Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05191/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05191-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

SHAWN HEATON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SOCIAL FINANCE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05191-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING FINAL 

APPROVAL; GRANTING 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS; 

GRANTING SERVICE PAYMENTS; 

ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Shawn Heaton and Anna Ahlborn (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves 

and the Settlement Class Members, and Defendants Social Finance, Inc. and SoFi Lending 

Corp. (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), entered into a Settlement Agreement 

dated April 4, 2016 (the “Settlement Agreement”), providing for the settlement of this case 

(the “Settlement”).

A Fairness Hearing was held before this Court on August 8, 2016, to consider, 

among other things, whether the Settlement represents a fair, reasonable and adequate 

compromise of the action, whether to award fees and costs to Settlement Class Counsel, 

and whether to award incentive payments to Plaintiffs. Having carefully considered the 

Parties’ arguments and the response of Settlement Class Members, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT: 

 1. This Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the 

Settlement Agreement, and all capitalized terms used in this Final Judgment will have the 

same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise defined in this 

Final Judgment. 

 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, Plaintiffs, 

the Settlement Class (defined below), and Defendants. 

3. The request for entry of a Final Judgment and order of dismissal is hereby

GRANTED. 

Case 3:14-cv-05191-TEH Document 119 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

2

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

4. The Court finds that the Class proposed for purposes of the Settlement meets 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and hereby certifies a Settlement 

Class in the action as follows: 

All persons on whom Defendants made a “hard” credit inquiry 

between November 20, 2013 and August 13, 2014 inclusive in 

connection with a student loan refinancing or a personal loan 

who neither (a) funded a loan nor (b) uploaded all documents 

requested on the sofi.com website; provided, however, that the 

class shall not include any current or former legal 

representative, officer, director or employee of Defendants, the 

judge to whom the action is assigned, or any member of such 

judge’s immediate family (the “Settlement Class”).

5. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is the product of good faith 

arms-length negotiations by the Parties, each of whom was represented by experienced 

counsel. The Court finds that the uncertainties and expense of continued litigation 

(underscored by the Parties’ disputes as to the validity of the claims), and Settlement Class 

Counsel’s endorsement of the Settlement Agreement as in the best interest of the 

Settlement Class Members, weigh in favor of approval of the Settlement. Accordingly, the 

Court approves all terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement 

reflected therein. The Court further finds that such Settlement is, in all respects, fair, 

reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of the Settlement Class Members. The Court 

directs the Parties to consummate and perform terms of the Settlement Agreement.

6. The Court finds that the Notice provided for in the Order of Preliminary 

Approval of Settlement has been provided to the Settlement Class, and such Notice 

constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and was in full compliance 

with the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due 

process, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law. The Notice apprised 

the Settlement Class of: (i) the pendency of the litigation; (ii) all material elements of the 

proposed settlement, including but not limited to the relief afforded the Settlement Class 

under the Settlement Agreement; (iii) the res judicata effect on the Settlement Class and of 

their opportunity to object to, comment on, or opt-out of, the Settlement; (iv) the identity 

Case 3:14-cv-05191-TEH Document 119 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

3

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

of Settlement Class Counsel and of information necessary to contact Settlement Class 

Counsel; and (v) the right to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The Court is informed that 

zero (0) Class Members objected to the Settlement and one (1) Class Member requested 

exclusion from the Settlement. The Court finds that full opportunity has been afforded to 

the Settlement Class to participate in the Fairness Hearing. Accordingly, the Court 

determines that all Final Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final Judgment in 

accordance with the terms provided herein. 

7. This action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party, except 

as provided for in the Settlement Agreement and in this Final Judgment.

 8. Within five business days of the Effective Date of the Settlement, 

Defendants shall deliver $2.4 million to the Settlement Administrator for deposit into the 

Settlement Fund. 

 9. The Court finds that $673,035.95 is reasonable compensation for Settlement 

Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Court awards this amount, as 

Settlement Class Counsel Fees, to Settlement Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund. 

