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

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL – CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151) 

gwallace@schneiderwallace.com 

Mark T. Johnson (SBN 76904) 

mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com 

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

 COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 

Emeryville, CA 94608 

(415) 421-7100; (415) 421-7105 (Fax) 

Linda M. Dardarian (SBN 131001) 

ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com 

Andrew P. Lee (SBN 245903) 

alee@gbdhlegal.com 

Katharine L. Fisher (SBN 305413) 

kfisher@gbdhlegal.com 

GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 

300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 

Oakland, CA 94612 

(510) 763-9800; (510) 835-1417 (Fax) 

Adam B. Wolf (SBN 215914) 

awolf@pwcklegal.com 

Catherine Cabalo (SBN 248198) 

ccabalo@pwcklegal.com 

PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE 

4 Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

(415) 766-3592; (415) 402-0058 (Fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Classes 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

ABDUL NEVAREZ and PRISCILLA NEVAREZ, 

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, and SEBASTIAN DEFRANCESCO, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company, et al., 

 Defendants. 

CLASS ACTION 

Case No.: 5:16-cv-07013-LHK (SVK) 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND 

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL; 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Date: July 16, 2020 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Place: Courtroom 8 

Before: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 1 of 31
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

i 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL – CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 

783355.12 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ................................................................................................ 1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ........................................................................ 1

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................... 2

A. The Complaint ................................................................................................................ 2

B. Preliminary Approval ..................................................................................................... 3

C. Notice to the Class and the Class Members’ Favorable Reaction .................................. 4

III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................. 6

A. The Settlement Agreement Is Fair and Reasonable and Should be Finally 

Approved ........................................................................................................................ 6

1. The Legal Standard for Final Approval .............................................................. 6

2. The Rule 23(e)(2) Factors Weigh Strongly in Favor of Final Approval. ........... 8

a. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel Have Adequately 

Represented the Class. ............................................................................ 8

b. The Settlement Was Negotiated at Arm’s Length. ................................. 8

c. The Relief Offered in Settlement Is More than Adequate. ..................... 9

i. The Settlement Provides for Extensive Injunctive Relief 

and a Substantial Damages Fund. ............................................... 9

(a) Injunctive Relief ............................................................. 9

(b) Damages ....................................................................... 15

(c) The Settlement Does Not Permit Any Reversion ......... 16

(d) The Settlement Contains a Narrow Release of Claims 16

ii. The Risk, Expense, Complexity and Likely Duration of 

Further Litigation ...................................................................... 17

iii. The Settlement Provides Important Procedural Protections 

to the Class Members, and Provides an Effective Method 

for Distributing Monetary Relief to the Class. ......................... 18

d. The Settlement Provides an Equitable Plan of Allocation and 

Does Not Grant Preferential Treatment to the Named Plaintiffs. ........ 19 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 2 of 31
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

ii 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL – CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 

783355.12 

3. The Remaining Churchill/Hanlon Factors Also Weigh Strongly in Favor 

of Final Approval. ............................................................................................ 19

a. The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case ........................................................... 19

b. The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial ............... 20

c. The Extent of Discovery Completed and the Stage of the 

Proceedings ........................................................................................... 20

d. The Experience and Views of Counsel ................................................ 21

e. The Presence of a Governmental Participant ....................................... 22

f. The Reaction of the Class Members to the Proposed Settlement ......... 22

B. The Proposed Service Awards Should Be Approved ................................................... 23

C. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Litigation 

Expenses Should Be Approved .................................................................................... 23

IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 23

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 3 of 31
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

iii 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL – CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Federal Cases 

In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig., 

No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK, 2016 WL 6841655 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2016) ..................................... 22 

In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 

327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................................ passim

In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 

654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................................ 7 

Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 

No. 3:11-cv-03082-LB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19275 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016) ....................... 22 

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dept. of Transp., 

No. 4:06-cv-05125-SBA, 2010 WL 2228531 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2010) ........................................ 18 

Castaneda v. Burger King Corp., 

No. 3:08-cv-04262-WHA, 2010 WL 2735091 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2010) ............................... 16, 18 

Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 

361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 7, 21, 22 

Dickey v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 

No. 15-cv-04922-HSG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30440 (N.D. Cal. Feb 21, 2020) .................. 20, 23 

