Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02209/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02209-1/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

 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE INTUIT DATA LITIGATION Master Docket No. 15-CV-1778-EJD-SVK

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT, 

AWARDING RESONABLE ATTORNEYS’ 

FEES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARDS; 

AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT 

Honorable Edward J. Davila

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

ALL ACTIONS 

This matter came before the Court for hearing on May 9, 2019, pursuant to the Court’s 

Preliminary Approval Order dated October 4, 2018 (Dkt. No. 173; as modified by Dkt. 179, 

189), and on the motion for final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, dated 

August 23, 2018 (the “Agreement”), entered into by the Parties, as well as Class Counsel’s 

motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and for Plaintiff service awards. Due and 

adequate notice having been given to the Class Members of the proposed Settlement and the 

pending motions, as directed by the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, and upon consideration 

of all papers filed and proceedings had herein, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 

1. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as set 

forth in the Agreement. 

Case 5:15-cv-02209-EJD Document 32 Filed 05/15/19 Page 1 of 6
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 

2. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and has 

personal jurisdiction over the Parties. Venue is proper in this District. 

3. The “Class” for purposes of this Order, shall mean: 

All persons in the United States in whose identities fraudulent 

federal tax returns for the Tax Years 2014, 2015, and/or 2016 were 

filed using TurboTax, as determined by the United States Internal 

Revenue Service. Excluded from the Class are all employees of 

Intuit, counsel for the Parties, the Judge presiding over this Action, 

and Court staff. 

4. The Court finds that the notice provisions set forth under the Class Action 

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, were complied with in this matter. 

5. The Court finds that the program for disseminating notice to the Class Members 

provided for in the Agreement, and previously approved and directed by the Court (hereinafter, 

the “Notice Program”), has been implemented by the Settlement Administrator and the Parties, 

and that such Notice Program, including the approved forms of notice, is reasonable and 

appropriate and satisfies all applicable due process and other requirements, and constitutes notice 

reasonably calculated under the circumstances to appraise Class Members of the pendency of the 

Action, the terms of the Settlement, their right to object to the Settlement, and their right to 

appear at the Final Approval Hearing. 

6. The Court reaffirms that this Action is properly maintained as a class action, for 

settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(e), 

and that Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs, as class representatives, fairly and adequately represent 

the interests of the Class Members. Specifically, for settlement purposes only, the Court finds 

that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) are satisfied: The Class is so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. There are more than 1 million persons in 

the Class. Moreover, there are issues that are common to the Class, including whether Intuit 

took adequate steps to prevent taxpayers’ identities from being used by third parties to file 

fraudulent federal tax returns using the TurboTax service. Further, the Plaintiffs’ claims arise 

from the same alleged course of conduct and are typical of the Class. Finally, the Court finds 

that the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have adequately represented the class and that there are not 

Case 5:15-cv-02209-EJD Document 32 Filed 05/15/19 Page 2 of 6
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 

conflicts among the class. The Court further finds, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(b)(2), that as alleged, Intuit has acted on grounds that apply generally to the Class, so that 

final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a 

whole. 

7. The Court finds that the Agreement, including the exhibits thereto, is fair, 

reasonable and adequate to the Class Members, has been entered into in good faith, and should 

be and hereby is fully and finally approved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The 

Agreement represents a fair resolution of the claims asserted on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the 

Class Members in this Action and released by the Agreement, and fully and finally resolves all 

such claims. Intuit, Plaintiffs, and the Class Members shall be bound by the Agreement, 

including the Release provisions set forth in paragraphs 72-79 of the Agreement, which is 

incorporated by reference herein, and by this Order and the Final Judgment entered in connection 

with this Order. 

8. In granting final approval of the Agreement, the Court has considered the factors 

that courts in this Circuit consider in evaluating proposed class settlements. See Churchill 

Village LLC v. General Electric Corp., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court finds that, 

given the benefits provided to Class Members pursuant to the Agreement; the strengths and 

weaknesses of the parties’ respective claims and defenses in the litigation; the risk, expense, 

complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the fact that significant discovery and 

litigation have occurred in this case; given the experience and views of Class Counsel who have 

considerable experience litigating class actions and other complex cases; and given the positive 

reaction of the Class Members—only eight objections were filed—the Agreement is fair, 

reasonable, and adequate and should be approved. 