The Settlement Administrator shall wire transfer the Settlement Class Counsel Fees to 

Settlement Class Counsel within five (5) business days of receipt of Defendants’ $2.4 

million deposit, in accordance with section 6.3.2 of the Settlement Agreement. 

 10. The Court finds that $7,000.00 is reasonable compensation for Plaintiff 

Shawn Heaton’s services in this matter, and that $3,000.00 is reasonable compensation for 

Plaintiff Anna Ahlborn’s services in this matter. The Court awards these amounts, as 

Incentive Payments, to Plaintiffs from the Settlement Fund. The Settlement Administrator 

shall pay the Incentive Payments to each Plaintiff within five (5) business days of the 

receipt of Defendants’ $2.4 million deposit, in accordance with section 6.3.2 of the 

Settlement Agreement. 

 11. The Settlement Administrator shall mail checks to the Final Settlement Class 

Members within five (5) business days of receipt of Defendants’ $2.4 million deposit, in 

accordance with section 7.2.1 of the Settlement Agreement. All Initial Benefit Checks 

Case 3:14-cv-05191-TEH Document 119 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

4

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

issued to Final Settlement Class Members shall bear a legend stating that the check is not 

valid ninety (90) days after the date of issuance. 

 12. The Settlement Administrator shall effect the distribution of the sum of any 

settlement checks that remain uncashed after the last check void date in accordance with 

section 7.3 of the Settlement Agreement. Any charitable distributions made pursuant to 

section 7.3 of the Settlement Agreement shall be distributed to National Association of 

Consumer Advocates 501(c)(3) fund. 

 13. Upon Final Approval, Plaintiffs, each Settlement Class Member who has not 

opted out of the settlement in accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement, and 

each of their respective, executors, representatives, heirs, successors, bankruptcy trustees, 

guardians, wards, agents and assigns, and all those who claim through them or who assert 

claims on their behalf, shall be deemed to have completely released and forever discharged 

the Released Parties, and each of them, from the Released Claims, as follows: 

[A]ny claim, right, demand, charge, complaint, action, cause of 

action, obligation, or liability for any type of relief and 

statutory or punitive damages predicated on any claim and for 

actual or statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution or 

other monetary relief of any and every kind, including, without 

limitation, those based on any federal, state, or local law, 

statute, regulation, or common law, including all claims for 

declaratory or injunctive relief, whether known or unknown, 

suspected or unsuspected, under the law of any jurisdiction, 

which the Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class Member ever had, 

now has or may have in the future resulting from, arising out of 

or in any way, directly or indirectly, connected with any acts or 

omissions that were raised or could have been raised in this 

action. 

 14. Should either Plaintiff or any Final Settlement Class Member prosecute any 

claim they have released in the preceding paragraphs, this Settlement may be pleaded as a 

complete defense. 

 15. Neither this Final Judgment nor the Settlement Agreement, nor any of its 

terms or provisions nor any of the negotiations or proceedings connected with it, shall be

construed as an admission or concession by Defendants of the truth of any of the 

allegations in the action, or of any liability, fault or wrongdoing of any kind, or construed 

Case 3:14-cv-05191-TEH Document 119 Filed 08/09/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

5

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

as an admission by Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class as to any lack of merit of the claims 

or this action. 

16. Within thirty (30) days of the date when all other obligations set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement have been completed, the Parties shall jointly file with the Court a 

notice stating that they have complied with all requirements set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement, the Order of Preliminary Approval of Settlement, and this Final Judgment. 

 17. If the Effective Date, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, does not occur 

for any reason whatsoever, this Final Judgment and the Order of Preliminary Approval of 

Settlement shall be deemed vacated and shall have no force and effect whatsoever. 

 18. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment in any way, this Court 

retains continuing jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and 

this Final Judgment, and other matters related or ancillary to the foregoing.

 19. The Parties having so agreed, good cause appearing, and there being no just 

reason for delay, it is expressly directed that this Final Judgment and order of dismissal 

with prejudice be, and hereby is, entered as a final and appealable order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/09/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05191-TEH Document 119 Filed 08/09/16 Page 5 of 5