Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01009/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01009-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 - 11cv1009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON LO, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV1009 JLS (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

(ECF No. 23)

vs.

OXNARD EUROPEAN MOTORS, LLC and

OXNARD MB, LLC,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of class

action settlement agreement. (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement, ECF No. 23) Also before

the Court are the “Settlement Agreement and Release,” (Swigart Decl., Ex. A (“Settlement

Agreement”), ECF No. 23-3), and the proposed notice to the class members of the proposed

settlement, (Swigart Decl., Ex. 1 (“Proposed Notice”), ECF No. 23-4).

This case arises out of Defendant Oxnard European Motors’s (“Defendant”) allegedly

negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C.

§ 227, et seq., by sending advertising and other commercial text messages to Plaintiff’s cellular

telephone without first obtaining Plaintiff’s “prior express consent.” After several months of

settlement discussions and negotiations, the parties reached a settlement and now seek an order

conditionally certifying a settlement class, preliminarily approving the settlement agreement, and

approving the proposed notice of class certification and settlement. 

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 17
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 - 11cv1009

ANALYSIS

1. Proposed Settlement Agreement

The November 28, 2011, Settlement Agreement requires Defendant to pay $49,100.00 into

a settlement fund, which will be allocated as follows: (1) an amount not to exceed one-third of the

settlement fund (or $16,365.00) for attorneys’ fees and costs, subject to Court approval;

(2) approximately $4,500.00 for costs of notice and claims administration, as estimated by the

agreed-on claims administrator CPT Group, Inc.; (3) a maximum $1,500.00 incentive payment to

the named Plaintiff, subject to Court approval; and (4) the balance of approximately $26,734.00 to

be divided among class members on a pro-rata basis. (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 4,

ECF No. 23; Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 1.05, 7.01, 8.01, 19.01, ECF No. 23-3) In exchange,

Plaintiff and the settlement class members release all of their claims, known and unknown. 

The proposed settlement class consists of those persons who received text messages from

Defendants between October 16, 2009, and July 9, 2011, and who responded to the text message

by sending a message requesting to opt out of receiving further text messages from Defendant, and

to whom Defendant sent a confirmatory text message acknowledging receipt of the opt out

message. (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 3–4, ECF No. 23); Settlement Agreement

¶ 2.01, ECF No. 23-3) 

2. Settlement Class Certification

Before granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement agreement, the Court

must first determine whether the proposed class can be certified. Amchem Prods. 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). 

Class actions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In order to certify a

class, each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule

23(b) must be met. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Rule 23(a) allows a class to be certified only if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there

are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the

representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 2 of 17
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 - 11cv1009

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a).

In addition to Rule 23(a)’s requirements, the proposed class must satisfy the requirements

of one of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b). Here, the parties seek to certify the settlement class

under Rule 23(b)(3), which permits certification if “questions of law or fact common to class

members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members,” and “a class

action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the

controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

A. Numerosity (Rule 23(a)(1))

To satisfy Rule 23(a)(1), the class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “[C]ourts generally find that the numerosity factor is

satisfied if the class comprises 40 or more members and will find that it has not been satisfied

when the class comprises 21 or fewer.” Celano v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 544, 549 (N.D.

Cal. 2007). 

Here, the proposed class consists of approximately 203 class members. Joinder of all

members is therefore impracticable for purposes of Rule 23(a)(1).

B. Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2))

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality requires that “the class members ‘have suffered the same

injury.’” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of

Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 (1982)) “The existence of shared legal issues with divergent

factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal

remedies within the class.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Here, the members of the proposed class allegedly each received two text messages: one

initial text message that advertised Defendant’s products or services, and a second confirmatory

text message following the class member’s opt-out text message. Thus, in addition to sharing “a

common core of salient facts,” the class members share one common legal issue: whether the

confirmatory text messages sent by Defendant to the class members violated the TCPA. Rule

23(a)(2) is therefore satisfied.

