Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03136/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03136-1/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 – 13cv3136

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA SANDERS, on behalf of 

herself and all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-3136-BAS-RBB

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION FOR FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

v.

RBS CITIZENS, N.A.,

Defendant.

On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff Linda Sanders (“Plaintiff”) commenced this 

class action, alleging that Defendant RBS Citizens, N.A. had violated the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227 et seq. (“TCPA”), by placing debt 

collection calls using an automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) or a 

prerecorded voice.1

Now pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval 

of Class Action Settlement. (ECF No. 112.) The matter came on for hearing on 

 

1 Originally, Dorothy McQueen was also named as an individual plaintiff in the case. However, 

on May 22, 2014, her individual claim was dismissed by joint motion of the parties. (ECF No. 

21.)

Case 3:13-cv-03136-BAS-RBB Document 117 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
– 2 – 13cv3136

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

January 23, 2017 at 10:30. The Court has considered the Settlement Agreement and 

Release attached to the Declaration of Douglas J. Campion in Support of

Preliminary Approval (ECF No. 104-3) (“Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”), 

the record in the above-entitled lawsuit (“the Action”) and the arguments and 

authorities of counsel. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS this 

Motion. (ECF No. 112.)

I. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 

The proposed Settlement Agreement applies to class members (“Class” or 

“Class Members”) defined as: 

All persons in the United States who received a call on their cellular 

telephones from [Defendant], or any third parties calling on a 

[Defendant] account, made with an alleged automatic telephone dialing 

system (“ATDS”) and/or an artificial or pre-recorded voice from 

December 20, 2009 through July 13, 2015 whose telephone numbers 

are identified in the Class List.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are [Defendant], its parent 

companies, affiliates or subsidiaries, or any entities in which such 

companies have a controlling interest; and any employees thereof; the 

judge or magistrate judge to whom the Action is assigned and any 

member of those judges' staffs and immediate families, and any persons 

who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

(Settlement at § 2.28.)

2

The Settlement contemplates that Defendant “shall pay $4,551,267.50 to 

settle the Action and obtain a full release from Settlement Class Members of all 

Released Claims.” (Id. at § 5.01.) “The amount paid per Approved Claim shall be 

divided among the approved claimants on a pro rata basis from the amount 

remaining in the Settlement Fund after payment of all Settlement Costs [including 

attorneys’ fees] from the Settlement Fund.” (Id. at § 5.02.) “Class Members shall 

 

2 All capitalized terms in this Order shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement. 

(See Settlement at §§ 2.01-2.35 (Definitions).

Case 3:13-cv-03136-BAS-RBB Document 117 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
– 3 – 13cv3136

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

be entitled to submit a claim if their cellular phone number is on the Class List as a 

phone number that received a Telephone Call during the Class Period. Only one 

claim for each phone number called shall be permitted.” (Id. at § 5.03.) “As an 

additional benefit to all Class Members, [Defendant] has developed significant 

enhancements to its existing policies and procedures, as necessary, to require that if 

any person revokes his or her consent by any reasonable means, that person shall 

not receive any further calls from [Defendant] on his or her cellular telephone via an 

automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice.” (Id.

at § 5.04.)

Following final court approval of the proposed Settlement, Plaintiff and 

Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have released and discharged 

Defendant from any and all claims that were alleged in the complaint or claims that 

could have been asserted arising out of facts alleged in the complaint that took place 

during the class period. (Id. at § 16.01.)

II. ANALYSIS 

The Ninth Circuit maintains a “strong judicial policy” that favors the 

settlement of class actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 

(9th Cir. 1992). However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) first “require[s] the 

district court to determine whether a proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, 

adequate, and reasonable.” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 

(9th Cir. 2000) (citing Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 

1998)). Where the “parties reach a settlement agreement prior to class certification, 

courts must peruse the proposed compromise to ratify both the propriety of the 

certification and the fairness of the settlement.” Stanton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 

938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). In these situations, settlement approval “requires a higher 

standard of fairness and a more probing inquiry than may normally be required 

under Rule 23(e).” Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Before granting approval of a class-action 

Case 3:13-cv-03136-BAS-RBB Document 117 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
– 4 – 13cv3136

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

settlement, the Court must first determine whether the proposed class can be 

certified. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (indicating 

that a district court must apply “undiluted, even heightened, attention [to class 

certification] in the settlement context” in order to protect absentees). For the 

reasons outlined in the Court’s Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary 

Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 107), the Court concludes that class 

certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is 

appropriate in this case.

The Court further finds that the Proposed Settlement is “fair, adequate and 

reasonable” under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “It is the 

settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must 

be examined for overall fairness.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. A court may not 

“delete, modify or substitute certain provisions” of the settlement; rather, “[t]he 

settlement must stand or fall in its entirety.” Id. 

“[S]ettlement approval that takes place prior to formal class certification 

requires a higher standard of fairness.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Consequently, a 

district court “must be particularly vigilant not only for explicit collusion, but also 

for more subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own selfinterests and that of certain class members to infect the negotiations.” In re 

Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011). Other 

relevant factors to this determination include, among others, “the strength of the 

plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further 

litigation; the risk of maintaining class-action status throughout the trial; the amount 

offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 

proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental 

participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” 

Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026; see also Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 

566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, as outlined in the Court’s Order Granting 

Case 3:13-cv-03136-BAS-RBB Document 117 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
– 5 – 13cv3136

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

Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 107), the parties’ 

Joint Settlement Agreement complies with all of these requirements. 

