Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00412/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00412-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

JUDGMENT

Robert L. Starr, Bar No. 183052

robert@starrlaw.com

THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC

23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072

Calabasas, California 91302

Telephone: (818) 225-9040

Facsimile: (818) 225-9042

Stephen M. Harris, Nar No. 110626

stephen@smh-legal.com

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, APC

6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500

Woodland Hills, California 91367

Telephone: (818) 924-3103

Facsimile: (818) 924-3079

Attorneys for Plaintiff

KIEVA MYERS, individually, and on behalf of a class

of similarly situated individuals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KIEVA MYERS, individually, and on behalf of a 

class of similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00412-WHO

Assigned for All Purposes to

the Honorable William H. Orrick

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND 

JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF 

ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND 

PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT 

Case 3:16-cv-00412-WHO Document 77 Filed 04/04/19 Page 1 of 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

1

JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of the proposed 

settlement reached in this class action proceeding, and for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and a class 

representative enhancement for the named Plaintiff. The Court’s role in reviewing the proposed 

settlement is to determine whether, under all the circumstances, the settlement is fair, reasonable and 

adequate.

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC, has taken the steps required to notify the Settlement 

Class of the proposed settlement in accordance with the Court’s Order of September 10, 2018. The Court 

finds that the notice given, including individual notice to current and former owners and lessees, 

constitutes reasonable and adequate notice to the Settlement Class and the best notice practicable under 

the circumstances.

The Court held a hearing on the proposed settlement on March 27, 2019, which was made known 

to members of the Settlement Class through the notice procedures employed by the parties. The Court 

provided at that hearing an opportunity for all interested parties to be heard. There were two objections to 

the settlement and 43 individuals opted out of the settlement in a timely fashion. A true and correct copy 

of the list of individuals who timely opted out of the settlement is attached to this Order as exhibit 1.

The Court has also considered the supplemental declarations filed by counsel for Plaintiff.

The Court has determined, on the basis of the foregoing, and all other relevant materials filed in 

this action and the record herein, that the proposed settlement is a fair, reasonable and adequate 

compromise of the claims and defenses asserted in this action, and should therefore be approved pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), and that Plaintiff’s application for an award of fees, costs, and 

an enhancement award to the named Plaintiff is reasonable and should be approved. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:

1. The Class Action Settlement Agreement and the settlement embodied therein, is 

approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; 

2. The certification of the Settlement Class as defined in this court’s

order of September 10, 2018 (Docket 67, ¶ 2) is hereby confirmed for purposes of the settlement of this 

Action;

Case 3:16-cv-00412-WHO Document 77 Filed 04/04/19 Page 2 of 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

2

JUDGMENT

3. The Court hereby approves the form and manner of disseminating the settlement 

Notice to the Class Members as set forth in the Agreement and finds that the Notice given was 

accomplished as provided for by the Agreement and constitutes the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances, and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to Class Members in full compliance with 

the requirements of applicable law, including the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution;

4. The court finds that the Representative Class Plaintiff and Class 

Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class members at all times 

in the action;

5. Settlement Class members who have not timely requested exclusion from the Settlement 

Class and any of their predecessors, successors, representatives, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, 

heirs, executors, administrators, attorneys, successors, and assignees are hereby enjoined and barred from 

instituting, filing, commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, continuing to prosecute, directly or indirectly, 

as an individual or collectively, representatively, derivatively, or on behalf of them or in any other 

capacity whatsoever, any action in any state or federal court or any other tribunal, forum, or proceeding of 

any kind against the Released Parties that asserts any of the Released Claims as set forth in the 

Agreement; 

6. BMW is hereby discharged from all further liability for the Released Claims to Settlement 

Class members;

7. Counsel for Plaintiff’s application for an award of fees and costs of $692,000 is fair and 

reasonable and is hereby granted, subject to the fee division agreement of counsel;

8. The request for an enhancement award to the named Plaintiff of $5,000 is fair and 

reasonable and is hereby granted;

9. The court overrules as without merit the objections to the settlement by Ralph 

Hobson Miller and Douglas Q. Kitt, for the reasons set forth in the response to the objections filed by 

Plaintiff, and for the reasons expressed by the court at the hearing and in the Civil Minutes of March 27, 

2019;

10. The Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice;

Case 3:16-cv-00412-WHO Document 77 Filed 04/04/19 Page 3 of 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

3

JUDGMENT

11. The Court reserves jurisdiction over this case for the limited purpose of administering 

the settlement, enforcing the settlement, and related matters; and 

12. The Clerk shall promptly enter this Order as a Final Judgment in the docket of this 

action.

Dated: April 4, 2019

The Hon. William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00412-WHO Document 77 Filed 04/04/19 Page 4 of 4