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 3 of 17
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 - 11cv1009

C. Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3))

To satisfy Rule 23(a)(3), the named plaintiff’s claims must be typical of the claims of the

class. The typicality requirement is “permissive” and requires only that the named plaintiff’s

claims “are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at

1020. “The test of typicality ‘is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether

the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class

members have been injured by the same course of conduct.’” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976

F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Schwartz v. Harp, 108 F.R.D. 279, 282 (C.D. Cal. 1985)). 

“[C]lass certification should not be granted if ‘there is a danger that absent class members will

suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it.’” Id. (quoting Gary Plastic

Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 903 F.2d 176, 180 (2d Cir.

1990)).

Here, the claims of the representative plaintiff allegedly arise out of the same set of facts as

those pertaining to the class members. Like the class members, Plaintiff sent to Defendant a text

message requesting to opt out of receiving any further text messages from Defendant. And like the

class members, Plaintiff later received from Defendant a confirmatory text message. Thus,

Plaintiff and the class members assert the same violation of the TCPA arising from the

confirmatory text messages sent by Defendant to Plaintiff and the class members. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members, satisfying Rule 23(a)(3).

D. Adequacy (Rule 23(a)(4))

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the named representative fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class. “To satisfy constitutional due process concerns, absent class members must

be afforded adequate representation before entry of judgment which binds them.” Hanlon, 150

F.3d at 1020 (citing Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42–43 (1940)). To determine legal adequacy,

the Court must resolve two questions: “(1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any

conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel

prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Id. 

//

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 4 of 17
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 - 11cv1009

Here, there is no reason to doubt that the named plaintiff and his counsel do not have any

conflict of interest with the class members or that they have thus far vigorously investigated and

litigated this case. Plaintiff’s and the class members’ interests are aligned. Moreover, Plaintiff’s

counsel are qualified in class action litigation, including extensive experience in TCPA class

action lawsuits in particular. (See Swigart Decl. ¶¶ 19–24, ECF No. 23-2; Campion Decl.

¶¶ 12–16, ECF No. 23-7; Kazerounian Decl. ¶¶ 12–18, ECF No. 23-8) Thus, Plaintiff and his

counsel adequately represent the class members and Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy requirement is met.

E. Predominance (Rule 23(b)(3))

“The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether the proposed classes are

sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 623. 

“In contrast to Rule 23(a)(2), Rule 23(b)(3) focuses on the relationship between the common and

individual issues.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022. 

Here, a common issue predominates over any individual issue—namely, whether the

transmission and content of confirmatory text messages allegedly sent by Defendant to all class

members violates the TCPA. Additionally, each of the class members is eligible to receive an

identical pro-rata share of the settlement fund, suggesting that there is no need for an

individualized determination of the share each class member is entitled to. Cf. Yokoyama v.

Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (indicating that “damage

calculations alone cannot defeat certification”). Thus, the predominance requirement of Rule

23(b)(3) is satisfied. 

F. Superiority (Rule 23(b)(3))

The final requirement for class certification is “that a class action [be] superior to other

available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(b)(3). The superiority inquiry requires the Court to consider the four factors listed in Rule

23(b)(3):

(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or

defense of separate actions;

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already

begun by or against class members;

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 5 of 17
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 - 11cv1009

(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims

in the particular forum; and 

(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); see also Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1190. The superiority inquiry focuses “‘on

the efficiency and economy elements of the class action so that cases allowed under [Rule

23(b)(3)] are those that can be adjudicated most profitably on a representative basis.’” Zinser, 253

F.3d at 1190 (quoting 7A CHARLES ALANWRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE,

FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1780 at 562 (2d ed. 1986)). A district court has “broad

discretion” in determining whether class treatment is superior. Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509

F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975).

Here, “by utilizing the class action vehicle, relief can be provided to these Settlement Class

Members without the need for multiple separate trials on the same facts (the receipt of

Confirmatory Text Messages) and the same law (whether the transmission and content of

Confirmatory Text Messages violate the TCPA).” (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 10,

ECF No. 23) Indeed, “[i]ndividual actions by . . . class members would be expensive and timeconsuming for the parties and the Court and would create the risk of conflicting decisions.” Duran

v. Challenger Sheet Metal, Inc., No. 10cv2643, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134363, at *8–9 (S.D. Cal.

Nov. 21, 2011). 