Edwards v. Nat’l Milk Producers Fed’n, 

No. 4:11-cv-04766-JSW, 2017 WL 3623734 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2017) ...................................... 16 

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 

150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................... 6, 7, 21, 22 

Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 

598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................................... 17 

In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litig., 

926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................... 6, 8 

Johnson v. Shaffer, 

No. 2:12-cv-1059-KJM-ACP, 2016 WL 3027744 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) ............................... 22 

Koller v. Med Foods, Inc., 

No. 3:14-CV-2400-RS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231901 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2018) ..................... 22 

Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 

696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................................ 7 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 4 of 31
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

iv 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL – CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 

151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................................ 20 

Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 

550 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1977) ........................................................................................................ 22 

Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 

221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ........................................................................................ 15, 18, 22 

Officers for Justice v. Civ. Serv. Comm’n of City and County of San Francisco, 

688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................. 6, 8, 15 

In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litig., 

No. 3:10-md-2143 RS, 2016 WL 7364803 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) .......................................... 16 

Perkins v. Linkedin Corp., 

No. 5:13-cv-04303-LHK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18649 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) .................... 23 

Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 

563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................... 7, 21 

Stemple v. RingCentral, Inc., 

No. 3:18-cv-04909-LB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138520 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019) ...................... 8 

In re Toys “R” Us- Delaware, Inc.- Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., 

295 F.R.D. 438 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................................ 8, 22 

Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 

564 U.S. 338 (2011) ....................................................................................................................... 20 

Winans v. Emeritus Corp., 

No. 3:13-cv-03962-HSG SG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3212 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016) ................. 16 

In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 

Nos. 13-CV-4980-LHK, 13-CV-4989-LHK, 13-CV-5326-LHK, 13-CV-5388-LHK, 

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115056 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) ........................................................... 20 

Federal Statutes 

Americans with Disabilities Act .................................................................................................... passim

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ..................................................................................................................... 3 

State Statutes 

Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 51 ..................................................................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 15 

§ 54 ................................................................................................................................................... 3 

§ 55.56 ........................................................................................................................................ 2, 20 

§ 55.56(a) ........................................................................................................................................ 16 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 5 of 31
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

v 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL – CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

Cal. Government Code Section 11135 ................................................................................................... 3 

Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23 .................................................................................................................................................. 1, 2 

23(b)(2) ............................................................................................................................................. 4 

23(b)(3) ....................................................................................................................................... 4, 20 

23(e) .................................................................................................................................................. 6 

23(e)(2) ......................................................................................................................................... 7, 8 

23(e)(2)(A) ....................................................................................................................................... 8 

23(e)(2)(A)(ii) ................................................................................................................................ 19 

23(e)(2)(D) ..................................................................................................................................... 19 

23(e)(4) ........................................................................................................................................... 18 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 6 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 16, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., in the Courtroom of the 

Honorable Lucy H. Koh, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, located at 

280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases will and hereby do 

move the Court, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an Order granting final 

approval of the Parties’ proposed Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims and the exhibits 

attached thereto (collectively, “Settlement Agreement”). This motion is based on this Notice of 

Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Settlement Agreement, including 

all exhibits thereto, the accompanying Declarations of Guy B. Wallace, Edward Dattilo, Stuart 

Kirkpatrick, Brian P. Maschler, and Maria Lampasona, the argument of counsel, all papers and records 

on file in these cases, and such other matters as the Court may consider. 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The proposed Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (“Settlement” or “Settlement 

Agreement”) provides both extensive injunctive relief and a substantial damages fund to the Plaintiff 

Classes. The Settlement Agreement provides comprehensive injunctive relief to remedy the violations 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh 

Act”), California Civil Code Sections 51, et seq., that were alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint, 

including the barrier lists attached to the Complaint as Exhibits A through D. The proposed Settlement 

requires remedial access work with respect to all areas of Levi’s Stadium, its parking, and the 

pedestrian rights of way leading from the parking lots to the Stadium. The remedial work to be 

performed is set forth in the Settlement and Exhibits A-J thereto, which include a detailed remedial 

plan and specifications. The Settlement will ensure that Class Members with mobility disabilities and 

their companions have full and equal access to the Stadium and its related facilities. The Settlement 

will also require Defendants to provide full and equal access to ticketing services. To ensure that Class 