9. The Court finds that the Agreement was negotiated in good faith and at armslength by the parties and their experienced counsel, with the assistance of a highly-capable 

mediator, Hon. Edward A. Infante (Ret.) of JAMS, and is free of any evidence of collusion. See 

In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Case 5:15-cv-02209-EJD Document 32 Filed 05/15/19 Page 3 of 6
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 

10. The Court further finds, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), that 

the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Class; the Agreement here was 

negotiated at arms-length; the settlement benefits provided under the Agreement are adequate in 

relation to the scope of the claims released; and that the Agreement treats the Class Members 

equitably relative to each other. 

11. The Court also grants Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

Plaintiff service awards. 

12. Class Counsel are hereby awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of 

$2,820,000.00 (with such total amount comprised of attorneys’ fees of $2,717,225.56, and 

reimbursement of litigation costs of $102,774.44). Intuit shall pay such amount to Class Counsel 

pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, separate from and in addition to the other benefits 

provided to Class Members pursuant to the Settlement. The requested fees represent a negative 

multiplier of approximately 0.715 on counsel’s submitted lodestar. The Court finds that the 

requested fees are reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances and under applicable 

standards, given inter alia the novelty and complexity of the issues in this case, the results 

achieved, Class Counsel’s commitment of time and resources in this case; and the risks that 

Class Counsel assumed in litigating this case on a contingency basis. The Court further finds 

that Class Counsel’s request for reimbursement of litigation costs is reasonable in amount, and 

that such costs were reasonably incurred in the prosecution of this case. 

13. The Court hereby awards service awards of $5,000 each, to Plaintiffs Richard 

Brown, Christine Diaz, Carol Knoch, James Lebinski, David Stock, and Marilyn Williams, to 

compensate them for their commitments and efforts on behalf of the Class Members. Intuit shall 

pay such amounts pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, separate from and in addition to the 

other benefits provided to Class Members pursuant to the Settlement. The Court finds that the 

requested service awards are reasonable, appropriate, and justified by the circumstances of the 

Plaintiffs’ efforts and commitments on behalf of the Class. 

Case 5:15-cv-02209-EJD Document 32 Filed 05/15/19 Page 4 of 6
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

 5 

14. Eight (8) objections to the Agreement and/or Class Counsel’s fee request were 

submitted. As stated at the hearing, the Court has considered the objections and hereby overrules 

each of them. 

15. The Parties and Settlement Administrator are hereby directed to implement the 

Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof. 

16. As of the Effective Date, Plaintiffs and all other Class Members, on behalf of 

themselves and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, partners, 

successors, and assigns (collectively, the “Releasing Parties”), shall waive, release, forever 

discharge, and will not in any manner pursue the Released Claims against any Released Parties, 

as defined and set forth in paragraph 72 of the Agreement. As set forth in the Agreement, the 

Release shall apply only to claims for declaratory, injunctive and non-monetary equitable relief, 

and not to any claims for damages or other monetary relief. Intuit shall not sue Plaintiffs or their 

counsel for malicious prosecution or abuse of process based on the filing of this Action or the 

underlying actions, or any papers previously filed therein. 

17. The Court hereby dismisses this Action with prejudice, and without fees or costs 

except as provided in the Agreement and this Order. 

18. Nothing in this Order or the Final Judgment entered in connection with this Order 

shall preclude any action to enforce the terms of the Settlement. 

19. Without affecting the finality of this Order or the Final Judgment entered in 

connection with this Order in any way, the Court hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over: 

(a) all matters relating to the modification, interpretation, administration, implementation, 

effectuation and enforcement of the Settlement; and (b) the Parties, Class Counsel and Class 

Members for the purpose of administering, supervising, construing and enforcing this Order and 

the Settlement in accordance with its terms. 

20. Neither this Order (nor the Final Judgment entered in connection with this Order), 

the Agreement, nor any action taken to carry out this Order or the Final Judgment entered in 

connection with this Order shall be construed or used against Intuit or the Released Parties as an 

Case 5:15-cv-02209-EJD Document 32 Filed 05/15/19 Page 5 of 6
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 

admission, concession or evidence of the validity of any claim or defense or any actual or 

potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever. 

21. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonably necessary 

extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement and to make other nonmaterial modifications, in implementing the Settlement, that are not inconsistent with this Order. 

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

immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule 54 (b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________, 2019 

 Edward J. Davila

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

1724396.3 

 May 15

Case 5:15-cv-02209-EJD Document 32 Filed 05/15/19 Page 6 of 6