The parties have not brought to the attention of the Court any other action currently

pending regarding the claims presented here. Additionally, because the parties seek class

certification for settlement purposes only, the Court need not consider issues of manageability

relating to trial. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620 (“Confronted with a request for settlement-only

class certification, a district court need not inquire whether the case, if tried, would present

intractable management problems, for the proposal is that there be no trial.”). The superiority

requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is therefore also met. 

G. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the joint motion for certification of the class for settlement

purposes only is GRANTED. 

//

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 6 of 17
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

- 7 - 11cv1009

3. Preliminary Fairness Determination 

Having certified the settlement class, the Court must next make a preliminary

determination whether the class action settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” pursuant to

Rule 23(e)(1)(C). 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. Furthermore, “settlement approval that takes place prior

to formal class certification requires a higher standard of fairness.” Id.

The parties reached settlement in this case as a result of “extended arm’s-length

negotiations,” “limited confirmatory discovery,” and Magistrate Judge Dembin’s “instrumental”

assistance. (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 12, ECF No. 23) These “extended”

negotiations consisted of an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference held on July 12, 2011, before

Magistrate Judge Dembin, during which the case settled, as well as three telephonic Settlement

Disposition Conferences held on August 24, 2011, September 26, 2011, and October 20, 2011, all

before Magistrate Judge Dembin. The settlement was reached once it was determined that the

potential settlement class was very small—just over two hundred individuals—and that therefore

the potential damages would be limited.

A. Strength of the Plaintiffs’ Case and Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of

Further Litigation

Except in a footnote, the parties do not address the strength of Plaintiffs’ case. In that

footnote, the parties acknowledge the following:

Plaintiff’s counsel must always consider the risks of litigation in evaluating any

settlement. Here, although Plaintiff strongly believes that the text messages sent

by defendant violate the TCPA, Plaintiff is aware that the jury, the Court on a

dispositive motion, or a court on appeal, may determine that: (1) Defendant did

not use an “automatic telephone dialing system” to send the Confirming Text

Message as prohibited by the TCPA; or (2) the Text Messages fall within one of

the other exceptions to liability as carved out by the TCPA.

(Id. at 14 n.1, ECF No. 23) The experienced Plaintiff’s counsel contend that the claims asserted

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 7 of 17
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

 This value is based on the parties’ explanati on of the settlement consideration, indicating that

the am ount likely to be distribute d t o t he 203 m ember settlem ent class will be approxim ately

$26,734.00. (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 4, ECF No. 23) The parties later inconsistently

state that each class member will receive “an estimated settlement payment of at least $131.00,” (id.

at 14), and also that “the recovery [will be] at least $139.09 for each Settlement Class member,” (id.).

- 8 - 11cv1009

have merit though Defendant “expressly denies that any conduct attributable to it was in any

manner improper or in any manner damaged any Class Member.” (Id. at 3)

Nevertheless, “the very essence of a settlement is compromise, ‘a yielding of absolutes and

an abandoning of highest hopes.’” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 624

(9th Cir. 1982). As explained by the Supreme Court, “Naturally, the agreement reached normally

embodies a compromise; in exchange for the saving of cost and elimination of risk, the parties

each give up something they might have won had they proceeded with litigation.” United States v.

Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681–82 (1971). Thus, here, “[c]onsidering the potential risks and

expenses associated with continued prosecution of the Lawsuit, the probability of appeals, the

certainty of delay, and the ultimate uncertainty of recovery through continued litigation,” the Court

finds that, on balance, the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Bellows v. NCO

Fin. Sys., No. 07cv1413, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103525, at *19 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2008)

(approving a class action settlement agreement in a TCPA suit).

B. Amount Offered in Settlement

The Settlement Agreement requires Defendant to place $49,100.00 into a settlement fund,

from which class members will have the right to make a claim to receive, at a minimum,

approximately $131.691

 (assuming each of the 203 class members submits a claim). And, as the

number of claimants decreases, the amount each claimant will receive increases. Thus, if only 50

of the 203 class members submit claims, each claimant would receive approximately $534.68. 

The Settlement Agreement does not place any restrictions on Defendant’s future text messaging

practices, however.