Members receive this relief, the proposed Settlement mandates effective reporting and monitoring 

under the Court’s continuing jurisdiction. 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 7 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

The proposed Settlement also provides a $24 million class damages fund with no reversion to 

Defendants. Class Members who make valid and timely claims on the fund will receive a minimum of 

$4,000 for each visit to Levi’s Stadium in which they encountered an access barrier that caused them 

difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment within the meaning of California Civil Code Sections 55.56, et 

seq., up to a maximum of $80,000, depending upon the number of eligible claims filed. This is the 

largest class damages settlement ever achieved in a case challenging physical access to a place of 

public accommodation. The Settlement contains all agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendants. 

This Court preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement on March 9, 2020. Since then, the 

Parties have caused Notice of the Settlement to issue in conformance with this Court’s Order Granting 

Preliminary Approval. See Declaration of Guy B. Wallace in Support of Motion for Final Approval of 

Class Action Settlement (“Wallace Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-6; Declaration of Stuart Kirkpatrick in Support of 

Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Kirkpatrick Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-5; Declaration of 

Edward Dattilo Re: Notice Procedures (“Dattilo Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-6; Declaration of Brian P. Maschler in 

Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Maschler Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-5; 

Declaration of Maria Lampasona in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

(“Lampasona Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-5. The deadline for objecting to the proposed Settlement or opting out of 

the damages class is June 28, 2020. As of the date of this submission, there are no objections or optouts. Dattilo Decl. ¶ 12. 

The proposed Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and satisfies all of the criteria for 

final approval under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask that 

the Court: (i) grant final approval of the Settlement; and (ii) retain jurisdiction over the litigation and 

the Parties throughout the term of the Settlement Agreement.1

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

A. The Complaint 

Plaintiffs Abdul and Priscilla Nevarez filed this class action on December 7, 2016, asserting 

1

 By separate motions filed concurrently herewith, Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (i) grant service 

awards of $5,000 to each of the three Named Plaintiffs and Class Representatives; and (ii) award Class 

Counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses in the amount of $13,457,152.40. 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 8 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

claims for both injunctive relief and damages against the Forty Niners Football Company LLC, the 

City of Santa Clara (“the City”), the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (the “Stadium Authority”) and 

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. (“Ticketmaster”) based on alleged violations of the ADA, the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, California Government Code Section 11135, the California Disabled 

Persons Act (California Civil Code Sections 54, et seq.) and the California Unruh Act. See Complt. 

(ECF No. 1). Thereafter, the Complaint was amended to add the Forty Niners Stadium Management 

Company LLC as a Defendant (ECF No. 9).2 

On April 13, 2017, pursuant to Stipulation of the Parties approved by this Court, Plaintiffs filed 

their Second Amended Complaint limiting their claims to the alleged violation of Titles II and III of 

the ADA and California’s Unruh Act, and adding Sebastian DeFrancesco as a Plaintiff. (ECF No. 47, 

50). On August 1, 2017, the Court dismissed the Named Plaintiffs’ claims for individual damages 

against the City and Stadium Authority except for Plaintiffs Abdul and Priscilla Nevarezes’ claims for 

damages based on their visit to the Stadium on April 2, 2016. On August 15, 2017 the Court dismissed 

without prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against Ticketmaster, finding that those claims were subject to 

mandatory arbitration. (ECF No. 85). 

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on August 8, 2017 (ECF No. 78) and the operative 

Fourth Amended Complaint on July 27, 2018 (ECF No. 195). The Complaint includes and 

incorporates exhibits identifying the alleged disability access barriers in the Stadium, as well as in the 

Stadium’s main parking lot and the adjacent pedestrian right of way. (ECF No. 195-1 to 195-4). It 

also maintains class claims against the Forty Niners Defendants for Unruh Act damages. Id.

