Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01570/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01570-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eunice Johnson
Plaintiff
Triple Leaf Tea, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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-

FINAL JUDGEMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EUNICE JOHNSON, individually, on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, and the general 

public, 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

TRIPLE LEAF TEA INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-01570-MMC 

CLASS ACTION 

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER: 

(1) APPROVING CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT, (2) AWARDING 

CLASS COUNSEL FEES AND 

EXPENSES, (3) AWARDING CLASS 

REPRESENTATIVE INCENTIVE 

AWARD, (4) PERMANENTLY 

ENJOINING PARALLEL 

PROCEEDINGS, AND (5) DISMISSING 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

Courtroom: 7 (19th Floor) 

Complaint Filed: April 4, 2014

 ) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiff Eunice Johnson filed a Complaint against Defendant Triple Leaf Tea, Inc. in this 

action (the “Parties”), as styled above (the “Litigation”), alleging violations of California’s 

Unfair Competition Law ([“UCL”] Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.), False Advertising 

Law ([“FAL”] Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.), the Consumers Legal Remedies Act 

([“CLRA”] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.), and breach of express and implied warranties. Dkt. 

No. 1. Defendant manufactures, markets and sells in the United States three teas at issue in this 

Settlement (“the Products”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s labeling and marketing of their 

Products is false and misleading. 

After arms-length settlement discussions, the Parties have entered into a Settlement 

Agreement (“Settlement” or “Agreement”) dated May 15, 2015, which, if approved, would 

resolve this putative class action. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 

Incentive Award for the Class Representative. 

After consideration of the Parties’ briefs and the briefs submitted by the objectors to the 

Settlement, this Court hereby GRANTS Final Approval of the Settlement. 

On June 26, 2015, the Court entered its Order (1) Preliminarily Approving Class Action 

Settlement, (2) Certifying Class, (3) Appointing Class Representatives and Class Counsel, (4) 

Approving Notice Plan, and (5) Setting Final Approval Hearing (“Preliminary Approval Order”), 

in which it preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement. The Court also scheduled a 

hearing to determine whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, in the best interests of 

the Class, and free from collusion, such that the Court should grant Final Approval of the 

Settlement, and to consider Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation 

expenses, and incentive for the Class Representative (“Fairness Hearing”).

The Court has considered:

x The points and authorities submitted by Plaintiff in support of the motion for final 

approval of the Settlement (“Final Approval Motion”); 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

x The points and authorities submitted by Plaintiff in support of the motion for an 

award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, and approval of incentive award 

for the Class Representative (“Fee Motion”); 

x The declarations and exhibits submitted in support of said motions; 

x The Settlement Agreement; 

x The entire record in this proceeding, including but not limited to the points and 

authorities, declarations, and exhibits submitted in support of preliminary 

approval of the Settlement, filed May 15, 2015; 

x The Notice Plan, providing full and fair notice to the Class; 

x The existence of only 2 exclusions from and only 2 objections to the Settlement, 

and the substance of those objections;

x The absence of any objection or response by any official after the provision of all 

notices required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §1715; 

x The oral presentations of Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendant;

x This Court’s experiences and observations while presiding over this matter, and 

the Court’s file herein; and

x The relevant law. 

Based upon these considerations and the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law 

as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and in this Final Judgment and Order (1) 

Approving Class Action Settlement, (2) Awarding Class Counsel Fees and Expenses, (3) 

Awarding Class Representative Incentive, (4) Permanently Enjoining Parallel Proceedings, and 

(5) Dismissing Action with Prejudice (“Final Approval Order”), and good cause appearing, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED:

1. Definitions. The capitalized terms used in this Final Approval Order shall have 

the meanings and/or definitions given to them in the Settlement Agreement or, if not defined 

therein, the meanings and/or definitions given to them in this Final Approval Order. 

2. Incorporation of Documents. This Final Approval Order incorporates the 

Settlement Agreement, filed as an Exhibit to the Declaration of Ronald A. Marron in support of 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 3 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

preliminary settlement approval on May 15, 2015, including all exhibits thereto, and the Court’s 

findings and conclusions contained in its Preliminary Approval Order. 