The parties point out that this monetary recovery “is considerably above the range of

amounts paid to settlement class members in other TCPA class actions that have been recently

approved for settlement.” (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 14, ECF No. 23 (citing, inter

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 8 of 17
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

 The parties attem pt to bolster their argum ent that the am ount offered in settlem ent is

reasonable despite the fact that it m ay fall below the $500-per-violation standard of the TCPA by

citing Texas v. Am. Blast Fax, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 892, 901 & n.8 (W.D. Tex. 2001), f or the

proposition that “courts have not always felt compelled to award the $500 per violation, citing the

disproportionate amount of such an award as compared to the cost to the recipient.” (Mot. Prelim .

Approval Class Settlement 15, ECF No. 23) But in that case the district court was facing an award

of approximately $2.34 billion, which is plainly not the case here. Thus, the Court declines to address

whether the TCPA should be interpreted to require $500 per violation or “up to” $500 per violation,

as the parties apparently suggest. 

- 9 - 11cv1009

alia, Bellows, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103525, at *20))2 Moreover, the Court notes that the fact

that the class members may receive somewhat less than the statutorily mandated $500 per

violation is an equitable tradeoff for the certainty of payment rather than having to proceed with

costly and uncertain litigation. Thus, the Court finds that, on balance, the proposed settlement

agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

C. Extent of Discovery Completed and Stage of Proceedings

The parties indicate that they sought “only . . . limited confirmatory discovery.” (Mot.

Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 12, ECF No. 23) Having participated in an Early Neutral

Evaluation Conference and several telephonic Settlement Disposition Conferences before

Magistrate Judge Dembin, the parties apparently concluded that they had “exchanged sufficient

information to make an informed decision about settlement.” Bellows, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

103525, at *21 (citing Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

Indeed, the parties’ counsel appeal to be well versed in class action litigation—and Plaintiff’s

counsel in TCPA litigation in particular—and Defendant is presumably well versed in its text

messaging practices. Moreover, the Court recognizes that “the disputed issues between the Parties

are legal, not factual, in nature,” id., given that Defendants admit sending the confirmatory text

messages but deny that the messages violated the TCPA. As such, extensive discovery may not

have been required. Thus, though the Court notes the fact that the litigation and discovery in this

matter did not advance beyond a single Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and limited

confirmatory discovery, the Court nevertheless concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable,

and adequate. 

//

// 

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 9 of 17
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

- 10 - 11cv1009

D. Experience and Views of Counsel

Plaintiff’s counsel has recommended accepting the settlement, and “[t]he recommendations

of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness.” Boyd v. Bechtel Corp.,

485 F. Supp. 610, 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979). Here, this presumption of reasonableness is warranted

based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s ample experience in class action litigation, and TCPA litigation in

particular, as well as the fact that the parties engaged in arm’s-length negotiations before

Magistrate Judge Dembin. See Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 87 F.R.D. 15, 18 (N.D. Cal.

1980). Defendant’s counsel is equally qualified to make recommendations as to settlement, having

extensive experience in defending class action cases. (Christa Decl. ¶¶ 6–12, ECF No. 23-9) 

Here, counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant “believe that under the circumstances, the

proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interest of all Parties,

including the Settlement Class Members.” (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 13, ECF No.

23) According the appropriate weight to the judgment of these experienced counsel, the Court

concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

E. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the joint motion for preliminary approval of class action

settlement is GRANTED. 

4. Attorneys’ Fees and Incentive Award

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendant has agreed that it will not object to class

counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs, so long as the application does not seek more

than one-third of the settlement fund (approximately $16,365.00). (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class

Settlement 4–5, ECF No. 23; Settlement Agreement ¶ 19.01, ECF No. 23-3) In addition, the

Settlement Agreement provides for a $1,500.00 incentive payment to Plaintiff, in recognition of

his service as the class representative. (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 5, ECF No. 23;

Settlement Agreement ¶ 7.01, ECF No. 23-3) 

Given that these awards are included in the Settlement Agreement, they are included in the

Court’s preliminary determination that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,

so long as neither exceeds the maximum amount stated in the Settlement Agreement. The

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 10 of 17
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

 The Court additionally notes that the com plaint in this action appears to be a boilerplate

complaint that Plaintiff’s counsel need only am end slightly in each case it files alleging a TCPA

violation. Compare (Compl., ECF No.1), with (Moss v. Twitter, Inc., No. 11cv906, ECF No. 1),

(Robinson v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 10cv2261, ECF No. 1), (Connor v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 10cv1284, ECF No. 1), (Malta v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 10cv1290, ECF No. 1),

(Lemieux v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., No. 08cv1012, ECF No. 1), and (Adams v. Alliance

One, Inc., No. 08cv248, ECF No. 1).