B. Preliminary Approval 

On March 9, 2020, this Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement. See

Order (1) Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Modifying Damages Class 

Definition; (3) Appointing Additional Injunctive Relief Class Representative; (4) Directing Notice to 

The Classes; and (5) Setting Date for Fairness Hearing (ECF No. 392) (“Preliminary Approval 

Order”). In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court made the following modification to the 

2

 A full description of the facts and history are set forth in the Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, 

Costs and Expenses filed concurrently with this Motion. 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 9 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

definitions of the three Plaintiff classes: 

Injunctive Relief Class: 1. All persons with mobility disabilities who use 

wheelchairs, scooters, or other mobility aids who will attempt to purchase 

accessible seating for a public event at Levi’s Stadium and who will be 

denied equal access to the Stadium’s facilities, services, accessible 

seating, parking, amenities, and privileges, including ticketing, from 

December 7, 2013 through the date of the Court’s Order Granting

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. 

Companion Injunctive Relief Class: 2. All persons who are companions 

of persons with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs, scooters or 

other mobility aids and who have used or will use companion seating for 

public events located at Levi’s Stadium from December 7, 2013 through 

the date of the Court’s Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class 

Action Settlement. 

Damages Class: 3. All persons with mobility disabilities who use 

wheelchairs, scooters or other mobility aids who have purchased, 

attempted to purchase, or for whom third parties purchased accessible 

seating and who have been denied equal access to Levi’s Stadium’s 

facilities, services, accessible seating, parking, amenities, and privileges 

at an event controlled by the Forty Niners Football Company, LLC; Forty 

Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC; or Forty Niners Stadium 

Management Company, LLC, from April 13, 2015 through the date of the 

Court’s Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. 

Id. at 1. The first and second classes seek declaratory and injunctive relieve pursuant to Title II and 

Title III of the ADA and were certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(b)(2). 

The third class seeks statutory damages under the Unruh Act and was certified pursuant to Rule 

23(b)(3). This Court appointed Abdul Nevarez and Sebastian DeFrancesco as class representatives for 

of the first class for injunctive relief, Priscilla Nevarez as representative of the second class for 

injunctive relief, and Abdul Nevarez as representative for the third class. Id. at 2; see also Order 

Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Class Certification (ECF 186) (“Class Certification 

Order”) at 43. 

C. Notice to the Class and the Class Members’ Favorable Reaction 

After preliminary approval, the Parties effected notice pursuant to this Court’s Preliminary 

Approval Order. Wallace Decl. ¶¶ 4-6; Kirkpatrick Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; Dattilo Decl. ¶¶ 2-6; Maschler Decl. 

¶¶ 3-5; Lampasona Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. 

Prior to the March 30, 2020 “Class Notice Date,” the Court-approved settlement administrator, 

KCC Class Action Services, LLC (“KCC”), compiled an updated list of potential Class Members using 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 10 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

the contact information previously produced at class certification, a supplemental list covering the time 

period from class certification to the date of preliminary approval, and potential Class Member contact 

information obtained by Class Counsel during the pendency of this matter. See Preliminary Approval 

Order, ECF 392 ¶¶ 13.b & 13.c; Dattilo Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. This process resulted in a list of 5,779 potential 

Class Members after de-duplication. Dattilo Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. A total of 4,789 potential Class Members 

had email addresses, and 495 mailing addresses were updated using the National Change of Address 

Database. See id. ¶¶ 3, 6. 

On March 30, 2020 KCC mailed the Court-approved long-form Notice (ECF No. 390-5) and 

Claim Form (ECF No. 390-3) (collectively “Settlement Notice”) to all 5,779 potential Class Members 

along with self-addressed postage prepaid return envelopes. See id. ¶ 4 & Ex. A. To date, 258 

Settlement Notices have been returned as undeliverable. KCC has been able to resend thirty-three (33) 

Settlement Notices based on its search for updated addresses. Accordingly, 5,554 (96% of the total) 

potential Class Members known to the Parties have been sent the Settlement Notice. See id. ¶ 5. Also 

on March 30, 2020, KCC emailed the Settlement Notice to the 4,789 potential Class Members (82% of 

the total) with email addresses. See id. ¶ 6. 

