Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03306/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03306-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YARMAN SMITH, a Minor, by

LAGERTHA SMITH, his guardian

ad litem, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF

THE BERKELEY UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 

 Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. C 04-3306 WDB 

 

ORDER FOLLOWING FINAL

FAIRNESS HEARING

On August 3, 2005, the Court conducted a final fairness hearing to consider whether

the settlement proposed in this case should be given final approval. William Koski, Esq.,

Gabriela Ruiz, Esq., and Molly Dunn, Esq., appeared for plaintiffs. Marleen Sacks, Esq.,

appeared for defendants.

The Court first informed the parties that it had not received any objections from class

members to the terms of the proposed Consent Decree. Counsel for the parties also

represented that they had not received and were not aware of any objections by class

members to the proposed Consent Decree.

Second, the Court addressed execution of the approved notice plan. On June 10,

2005, defendants' counsel filed a declaration confirming that defendants had complied with

Case 4:04-cv-03306-WDB Document 33 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 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

2

all of their obligations under the approved notice plan. At the final fairness hearing,

plaintiffs' counsel William Koski represented that the legal organizations representing

plaintiffs had posted the notice and proposed Consent Decree on their respective websites.

These postings satisfy plaintiffs' counsels' responsibilities under the approved notice plan.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the approved notice plan was executed in full.

The Court and the parties next discussed the reaction of class members and members

of the community to the proposed Consent Decree. As mentioned above, no class members

filed objections to implementation of the decree. In addition, plaintiffs' counsel represented

that he had received positive feedback from class members and from local legal

professionals. Plaintiffs' counsel also stated that the substance of telephone calls made to

plaintiffs' counsel's offices following distribution of the notice of the proposed Consent

Decree led him to believe that additional students will seek to take advantage of its equitable

relief provisions.

Finally, the Court and the parties addressed the outreach provisions located at page

four, paragraph one of the proposed Consent Decree. Defense counsel stated on the record

that defendants would make good-faith, reasonable efforts to ensure notice is actually given

to the three categories of students described in this paragraph. 

After these discussions, the Court made the following findings and rulings:

1. The Court FINDS that the proposed Consent Decree is not the product of fraud

or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties.

2. For the reasons expressed in the Court's Order (1) Provisionally Certifying Class

for Settlement Purposes, (2) Approving Parties' Proposed Notice Plan, (3) Setting Date for

Fairness Hearing, (4) Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree, and (5) Conditionally

Granting Petition for Approval of the Attorney's Fees Portion of the Settlement, e-filed May

17, 2005 (May 17, 2005, Order), and based on the positive reaction of class members to the

proposed Consent Decree, the Court FINDS that the proposed Consent Decree is

fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court further FINDS that the heightened

Case 4:04-cv-03306-WDB Document 33 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 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

1

 The final Consent Decree is attached as Exhibit A to this Order.

3

standard of fairness governing court approval of pre-certification settlement agreements is

met in this case. Accordingly, the court gives formal and final APPROVAL of the proposed

Consent Decree.1

3. For the reasons discussed in the Court's May 17, 2005, Order, the Court finds the

fee award negotiated by the parties to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

plaintiffs' petition for approval of the attorneys fees portion of the settlement. 

4. The parties must submit a proposed Stipulated Judgment that complies with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3) as soon as practicable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2005 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

Parties, WDB, stats

Attachment

Case 4:04-cv-03306-WDB Document 33 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 3