4

 Rule 23(c)(2)(B) further provides:

The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language:

(i) the nature of the action;

(ii) the definition of the class certified;

(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses;

(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the

member so desires;

(v) that the court will exclude f rom the class any m ember who requests

exclusion;

(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and

(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

- 11 - 11cv1009

incentive award is appropriate and appears to be on par with class representative awards in similar

class action settlements. See, e.g., Bellows, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103525, at *15. 

The attorneys’ fee award, however, is subject to subsequent approval by the Court. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). The Settlement Agreement indicates that class counsel will file an

“application [for attorneys’ fees] on or before . . . the date of filing the Parties’ Motion for Final

Approval of Class Action Settlement.” (Settlement Agreement ¶ 19.01, ECF No. 23-3) Class

counsel is advised to address in its application why the Court should approve an award of

attorneys’ fees in excess of twenty-five percent of the settlement fund, especially in light of the

short duration of this action and the fact that it did not proceed beyond a single Early Neutral

Evaluation Conference and limited confirmatory discovery.3

5. Notice of Class Certification and Settlement

Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B), “the court must direct to class members the best notice that is

practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be

identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).4

 Where there is a class

settlement, Rule 23(e)(1) requires the court to “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class

members who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). “[T]he mechanics of

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 11 of 17
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

 The actual translation states that one can “view” the notice by calling the toll free number.

(Proposed Notice, ECF No. 23-4) But because the parties have not subm itted a Spanish-language

version of the Proposed Notice, it is unclear whether a Spanish-language version will be m ailed to

those class members who request it, or whether the Spanish-speaking class member may merely hear

the content of the notice in Spanish over the phone. 

- 12 - 11cv1009

the notice process are left to the discretion of the court subject only to the broad ‘reasonableness’

standards imposed by due process.” Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 120 (8th

Cir. 1975).

 The parties propose a long-form notice to be mailed first class to each class member using

the last known address provided by Defendant. (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 5–6,

ECF No. 23; Proposed Notice, ECF No. 23-4) The claims administrator “will do what it believes

is necessary to obtain the most current addresses, which may include initially checking addresses

for validity, eliminating duplications and processing the addresses through the National Change of

Address database or similar database for the purpose of updating the addresses.” (Settlement

Agreement ¶ 8.01, ECF No. 23-3)

Although the parties propose only an English-language version of the Proposed Notice, at

the top of the notice it states in Spanish that one can obtain5

 the notice in Spanish by calling the

provided toll free number. (Proposed Notice, ECF No. 23-4) Additionally, the Proposed Notice,

the Settlement Agreement, and the Preliminary Approval Order will be posted on a website,

available to the public. As summarized by the parties, 

The Notice will, among other things, (1) inform the class members of the basis of

the claims raised in the action and payment under the settlement, (2) describe how

and when to object to, or exclude themselves from the settlement, (3) inform class

members of their right to appear in the action through their own attorney, and

(4) provide contact information for Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator

for questions about the action or proposed settlement.

(Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement 6, ECF No. 23) 

Having thoroughly reviewed the Proposed Notice, the Court finds that the method and

content of the notice comply with Rule 23. Thus, the motion for approval of the Proposed Notice

is GRANTED. 

//

//

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 12 of 17
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

- 13 - 11cv1009

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the joint motion for preliminary approval of class action

settlement is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. JURISDICTION: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over all

settling Parties hereto.

2. CLASS CERTIFICATION: The Court preliminarily finds that the Action is suitable for

certification as a class action for purposes of settlement only pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

3. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT: The Settlement Agreement is

preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(e).