3. Jurisdiction. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties, the Class 

Members, including objectors, and Defendant. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over 

this action, including, without limitation, jurisdiction to approve the Settlement, to settle and 

release all claims alleged in the action and all claims released by the Settlement, including the 

Released Claims, to adjudicate any objections submitted to the proposed Settlement, and to 

dismiss this action with prejudice. All Class Members who did not exclude themselves 

according to the Court’s prior orders and the terms of the Class Notices have consented to the 

jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of this action and the Settlement of this action. 

Findings and Conclusions 

4. Definition of the Class and Class Members. The Court’s Preliminary Approval 

Order defines the “Class,” which is comprised of the “Class Members,” as follows: 

All persons who purchased, on or after April 4, 2010, Defendant’s Dieter’s Green 

Herbal Tea, Ultra Slim Herbal Tea, and/or Super Slimming Herbal Tea Products, 

in all sizes and package iterations, for personal or household use during the Class 

Period (April 4, 2010 to October 16, 2015). Excluded from the Class are Triple 

Leaf, its employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and 

those who purchased the Products for resale.

The Court affirms its certification of the Class, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval 

Order. All Class Members are subject to this Final Approval Order and the Final Judgment to be 

entered by the Clerk of Court in accordance herewith. 

The following two individuals submitted timely requests for exclusion, and, accordingly, 

are not members of the Class: Dominic Edward Walker, Sr., and Arthur Collier-Robinson. 

5. Class Certifications (Rule 23) 

A. Numerosity 

Defendant’s sales in the United States number in the thousands annually. See Decl. of 

Vincent Lam in Supp. of Final Approval ¶ 6. For the purposes of this Settlement, no party or 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 4 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

objector contests numerosity. The Court finds that the Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder 

of all class claims is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).

B. Commonality 

The Court finds that there are questions of law and fact common to the Class, as to 

whether Defendant made false or deceptive marketing claims about its Products. All Class 

Members allege the same injury: loss of money spent purchasing the allegedly deceptive-labeled 

Products. All Class Members were exposed to the same or substantially similar contested 

labeling claims regarding the health benefits of the Products. Accordingly, the Court affirms its 

prior ruling under Rule 23(a)(2). 

C. Typicality 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are reasonably co-extensive with those of the other 

Class Members so as to meet Rule 23(a)(3)’s requirements. Typicality is a “permissive” 

standard under which “representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably co-extensive 

with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon v. v. 

Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). For the purposes of this Settlement, the 

Parties and objectors do not contend the Class lacks typicality. The Court therefore affirms its 

prior order, finding that the Plaintiff’s claims are reasonably coextensive with those of the Class. 

D. Adequacy of Class Representative 

Having considered the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1), the Court finds that Plaintiff and 

Class Counsel are adequate class representatives. For the purposes of this Settlement, the Parties 

and objectors do not contend the Class lacks adequate representation. Class Counsel has fully 

and competently prosecuted all causes of action, claims, theories of liability, and remedies 

reasonably available to the Class Members. The Court hereby affirms its appointment of the 

Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC as Class Counsel. The Court also affirms its 

appointment of Eunice Johnson as Class Representative, finding that she possesses no interests 

adverse to the Class and is adequate to represent the Class. 

//

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 5 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

E. Rule 23(b) Has Been Satisfied 

For the purposes of this Settlement, the Parties contend that the elements of Rules 

23(b)(2) and (b)(3) have been met. The Court finds that Defendant has acted or refused to act on 

grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief is appropriate respecting 

the class as a whole, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); that questions of law and fact as to whether a 

reasonable consumer would find the Products’ packaging deceptive predominate over individual 

questions. Plaintiff alleges a common injury on behalf of the Class, specifically the loss of the 

purchase price of the Products, and the Products’ respective packaging was standard across the 

United States and consistent throughout the Class Period. The Court also finds that resolution on 

a class-wide basis is superior for purposes of judicial efficiency and to provide a forum for 

absent Class Members, who are unlikely to bring individual suits to recover the sum of 

approximately $3 per Product. The Court therefore affirms its prior ruling that the Class satisfies 

Rule 23(b)(3). The Court also affirms its prior ruling that the Class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2). The 

primary relief sought in this action was injunctive relief in the form of labeling changes to the 

Products’ labels. 

6. The Settlement. The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate to the Class, in light of the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation 

(including appellate proceedings), and the risks involved in establishing liability, damages, and 

in maintaining the action as a class action, through trial and appeal. See Rodriguez v. West 

Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 963 (9th Cir. 2009). The Settlement is the result of arms-length 

negotiation and there is no evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest between Plaintiff, 

Class Counsel, and the Class. See In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 

(9th Cir. 2011).

