Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02367/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02367-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL 

OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THANH HUYNH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KATHERINE HARASZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL 

OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 113, 118, 119, 120, 121 & 139

Plaintiffs1bring this action against the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara 

(“HACSC”) and Katherine Harasz, in her official capacity as HACSC’s Executive Director 

(collectively, “Defendants”). Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of 

class action settlement. ECF No. 139 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval 

included copies of the Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice. ECF No. 141-1 (“Settlement

Agreement”); ECF No. 141-2 (“Notice”). 

After reviewing the motion for preliminary approval, the Settlement Agreement, and the 

 

1

The named Plaintiffs are Thanh Huynh, Venus Benabides, Rudy Garcia, Lynda Gomes, Nicholas 

Wallace, Lillie Ware, Stephen Jones, Dehab Haile, and Freihiwet Tesfamariam. 

Case 5:14-cv-02367-LHK Document 149 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL 

OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

proposed Notice, the Court issued an order on September 1, 2016 with questions about the 

Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice. ECF No. 146. The parties filed their responses on 

September 8, 2016. ECF Nos. 146 & 147. The Court held a hearing on the motion for 

preliminary approval of class action settlement on September 15, 2016. During the Preliminary 

Approval Hearing, the Court proposed a number of suggested changes to the proposed Notice, to 

which the parties agreed. Accordingly, these changes have been incorporated into the Amended 

Notice accompanying this Order. ECF No. 149-1 (red-lined copy of Amended Notice); ECF No. 

149-2 (red-lined copy of Objection Form); ECF No. 149-3 (clean copy of Amended Notice); ECF 

No. 149-4 (clean copy of Objection Form)

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, the record in this case, the 

parties’ responses to the Court’s September 1, 2016 questions, and the statements at the September 

15, 2016 hearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. All defined terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement executed by the parties and filed with the Court.

2. “Preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the proposed class is 

appropriate if ‘the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential 

treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible 

approval.’” Willner v. Manpower Inc., 2015 WL 54349, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2015) (quoting In re 

Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)).

3. The Court finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement is within the range of 

fairness and reasonableness. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement represents a 

comprehensive settlement of the issues in the instant case, that the Settlement Agreement achieves 

a fair and equitable result, and that the Settlement Agreement will result in significant long-term 

benefits to Class Members. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement 

is therefore GRANTED, contingent upon the parties sending out the Amended Notice. See ECF 

Case 5:14-cv-02367-LHK Document 149 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL 

OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No. 149-1 (red-lined copy of Amended Notice); ECF No. 149-2 (red-lined copy of Objection 

Form); ECF No. 149-3 (clean copy of Amended Notice); ECF No. 149-4 (clean copy of Objection 

Form).

4. Because the Court has granted the motion for preliminary approval, all other 

pending motions on the docket are DENIED AS MOOT. ECF Nos. 113, 118, 119, 120 & 121. 

5. The Court finds that the Amended Notice satisfies the requirements of due process 

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 

6. The Court approves the Amended Notice and directs that the Amended Notice be 

delivered in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. 

7. Any Class Member who desires to object to the Settlement Agreement shall mail 

such objection to:

LHK Courtroom Deputy 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

280 S 1st St 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Re: Huynh v. Harasz

8. All objections must be signed and must (1) state whether the objector or counsel on 

behalf of the objector intends to attend the Final Approval Hearing, (2) declare that the objector is 

a Class Member, and (3) describe the reasons for the objection. 

9. The Court shall hold a Final Approval Hearing on December 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

10. Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiffs shall file their motion in support of 

final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and Class Counsel shall file their motion for 

attorney’s fees, costs, and service awards to the Class Representatives. The motion for attorney’s 

fees, costs, and service awards must include (1) the number of hours spent on this litigation by 

each biller, (2) detailed billing records showing how much time was spent on each task, and (3) 

each biller’s billable rate and justification for such rate. For each biller who worked on this action, 

Class Counsel must specify whether any court within the Northern District of California has 

approved the biller’s billable rate. 

11. The parties are to notify the Court as soon as the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Case 5:14-cv-02367-LHK Document 149 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL 

OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Urban Development (“HUD”) approves the Settlement Agreement. If HUD approves the 

Settlement Agreement, the parties shall promptly file with the Court a schedule which includes 

proposed dates for: (1) when the Notice shall be disseminated; (2) when the parties shall file an 

affidavit stating that the Notice has been disseminated; (3) when the motion for attorney’s fees, 

costs, and service awards and the motion for final approval of class action settlement shall be 

filed; (4) the deadline to mail objections; and (5) when the replies in support of the motion for 

attorney’s fees, costs, and service awards and the motion for final approval of class action 

settlement shall be filed. The motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and service awards should be filed 

at least two weeks before the deadline to mail objections. 

12. All parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

13. Jurisdiction by this Court is retained over this litigation and the parties to this 

litigation, and each of the Class Members for all matters relating to this litigation, the Settlement

Agreement, including (without limitation) all matters relating to the administration, interpretation, 

effectuation, and/or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2016. 

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02367-LHK Document 149 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 4