KCC also established a WCAG 2.0 AA-compliant settlement website

(www.LevisStadiumClassActionSettlement.com) to inform Class Members of the Settlement, their 

rights and options, and applicable dates and deadlines; to make important case documents (including 

the Settlement Agreement and operative Fourth Amended Complaint) available for review and 

download by Class Members; to provide KCC’s and Class Counsel’s contact information; and to 

enable Class Members to submit Damages Claim Forms and any supporting documentation 

electronically, or to download a PDF version of the Damages Claim Form to mail to KCC, according 

to the Class Member’s preference. See id. ¶ 7. KCC also established a toll-free telephone number and 

email address for the case. See id. ¶¶ 8-9. 

In addition, the Notice of Settlement was also provided to the twenty-four organizations listed 

in Section V.C.12 of the Settlement, which were identified by Class Counsel as organizations that 

serve the interests of persons with mobility disabilities. Kirkpatrick Decl. ¶ 3. Each form of notice 

was published, posted or mailed by the deadlines set forth in the Settlement and the Court’s 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 11 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

Preliminary Approval Order. See Dattilo Decl. ¶¶ 2-6; Kirkpatrick Decl. ¶ 4 Maschler Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; 

Lampasona Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. 

The Court-approved Class Notice explained the litigation and the terms of the Settlement, 

including the injunctive relief, release of claims, and amounts requested for the Named Plaintiffs’ 

service awards and Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses. The Notice also 

informed Class Members how to object to the Settlement and provided a website and toll-free number 

for Class Members to obtain further information about the Settlement or Settlement documents. Class 

Members have until June 28, 2020 to object to the Settlement, to opt out of the Damages Class, and/or 

to file Claim Forms. See Preliminary Approval Order, ECF 392 ¶ 13.h., i. 

Class Members have responded favorably to the proposed Settlement so far. Since the 

distribution of the Settlement Notice, Class Counsel has received and responded to numerous inquiries 

from Class Members about the Settlement, and Class Members have expressed support for the 

Settlement and the injunctive and monetary relief it provides. Wallace Decl. ¶ 7. As of the date of this 

submission, there are no objections to the proposed Settlement, there are no opt-outs from the damages 

class, and KCC has received 3,866 Claim Forms. Wallace Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Dattilo Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. The Settlement Agreement Is Fair and Reasonable and Should be Finally Approved 

1. The Legal Standard for Final Approval 

The law favors the settlement of class actions. See, e.g., In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy 

Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 556 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc). “[T]he decision to approve or reject a settlement is 

committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge because he [or she] is exposed to the litigants and 

their strategies, positions, and proof.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(internal citations and quotations omitted). 

To grant final approval of a settlement, “Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) requires the district court to 

determine whether a proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Hanlon,

150 F.3d at 1026; see also, Officers for Justice v. Civ. Serv. Comm’n of City and County of San 

Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating that the “universally applied standard” is whether 

the settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable”). “It is the settlement taken as a 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 12 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness.” 

Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. 

Rule 23(e)(2) states as follows: 

a court may approve a settlement only on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate after considering whether: (A) the class representatives and class 

counsel have adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated 

at arm’s length; (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into 

account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness 

of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method 

of processing class-member claims; (ii) the terms of any proposed award of 

attorney’s fees, including timing of payment; (D) The proposal treats class 

members equitably relative to each other. 

Under well-settled Ninth Circuit precedent, in order to assess a class action settlement, courts 

must balance several similar factors, including the following “Hanlon factors”: 

[t]he strength of plaintiff’s 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. 

Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026). These 

same factors are also sometimes referred to as the eight “Churchill factors.” See, e.g., In re Bluetooth 

Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. 

Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

To satisfy appellate review, the Court must demonstrate comprehensive consideration of all 

factors. However, in conducting this analysis, the Ninth Circuit has noted that “‘it is the very 

uncertainty of outcome in litigation and avoidance of wasteful and expensive litigation that induce 

consensual settlements.’” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625). Accordingly, when determining whether to grant final approval, 

the Court’s role in reviewing “what is otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated between 

the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the 

agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, 

and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” Officers 

for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625; see also In re Toys “R” Us- Delaware, Inc.- Fair & Accurate Credit 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 13 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., 295 F.R.D. 438, 449 (C.D. Cal. 2014). 

For several reasons, the proposed Settlement clearly meets the requirements for final approval. 

2. The Rule 23(e)(2) Factors Weigh Strongly in Favor of Final Approval. 

a. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel Have Adequately 

Represented the Class. 