A. The Parties reached the proposed Settlement only after proceeding with 

voluntary investigation and discovery in this action, and following protracted negotiations before 

a capable and well-respected mediator, the Honorable Ronald M. Sabraw of JAMS Arbitration, 

Mediation, and ADR Services. For a period of over several months, the Parties engaged in 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 6 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

extensive negotiations, including joint and individual mediation sessions with Judge Sabraw, and 

the Parties’ own follow-up negotiations, in order to reach agreement over the specific terms of 

the proposed Settlement. 

Plaintiff and Class Counsel maintain that this action and the claims asserted herein are 

meritorious and that Plaintiff and the Class would have prevailed at trial. Notwithstanding, 

Plaintiff and Class Counsel have agreed to settle the action pursuant to the provisions of the 

Settlement, after considering, among other things: (i) the substantial benefits to Plaintiff and the 

Class under the terms of the Settlement; (ii) the uncertainty of being able to prevail at trial; (iii) 

the uncertainty relating to Defendant’s defenses and the expense of additional motion practice in 

connection therewith; (iv) the issues relating to proving damages on an individual Class Member 

basis; (v) the attendant risks, difficulties, and delays inherent in litigation, especially in complex 

actions such as this; and (vi) the desirability of consummating this Settlement promptly in order 

to provide effective relief to Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff and Class Counsel agree that the 

Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate because it provides substantial benefits to the Class, 

is in the best interests of the Class, and fairly resolves the claims alleged in this action. 

Defendant expressly denies any wrongdoing alleged in the pleadings in the action, and 

does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability in connection 

with any facts or claims which have been or could have been alleged against it in the action. 

Defendant asserts that it sells, manufactures, and markets the Products in accordance with the 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Defendant nonetheless considers it desirable for the action to be 

settled and dismissed because the proposed Settlement will: (i) avoid further expense and 

disruption of the management and operation of Defendant’s businesses due to the pendency and 

defense of the action; (ii) finally put Plaintiff’s and the Class’ claims and the underlying matters 

to rest; and (iii) avoid the substantial expense, burdens, and uncertainties associated with a 

potential finding of liability and damages on the claims alleged in the Complaint. 

The Parties engaged in thorough formal and informal discovery, which included, inter 

alia, claims and defenses on the issue of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ([“FDCA”] 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 7 of 18
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

-8-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

21 U.S.C. § 301, et seq.), and whether the Products complied with the FDCA, and Californiaspecific rules pertaining to Products containing senna leaf. Accordingly, the Parties were wellversed in the merits, risks, and likelihood of success, should this action have been litigated 

through trial.

Based upon the stage of litigation reached concerning relevant legal issues and the 

Parties’ exchange of information through the discovery process, Plaintiff and Defendant were 

fully informed of the legal bases for the claims and defenses herein, and capable of balancing the 

risks of continued litigation and the benefits of the Settlement. Class Counsel and Defendant’s 

counsel are highly experienced civil litigation attorneys with specialized knowledge in food and 

drug labeling issues, and complex class action litigation generally. Class Counsel and 

Defendant’s counsel are capable of properly assessing the risks, expenses, and duration of 

continued litigation.

B. The Settlement affords meaningful injunctive relief. Pursuant to the 

Settlement Agreement, the labeling of the Products shall be substantially revised. The labeling 

for Defendant’s Dieter’s Green will be revised as set forth in Exhibit C to the Settlement 

("Exhibit C"); the labeling for Defendant’s Ultra Slim will be revised as set forth in Exhibit C; 

and the labeling for Defendant’s Super Slimming will be revised as set forth in Exhibit C. The 

key revisions for each tea are as follows: 

Dieter’s Green:

x The name of Dieter’s Green will be changed to Diet Green. 

x Whorled mallow, an ingredient at issue in the Complaint, has been removed 

from this tea. 

x The statement that “Research indicates that green tea’s antioxidants help 

promote health metabolism[]” has been removed. 

x The statement that “Recently, here in the West, people have discovered the 

value of this ancient system which focuses on aiding the body’s own healing 

mechanisms through restoring harmony and balance[]” has been removed. 

x The statement that “The Chinese System of herbology has been recorded in 

ancient texts which are studied and employed even today[]” has been 

removed. 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 8 of 18
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

-9-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

x The statement that “This time tested knowledge has been passed on from 

generation to generation over the centuries[]” has been removed. 

x The statement, “Remember when dieting to follow a balanced weight loss diet 

. . .” has been removed. 

x The warning that “This tea is not intended to be used for chronic constipation 

or as an aid to lose weight” has been added. 

x The warning that “Frequent or prolonged use of laxatives may result in 

dependence on laxatives” has been added. 

x In addition to the required Senna Notice, the warning that “Senna may result 

in abdominal pain, cramping, and loose or watery stools” has been added. 