The Court previously approved the form and manner of Notice to the class 

members. (ECF No. 107.) The Court now finds the Class Notice program was 

executed as previously detailed in its Order. (Declaration of Steven J. Powell on 

Behalf of Claims Administrator Kurtzman Carlson Consultants (“KCC”), (ECF No. 

112-4) (“Powell Decl.) ¶¶ 2-9.) KCC sent 1,148,513 post cards with notice of the 

Class Settlement to 971,000 class members, published notice in two national 

publications, and maintained a website for notice, which received 44,448 visitors. 

(Id.) Hence, the Court finds the class notice satisfies due process.

The Court previously found that the strength of Plaintiff’s case and the risk of 

further litigation, the amount of the proposed settlement versus the possible 

statutory damages if the case was successful after a trial, the extent of discovery and 

stage of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel all weighed in 

favor of approval of the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 107.) The Court adopts 

its previous findings in the Preliminary Settlement Order. In addition, the Court 

now has the benefit of the reaction of Class Members to the Settlement. The 

Settlement Administrator has received 41,307 claims (including 33 late claims 

which, at the request of counsel, the Court will include in the Settlement Class) 

from Class Members. (Powell Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.) The Settlement Administrator 

received no objections to the settlement from Class Members and received only 33 

requests for exclusion. (Powell Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.) Therefore, the reaction of Class 

Members to the Settlement also supports approval.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated both in this Order as well as its previous Order 

Granting Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement, the Court GRANTS

the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. (ECF No. 

112.)

Case 3:13-cv-03136-BAS-RBB Document 117 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
– 6 – 13cv3136

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

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement, 

including its exhibits, and all terms used herein shall have the same 

meanings as set forth in the Settlement;

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and all 

Parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class members;

3. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court 

certifies the following Class for settlement purposes:

All persons in the United States who received a call on their cellular 

telephones from [Defendant], or any third parties calling on a 

[Defendant] account, made with an alleged automatic telephone dialing 

system (“ATDS”) and/or an artificial or pre-recorded voice from 

December 20, 2009 through July 13, 2015 whose telephone numbers 

are identified in the Class List.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are [Defendant], its parent 

companies, affiliates or subsidiaries, or any entities in which such 

companies have a controlling interest; and any employees thereof; the 

judge or magistrate judge to whom the Action is assigned and any 

member of those judges' staffs and immediate families, and any persons 

who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

4. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all such 

persons who satisfy the Class definition above, except those Class 

Members who timely and validly excluded themselves from the 

Settlement Class, are Settlement Class Members bound by this Judgment;

5. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court 

finds that the named plaintiff in this Action, Linda Sanders, is a member 

of the Settlement Class, her claims are typical of the Settlement Class, and 

she fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class 

throughout the Proceedings in the Action. Accordingly, the Court 

appoints Linda Sanders as Class Representative;

Case 3:13-cv-03136-BAS-RBB Document 117 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
– 7 – 13cv3136

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

6. The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all requirements of Rule 

23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for certification 

of the class claims alleged in the Complaint, including: (a) numerosity; (b) 

commonality; (c) typicality; (d) adequacy of the Class Representative and 

Class Counsel; (e) predominance of common questions of fact and law 

among the Class; and (f) superiority;

7. Having considered the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that Class Counsel have fairly 

and adequately represented the Class for purposes of entering into and 

implementing the Settlement, and, thus, continues to appoint Douglas J. 

Campion of the Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion, APS and Ronald A. 

Marron, Alexis M. Wood and Kas L. Gallucci of the Law Offices of 

Ronald A. Marron as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class;

8. In accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order and the 

Court-approved notice program, the Claims Administrator caused the 

Class Notice to be disseminated as ordered. The Class Notice advised 

Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, of the Final Approval 

Hearing, and their right to appear at such hearing, of their rights to remain 

in or opt out of the Settlement Class and to object to the Settlement, 

procedures for exercising such rights, and the binding effect of this 

Judgment to the Settlement Class;

9. The distribution of the Class Notice constituted the best notice practicable 

under the circumstances, and fully satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the requirements of due process, 28 

U.S.C. §1714, and any other applicable law;

10. The Settlement proposed by the parties is fair, reasonable and adequate. 

The terms and provisions of the Settlement are the product of lengthy, 

arms-length negotiations conducted in good faith and with the assistance 

Case 3:13-cv-03136-BAS-RBB Document 117 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
– 8 – 13cv3136

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 the Honorable Edward A. Infante (Ret.). Approval of the Settlement 

will result in substantial savings of time, money and effort to the Court 

and the parties, and will further the interests of justice;

11. Thirty-three Class Members have timely or validly submitted requests 

for exclusion from the class. Therefore, all Settlement Class Members, 

except for these thirty-three members, are bound by this Judgment and by 

the terms of the Settlement;

12. The Court awards attorney’s fees, costs and an incentive service award to 

Linda Sanders and Class Counsel as set forth in the Court Order submitted 

simultaneously with this Order;

13. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Action and all released 

claims set forth in Sections 13, 14 and 16 of the Settlement Agreement;

14. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court reserves 

jurisdiction over the implementation, administration and enforcement of 

this Judgment and the Settlement;

15. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final Judgment and 

Order approving Settlement and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court 

is expressly directly pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2017

Case 3:13-cv-03136-BAS-RBB Document 117 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8