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

Western Regional Advocacy Project et al. v. Mayor Gavin Newsom, et al., Case No. C 08-4087 MMC 

[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement Agreement

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACY 

PROJECT, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

v.

MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

 Defendants. 

Case No.: C 08-4087 MMC 

CLASS ACTION

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT 

Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

The above-captioned action pending before this Court is brought as a class action. The 

parties previously applied to the Court jointly for an order preliminarily approving the settlement 

of this action in accord with the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), which sets forth the terms 

and conditions of a proposed settlement of the action. On June 2, 2010, this Court granted 

preliminary approval of the settlement. See Docket No. 93.

This matter came for hearing before this Court on August 13, 2010, and the Court has 

read and considered the Agreement and the materials filed by the parties in support of final 

approval. Based on the papers filed and the proceedings had herein, and good cause appearing 

therefor, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 

1. All terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Agreement. 

Case 3:08-cv-04087-MMC Document 97 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Western Regional Advocacy Project et al. v. Mayor Gavin Newsom, et al., Case No. C 08-4087 MMC 

[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement Agreement

2

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and over all 

parties to this litigation, including all settlement class members. 

3. The settlement class as defined in the Agreement is properly certified as a 

settlement class pursuant to the standards set forth in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

4. Notice of the settlement as set forth in the Agreement has been provided in 

accordance with the order granting preliminary approval, including published notice, notice on 

the internet, and posted notice in places likely to reach class members. The notice was also made 

available in English, Spanish, and large print upon request. This notice was the best practicable 

under the circumstances. 

5. The notice as distributed provided due and adequate notice of the proceedings and 

of the matters set forth therein, including the Agreement, to all persons entitled to such notice, 

and the notice fully satisfied the requirements of due process. 

6. No settlement class member objected to the Agreement. The concerns and 

questions regarding the Agreement raised by class members who did not formally object have 

been adequately addressed by counsel for the parties.

7. This Court hereby approves the Agreement and finds that it is, in all respects, fair, 

adequate and reasonable. This Court further finds that the Agreement has been reached as a 

result of intensive, serious, and non-collusive arms-length negotiations between the parties, with 

the assistance of the Court. The Court further finds that counsel for the parties are able to 

reasonably evaluate their respective positions. The Court also finds that settlement at this time 

will avoid additional substantial costs, as well as avoid the delay and risks that would be 

presented by the further prosecution of the claims covered by the Agreement. The Court has 

reviewed the relief granted as part of the Agreement and recognizes the significant value to the 

class of the injunctive relief provided by the settlement. 

8. The Court hereby grants final approval of the settlement. As of the Effective 

Date, each and every released claim of each and every settlement class member is and shall be 

deemed to be conclusively released as against all Defendants. All settlement class members as 

Case 3:08-cv-04087-MMC Document 97 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 3
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

Western Regional Advocacy Project et al. v. Mayor Gavin Newsom, et al., Case No. C 08-4087 MMC 

[Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement Agreement

3

of the Effective Date are barred and enjoined from prosecuting the released claims, as provided 

in Section IV.I of the Agreement. 

9. The Court hereby approves the settlement of Class Counsel’s claim for reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs, as stated in Section IV.L.2 of the Agreement, in the amount of 

$135,000 for work performed through Final Approval. Information regarding the amount of fees 

and costs to be paid to Class Counsel was included in the notice distributed to the class, and no 

objection from any party or class member has been received regarding payment of such fees and 

costs. The Court finds that this sum is reasonable in light of the efforts undertaken by Class 

Counsel in this action. The Court also approves the availability of fees and costs related to 

dispute resolution after Final Approval, as set forth in Section IV.L.4 of the Agreement. 

10. The Court directs all parties to take all necessary steps to effectuate the 

Agreement according to its terms. 

11. In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, this Court shall retain jurisdiction 

to enforce the Agreement and to resolve any disputes that may arise under the terms of the 

Agreement in accordance with Section IV.L of the Agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:________________________ __________________________________________

 HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

August 13, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-04087-MMC Document 97 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 3