 Ultra Slim 

x Whorled mallow, an ingredient at issue in the Complaint, has been removed 

from this tea. 

x The statement that “Recently, here in the West, people have discovered the 

value of this ancient system which focuses on aiding the body’s own healing 

mechanisms through restoring harmony and balance[]” has been removed. 

x The statement that “The Chinese System of herbology has been recorded in 

ancient texts which are studied and employed even today[]” has been 

removed. 

x The statement that “This time tested knowledge has been passed on from 

generation to generation over the centuries[]” has been removed. 

x The statement, “Remember when dieting to follow a balanced weight loss diet 

. . .” has been removed. 

x The warning that “This tea is not intended to be used for chronic constipation 

or as an aid to lose weight” has been added. 

x The warning that “Frequent or prolonged use of laxatives may result in 

dependence on laxatives” has been added. 

x In addition to the required Senna Notice, the warning that “Senna may result 

in abdominal pain, cramping, and loose or watery stools” has been added. 

 Super Slimming 

x The name of Super Slimming will be changed to Super Slim. 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 9 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

x Whorled mallow, an ingredient at issue in the Complaint, has been removed 

from this tea. 

x The statement that “Recently, here in the West, people have discovered the 

value of this ancient system which focuses on aiding the body’s own healing 

mechanisms through restoring harmony and balance[]” has been removed. 

x The statement that “The Chinese System of herbology has been recorded in 

ancient texts which are studied and employed even today[]” has been 

removed. 

x The statement that “This time tested knowledge has been passed on from 

generation to generation over the centuries[]” has been removed. 

x The statement, “Remember when dieting to follow a balanced weight loss diet 

. . .” has been removed. 

x The warning that “This tea is not intended to be used for chronic constipation 

or as an aid to lose weight” has been added. 

x The warning that “Frequent or prolonged use of laxatives may result in 

dependence on laxatives” has been added. 

x In addition to the required Senna Notice, the warning that “Senna may result 

in abdominal pain, cramping, and loose or watery stools” has been added. 

In addition, the FDA Disclaimer will remain on the Products’ packaging in a legible font size 

and will be conspicuously displayed on the package in a readable font color, in comparison to 

any background coloring on the package. Defendant will modify its website to comport with the 

modifications to the Products’ packaging and labeling, set forth above.

Defendant shall have eighteen (18) months after the date the Settlement is finally 

approved to complete the labeling changes referred to in Section 4.1 of the Settlement 

Agreement. Defendant may continue to market and ship product stock with existing labeling for 

up to eighteen (18) months following final approval, as contemplated by the eighteen month time 

period it will take to complete the labeling changes as set forth herein, and that third-party 

retailers and distributors may have on hand product stock in existing labeling for some time after 

the Settlement is finally approved. To the extent that any state and/or federal statute, regulation, 

policy, and/or code may, in the future, impose other, further, different and/or conflicting 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 10 of 18
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

-11-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

obligations or duties on Defendant with respect to the Products, this injunctive relief shall cease 

as to Defendant’s conduct covered by that statute, regulation, policy, and/or code as of the 

effective date of such statute, regulation, policy, and/or code.

The Court has considered the realistic range of outcomes in this matter, including the 

amount Plaintiff might receive if she prevailed at trial, the strength and weaknesses of the case, 

the novelty and number of the complex legal issues involved, and the risk that Plaintiff and the 

Class would receive less than the Settlement relief or take nothing at trial. The relief offered by 

the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of these factors. 