4. CAFA NOTICE NOT REQUIRED: The Action was originally filed alleging jurisdiction under

the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, (“CAFA”). However,

discovery revealed that all Settlement Class Members were residents of California at the time of

responding to the text messages at issue in the case. Thus, no CAFA notice is required.

5. CLASS MEMBERS: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Action is

hereby preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the

following Settlement Class Members with respect to the claims asserted in the Action:

All persons who received text messages from Defendant or its agents between

October 16, 2009, and July 9, 2011, (the “Class Period”) and who responded to

such text messages by sending text messages to Defendant or its agents, opting

out of receiving further text messages from Defendant, and to whom Defendant or

its agents sent confirmatory text messages acknowledging receipt of the opt out

messages (hereinafter referred to as the “Settlement Class”) as identified in

Defendant’s records to be provided to the Claims Administrator.

All Settlement Class Members are persons that lived in the State of California at the time of

receiving and opting out of further receipt of such text messages.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendant, any parent companies, affiliates or

subsidiaries, or any employees thereof, and any entities in which any of such companies has a

controlling interest; and the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the Action is assigned and any

member of those Judges’ immediate families.

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 13 of 17
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

- 14 - 11cv1009

6. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CLASS COUNSEL APPOINTMENT: Pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court preliminarily certifies for settlement purposes only Plaintiff

Brandon Lo as the Class Representative, and Hyde & Swigart, the Law Offices of Douglas J.

Campion, and The Kazerouni Law Group, APC as Class Counsel.

7. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS: The Court preliminarily approves the form and substance

of the proposed notice procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the form of the longform notice (“Notice”) attached as an exhibit to the Settlement Agreement. As provided in the

Settlement Agreement, Defendant shall provide the names and last known addresses for the

Settlement Class Members to Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., shall

mail the Notice to each Settlement Class Member at his or her last known address as provided by

Defendant, and update those addresses for which the Notice is returned, then send a follow-up

Notice to those Settlement Class Members for whom a more current address is obtained. The

Notice shall also contain the Claims Administrator’s toll free telephone number so that the

Settlement Class Members can inquire about the Settlement and also make a claim over the

telephone. Claims can also be made in writing as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The form

and method for notifying the Class Members of the Settlement and its terms and conditions

satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e). 

At least ten (10) days prior to the date the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action

Settlement shall be filed, the Claims Administrator shall file a declaration of compliance with the

notice procedures as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 

8. CLAIMS PROCESS: The Court preliminarily approves the process set forth in the Settlement

Agreement for submitting, reviewing, approving, and paying all claims from the $49,100.00

Settlement Fund, and for paying from the Settlement Fund all claims, the costs of notice and

claims administration, and the payment of $1,500.00 as an incentive payment to the Class

Representative for bringing and assisting with the Action. The Court preliminarily approves the

process whereby Class Counsel will apply for payment of their fees and costs from the Settlement

Fund, and directs Class Counsel to address in its application for fees why the attorneys’ fee award

should exceed twenty-five percent of the Settlement Fund.

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 14 of 17
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

- 15 - 11cv1009

9. EXCLUSIONS: Any Settlement Class Member who desires to be excluded from the

Settlement Class must send a written request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator, with a

postmark date no later than ten (10) days after the last date to file claims. The Claims

Administrator’s address shall be provided in the Notice mailed to the Settlement Class Members. 

To be effective, the written request for exclusion must contain the Settlement Class Member’s full

name and address and be signed by the Settlement Class Member. The Settlement Class Member

must also state generally that he or she wishes to be excluded from the Settlement. Any

Settlement Class Member who submits a valid and timely request for exclusion shall not be bound

by the Settlement Agreement or Settlement. 

The Claims Administrator shall provide a list of those persons requesting exclusion to

Class Counsel and to Defendant’s counsel after the deadline for exclusions passes, but no later

than ten (10) days prior to the date the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement shall

be filed. A copy of that list will be filed with the Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of the Class

Action Settlement.

