 

Consumer Law Office of William E. Kennedy, not later than fifteen (15) days after the Effective Date. 

Within fifteen (15) days of receiving the check, Attorney Kennedy in turn will forward a service award

payment of $7,500.00 to Class Representative Heather L. Newton, and distribute the approved 

attorneys’ fees award of $348,091, and costs award of $19,409 among Plaintiff’s Counsel.

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 354 Filed 07/01/16 Page 5 of 6
Page 5

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03228 EMC

AND JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants Global Client Solutions, LLC and Rocky 

Mountain Bank & Trust are jointly and severally responsible for payments of the sums ordered herein.

17. This action is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice as to Defendants Global Client 

Solutions, LLC and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust and this dismissal shall be without fees of costs to 

any party, except as otherwise provided herein and in the Settlement Agreement. This action is 

dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants American Debt Services, Inc. and Quality Support 

Services, LLC.

18. The Settlement Agreement and the settlement provided for therein, and any proceedings 

taken pursuant thereto, are not, and should not in any event be offered or received as evidence of, a 

presumption, concession, or an admission of liability by Global, and RMBT; provided, however, that 

reference may be made to this Settlement Agreement and the settlement provided for therein in such 

proceedings as may be necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.

19. The Court directs the Parties and their counsel to implement and consummate the 

Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms and provisions, and authorizes the Parties, without 

further approval from the Court, to agree to and adopt such amendments, modifications, and expansions 

of the Settlement Agreement and all exhibits thereto as (i) shall be consistent in all material respects 

with this Final Order and Judgment and (ii) do not limit the rights of Class Members.

20. Without affecting the finality of the Final Order and Judgment for purposes of appeal, the 

Court retains jurisdiction over Global, RMBT, the Plaintiff, and the Class Members as to all matters 

relating to the administration, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the terms of the 

settlement and this Final Order and Judgment, and for any other necessary purposes.

This order disposes of Docket No. 344.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________________ ______________________________

Hon. Edward M. Chen

United States District Judge

July 1, 2016

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 354 Filed 07/01/16 Page 6 of 6