 C. The Court has found no evidence of collusion between Plaintiff and 

Defendant or their respective counsel. The Settlement resulted from extensive arms-length, 

adversarial negotiation. Up to and through Settlement, both Parties have vigorously litigated and 

negotiated this action. Further, the Court has evaluated the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit 

and determined that there was no collusion. See In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 

F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011) (the three factors are: “(1) when counsel receive a disproportionate 

distribution of the settlement, . . . (2) when the parties negotiate a ‘clear sailing’ arrangement 

providing for the payment of attorneys’ fees separate and apart from class funds, . . . and (3) 

when the parties arrange for fees not awarded to revert to defendants . . .”). Defendant has 

agreed to pay Class Counsel $250,000, which represents their lodestar even without a multiplier 

(indeed, it reflects a small negative multiplier because Class Counsel’s lodestar exceeded the 

negotiated award), and is well within the range courts have allowed in the Ninth Circuit. The 

Parties also agreed to the terms of the Settlement before discussing attorneys’ fees, another factor 

which weighs against a finding of collusion. 

 D. The response of the Class to this action, the certification of a class, and the 

Settlement, including Class Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees, litigation 

expenses, and the Class Representative’s incentive awards, after full, fair, and effective notice 

thereof, strongly favors final approval of the Settlement. Out of the estimated hundreds of 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 11 of 18
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

-12-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

thousands who received Notice, only two class members submitted valid requests for exclusion. 

Moreover, only two objections were filed, which the Court, as discussed below, has overruled.

7. Notice to the Class. The Class has received the best practicable notice in light of 

the fact that Defendant does not collect or maintain information sufficient to identify Class 

Members. The Parties’ selection and retention of Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC ("KKC") 

as the Class Action Administrator was reasonable and appropriate. Based on the Declaration of 

Phil Cooper of KCC, the Court hereby finds that the Settlement Notices were published to the 

Class Members in the form and manner approved by the Court in its Preliminary Approval 

Order. The Settlement Notices provided fair, effective, and the best practicable notice to the 

Class of the Settlement and the terms thereof. The Notices also informed the Class of Plaintiff’s 

intent to seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive payments, and set forth the date, time, and 

place of the Fairness Hearing and Class Members’ rights to object to the Settlement or Fee 

Motion and to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The Court further finds that the Settlement 

afforded Class Members a reasonable period of time to exercise such rights. See In re Mercury 

Interactive Corp. Secs. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 2010) (class members' deadline to 

object must arise after class counsel's fee motion is filed). The Settlement Notices fully satisfied 

all notice requirements under the law, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

requirements of the California Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1781, and all due process 

rights under the U.S. Constitution and California Constitutions. 

8. Notices Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715. The Court finds that Defendant has 

satisfied all notice requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 

1715, as attested to by the Cooper Declaration. On May 21, 2015, at Defendant’s direction, 

KCC served the notices required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), which included a copy of the 

Settlement Agreement and other required documents, as well as notice of the date, time, and 

place of the Fairness Hearing. The Court has received no objection or response to the Settlement 

Agreement by any federal or state official, including any recipient of the foregoing notices. This 

fact further supports the fairness of the Settlement. 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 12 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

9. Implementation of Settlement. The Parties are directed to implement the 

Settlement according to its terms and conditions. 

10. Release. The Release set forth in the Settlement Agreement is expressly 

incorporated herein in all respects, is effective as of the date of the entry of this Final Order, and 

forever discharges the Released Parties from any claims or liabilities released by the Settlement, 

including the Released Claims, and including without limitation a waiver of all rights under 

Section 1542 of the California Civil Code. This Release covers, without limitation, any and all 

claims for attorneys’ fees and expenses, costs or disbursements incurred by Class Counsel, the 

Settlement of this Action, the administration of such Settlement, and the Released Claims, except 

to the extent otherwise specified in this Order and the Settlement Agreement. 

11. Binding Affect and Permanent Injunction. The Settlement and this Final Order 

and Judgment shall be forever binding on the Plaintiff and all other Class Members, as well as 

their heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, and shall have res judicata and 

other preclusive effect in all pending and future claims, lawsuits, or other proceedings 

maintained by or on behalf of any such persons, to the fullest extent allowed by law. The Court 

hereby permanently enjoins all Class Members from filing, commencing, prosecuting, 

intervening in, maintaining, participating (as class members or otherwise) in, or receiving any 

benefits from, any lawsuit (including putative class action lawsuits), arbitration, administrative or 

regulatory proceeding or order in any jurisdiction asserting any claims released by this Order; 

and from organizing Class Members into a separate class to pursue as a purported class action 

any lawsuit (including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to include class allegations, or 

seeking class certification in a pending action) asserting any claims released by this Order. 

Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall require any Class Member to take any affirmative 

action with regard to other pending class action litigation unrelated to this action in which they 

may be absent class members. Defendant has reserved the right to file motions or to take other 

actions to enforce the release provisions of the Settlement Agreement and of this injunction, as 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 13 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

they may deem appropriate. The Court finds that issuance of this permanent injunction is 

necessary and appropriate in the aid of the Court’s jurisdiction over the action and its judgments. 

12. Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses. The Court orders that Class Counsel 

is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses incurred in connection with the 

action and in reaching this Settlement in the amount of $250,000, to be paid at the time and in 

the manner provided in the Settlement Agreement. The fee award sought in the present case is 

reasonable when judged by the standards of this circuit. Defendant has agreed to not oppose 

Class Counsel’s request for fees in the amount of $250,000, which represents Class Counsel’s 

lodestar with no multiplier, well within the range courts have allowed in the Ninth Circuit. The 

Court also finds that an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses is appropriate 

based on the private attorney general doctrine and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 

No Named Plaintiff, or any other Class Member, shall have any obligation to pay Class 

Counsel any further amounts for attorneys’ fees, costs, or litigation expenses in the Action. As 

neither of the objections was sustained, the Court further finds that no Class Member is entitled 

to seek or receive any further payment of attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses in connection 

with the action.

The Court finds the following hourly billing rates reasonable in light of the complexity of 

this litigation, the work performed, Class Counsel’s reputation, experience, competence, and the 

prevailing billing rates for comparably complex work by comparably-qualified counsel in the 

relevant market: 

1. For Ronald A. Marron, $745 per hour; 

2. For Beatrice Skye Resendes and Alexis Wood, $475 per hour; and 

3. For Kas Gallucci, $450 per hour; 

4. For Marshall Lurtz, William Richards, Beth Goodman and Erin Minelli, $440 per 

hour;

5. For Danielle Eisner, $290 per hour; 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 14 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

6. For paralegals/legal assistants, specifically, Amanda Beamer, Katherine Scott, 

Noemi Perez Lara and Stephanie Ozomaro, $215 per hour; and 

7. For future attorney time (time expended after the fee motion was filed), a blended 

rate of $440 per hour. 

Two other courts – one federal and one state - have recently approved these same hourly 

rates in Senna Leaf cases that settled on behalf of a class and raised similar claims. See Marron 

Decl., filed October 30, 2015, Exs. 2 & 3. The hourly billing rates for work performed by 

paralegals and law clerks, requested by the Marron Firm, is likewise reasonable. Paralegal time, 

which is normally billed to fee-paying clients, is properly included and reimbursable under a 

lodestar analysis. See, e.g., United Steelworkers v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F. 2d 403, 407-408 

(9th Cir. 1990). None of Mr. Marron’s law clerks or other staff members are volunteers; each 

are paid an hourly rate or salary. Marron Decl. ¶ 2. Accordingly, Mr. Marron put his own 

resources at risk for over a year this case has been pending, enhancing the appropriateness of the 

fee award sought. See id.

The time declared to have been expended by Class Counsel is reasonable in amount in 

view of the complexity and subject matter of this litigation, the skill and diligence with which it 

has been prosecuted and defended, and the quality of the result obtained for the Class.

Based on the declaration of Class Counsel submitted in support of the Fee Motion, the 

Court finds that Class Counsel have incurred out-of-pocket litigation expenses (paid and unreimbursed, or currently due) at the time the fee motion was filed (exclusive of costs to brief and 

attend final approval) in the amount of $3,276.22, that said expenses were of a nature typically 

billed to fee-paying clients, and that said expenses are recoverable or were reasonable and 

necessary to the prosecution of this action in light of the extent of proceedings both on and off 

the Court’s docket, the complexity of the legal and factual issues in the case, the amount at stake 

in this litigation, and the vigorous efforts of counsel for all Parties herein. The Court finds these 

expenses are reasonable in this case, and shall be included as part of the $250,000 awarded to 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 15 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

Class Counsel, to be paid by Defendant in the time and manner provided in the Settlement 

Agreement. 

13. Class Representative’s Incentive. The named Plaintiff in this action, which the 

Court appointed Class Representative in its Preliminary Approval Order, has actively 

participated in and assisted Class Counsel with this litigation for the substantial benefit of the 

Class. Ms. Johnson waived her right to pursue potential individual claims or relief in the Action. 