10. OBJECTIONS: Any Settlement Class Member who intends to object to the fairness of the

Settlement must file a written objection with the Court, at United States District Court, Southern

District of California, Office of the Clerk, 940 Front Street, Courtroom 6, 3rd Floor, San Diego,

CA 92101, no later than ten (10) days after the last date to file claims. Further, any such

Settlement Class Member must, within the same time period, provide a copy of the written

objection to Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel, whose addresses shall be set forth in the

Notice.

To be considered, the written objection must be signed by the Settlement Class Member

and state the following: the Settlement Class Member’s full name, address, and telephone number,

the reasons for the objection, and whether the objector intends to appear at the Final Approval

Hearing on his or her own behalf or through counsel. Further, the Settlement Class Member must

attach to the written objection any documents supporting the objection.

Any Settlement Class Member who does not file a valid and timely objection to the

Settlement shall be barred from seeking review of the Settlement by appeal or otherwise.

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 15 of 17
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

- 16 - 11cv1009

11. MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT: No later than

Thursday, May 3, 2012, the parties shall file a motion for final approval of class action settlement. 

The motion shall include and address any objections received up to the filing date. In addition to

the class certification and settlement fairness factors, the motion shall address the number of

Notices sent and returned by the U.S. Postal Service, the number of putative Settlement Class

Members who opted out, and the number of claims. 

12. FINAL APPROVAL HEARING: Judge Sammartino shall conduct a Final Approval Hearing

on Friday, May 25, 2012, at 2:00p.m., at 940 Front Street, Courtroom 6, 3rd Floor, San Diego, CA

92101, to review the following issues. In addition to the issues identified for the motion briefing,

at the hearing the parties shall be prepared to update the Court on any new developments since the

filing of the motion, including any untimely submitted opt-outs, objections, and claims, or any

other issues as the Court deems appropriate.

13. APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES: No later than Thursday, May 10, 2012, Class

Counsel shall file an application for attorneys’ fees, addressing, inter alia, whether Class Counsel

should be awarded fees in excess of twenty-five percent of the Settlement Fund. Class Counsel

shall indicate the number of hours incurred by attorneys in litigating this action, supported by

detailed time records, as well as the hourly compensation those attorneys are reasonably entitled

to. Class Counsel should be prepared to address any questions the Court may have regarding its

application for fees at the May 25, 2011, hearing.

14. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS: The Settlement Agreement and this Order shall be null

and void if any of the following occur:

A. The Settlement Agreement is terminated by any of the Parties for failure of any

consideration under the Settlement Agreement, or any specified condition to the Settlement set

forth in the Settlement Agreement is not satisfied and the satisfaction of such condition is not

waived in writing by the parties;

B. The Court rejects, in any material respect, the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal

With Prejudice substantially in the form and content attached to the Settlement Agreement and/or

the Parties fail to consent to the entry of another form thereof;

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 16 of 17
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

- 17 - 11cv1009

C. The Court rejects any component of the Agreement, including any amendment thereto

approved by the Parties;

D. The Court approves the Agreement, including any amendment thereto approved by the

Parties, but such approval is reversed on appeal and such reversal becomes final by lapse of time

or otherwise.

If the Settlement Agreement and this Order are voided under this paragraph, the Settlement

Agreement shall have no force and effect, and the Parties’ rights and defenses shall be restored,

without prejudice, to their respective positions as if the Agreement had never been executed, and

this Order never entered.

This Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Action to consider all

further matters arising out of or connected with the Settlement, including the administration and

enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

15. SCHEDULE: The Court ORDERS the following implementation schedule for further

proceedings:

A. January 20, 2012.: Date by which Notice shall be mailed to Settlement Class Members;

B. March 20, 2012: Date by which all Settlement Class Members’ claims are due; 

C. March 30, 2012: Date by which all Settlement Class Members’ objections shall be

filed or requests for exclusions shall be postmarked;

D. April 26, 2012: Date by which the Claims Administrator shall file a declaration of

compliance with the notice procedures as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and shall provide a

list of those persons requesting exclusion to Class Counsel and Defendant’s counsel;

E. May 3, 2012: Date by which Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement shall be

filed; 

F. May 10, 2012: Date by which Application for Attorneys’ Fees shall be filed; 

G. May 25, 2012: Date of Final Approval Hearing

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 12/15/11 Page 17 of 17