Apart from the requested incentive, Ms. Johnson will receive no settlement payments or benefits 

of any nature, other than the injunctive relief available to the Class generally. The Court hereby 

approves incentive awards for Ms. Johnson, to be paid by Defendant at the time and in the 

manner provided in the Settlement Agreement. The amount of the incentive award shall be 

$1,500. Ms. Johnson was actively involved throughout the Litigation and contributed significant 

time and expense in seeing this action to fruition. The Court approves this incentive payment to 

compensate the Class Representative for the burdens of her active involvement in the Litigation 

and her commitment and effort on behalf of the Class. 

14. Class Member Objections. The Court has considered the letters submitted by 

John Hall and Arthur Uribe seeking monetary compensation, which letters the Court construes as 

objections to the Settlement. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing conducted 

November 13, 2015, the Court overrules the objections. 

15. Modification of Settlement Agreement. The Parties are hereby authorized, 

without needing further approval from the Court, to agree to and adopt such amendments to, and 

modifications and expansions of, the Settlement Agreement, if such changes are consistent with 

this Order and do not limit the rights of any person or Class Member entitled to relief under this 

Agreement. 

16. Enforcement of Settlement. Nothing in this Final Order shall preclude any 

action to enforce or interpret the terms of the Settlement. Any action to enforce or interpret the 

terms of the Settlement shall be brought solely in this Court. 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 16 of 18
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-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

17. Retention of Jurisdiction. The Court expressly retains continuing jurisdiction as 

to all matters relating to the Settlement, and this Final Order, and for any other necessary and 

appropriate purpose. Without limiting the foregoing, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction 

over all aspects of this case including but not limited to any modification, interpretation, 

administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement, the 

administration of the Settlement and Settlement relief, including notices, payments, and benefits 

thereunder, the Settlement Notice and sufficiency thereof, any objection to the Settlement, any 

request for exclusion from the certified Class, the adequacy of representation by Class Counsel 

and/or the Class Representative, the amount of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses to be 

awarded Class Counsel, the amount of any incentives to be paid to the Class Representative, any 

claim by any person or entity relating to the representation of the Class by Class Counsel, to 

enforce the release and injunction provisions of the Settlement and of this Order, any remand 

after appeal or denial of any appellate challenge, any collateral challenge made regarding any 

matter related to this litigation or this Settlement or the conduct of any party or counsel relating 

to this litigation or this Settlement, and all other issues related to this action and Settlement. 

Further, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction to enter any other necessary or appropriate 

orders to protect and effectuate the Court’s retention of continuing jurisdiction provided that 

nothing in this paragraph is intended to restrict the ability of the Parties to exercise their rights 

under the Settlement Agreement. 

18. No Admissions. This Final Order and Judgment and the Settlement, all 

provisions herein or therein, all other documents referred to herein or therein, any actions taken 

to carry out this Final Order and Judgment and the Settlement, and any negotiations, statements, 

or proceedings relating to them in any shall not be construed as, offered as, received as, used as, 

or deemed to be evidence of any kind, including in this Action, any other action, or in any other 

judicial, administrative, regulatory, or other proceeding, except for purposes of obtaining 

approval of the Settlement and the entry of judgment in the Action, enforcement or 

implementation of the Settlement, or to support any defense by Defendant based on principles of 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 17 of 18
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

-18-

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01570-MMC

res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, waiver, good-faith settlement, judgment bar or 

reduction, full faith and credit, setoff, or any other theory of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, 

release, injunction, or similar defense or counterclaim to the extent allowed by law. Neither the 

Settlement Agreement nor any related negotiations, statements, mediation positions, notes, 

drafts, outlines, memoranda of understanding, or Court filings or proceedings relating to the 

Settlement or Settlement approval, shall be construed as, offered as, received as, used as, or 

deemed to be evidence or an admission or concession by any person, including but not limited to, 

of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of Defendant or as a waiver by Defendant 

of any applicable defense, including without limitation any applicable statute of limitation. 

19. Dismissal of Action. This action, including all individual and Class claims 

resolved in it, shall be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, without an award of attorneys’ 

fees or costs to any party except as provided in this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 16, 2015 ___________________________ 

 The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:14-cv-01570-MMC Document 65 Filed 11/16/15 Page 18 of 18