As this Court has previously found when it certified this case as a class action and when it 

preliminarily approved the Settlement, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel have adequately 

represented the Classes. As demonstrated in the Motion for Service Awards filed concurrently 

herewith, the Class Representatives have no conflicts with Class Members, actively participated in the 

litigation and represented the interests of the certified Plaintiff Classes. See also Class Certification 

Order (ECF No. 186 at 24); Preliminary Approval Order (ECF No. 392 ¶ 3). As demonstrated in the 

Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses filed concurrently herewith, and 

consistent with the Court’s findings at Class Certification that “Plaintiffs’ counsel has vigorously 

litigated this case from the beginning, and ...will continue to do so,” (ECF No. 186 at 24), Class 

Counsel have thoroughly investigated and litigated the Class claims, obtained outstanding results on 

behalf of the Classes, and have no conflicts of interest with the certified Classes. This factor supports a 

finding that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(A). 

b. The Settlement Was Negotiated at Arm’s Length. 

“Where a settlement is the product of arm’s-length negotiations conducted by capable and 

experienced counsel, the court begins its analysis with a presumption that the settlement is fair and 

reasonable.” Stemple v. RingCentral, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-04909-LB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138520, at 

*12 5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019) (internal quotation omitted)); see also, In re Hyundai and Kia, 926 

F.3d at 570 (“‘[W]e put a good deal of stock in the product of an arm’s-length, non-collusive, 

negotiated resolution.’ ”) (quoting Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 965). 

The Settlement was reached after informed negotiations supervised by two well-respected 

mediators experienced in class action cases, Michael Loeb and Mark Rudy. Wallace Decl. ¶ 13. The 

Parties participated in eight in-person mediations over the eighteen-month period between May 2018 

and August 2019. Id. The first three mediations took place with Mr. Loeb; the latter five mediations 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 14 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

took place with Mr. Rudy. Id. Mr. Rudy made a mediator’s proposal regarding the amount of class 

damages, which was accepted by the Parties. Six months later, at the conclusion of the mediation 

process, Mr. Rudy made a mediator’s proposal regarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Both 

sides accepted his proposal two weeks later. Id. ¶ 15. All major issues regarding injunctive relief were 

resolved prior to the mediation of fees and costs. Id. 

c. The Relief Offered in Settlement Is More than Adequate. 

i. The Settlement Provides for Extensive Injunctive Relief and a 

Substantial Damages Fund. 

(a) Injunctive Relief 

The injunctive relief guaranteed by the Settlement constitutes an excellent result for the 

Plaintiff Classes. The Settlement provides comprehensive injunctive relief regarding all of the claims 

in the Fourth Amended Complaint, including Defendants’ failure to provide physical access and 

Defendants’ failure to make reasonable modifications in policy and practice to ensure equal access to 

the Stadium’s facilities and services. The Settlement requires Defendants to remediate nearly all of the 

access barriers identified by Plaintiffs’ experts, as well as requiring Defendants to remove many other 

access barriers that were not identified in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. As this Court will recall, Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibit A identified 2,699 access barriers in the Stadium and its related facilities, including its parking 

lots and the pedestrian right of way leading from those lots to the Stadium. The Settlement will 

remediate all but 25 of the alleged barriers (i.e., all but 1% of the barriers identified in the Complaint).3

 

3

 These alleged barriers include: 18 alleged barriers regarding the lack of clear space on counters in the 

Stadium concessions; 4 alleged barriers regarding the location of the accessible toilet compartment 

door openings and whether they were located too far from the side wall or partition; an alleged barrier 

regarding the lack of wheelchair maneuvering space at urinals; and 2 alleged barriers regarding the 

existence of dirt sections of the pedestrian right of way serving the remote parking lots. Plaintiffs 

compromised regarding the clear space on the counters because of a recent U.S. Access Board 

interpretive guidance in which the Board stated that this type of condition did not violate the 2010 

ADAS. Similarly, the parties’ experts had a good-faith disagreement regarding the correct 

interpretation of the requirement regarding the location of accessible toilet compartment door openings 

and the side walls or partitions. The lack of clear space for wheelchair users at urinals was not 

remediated because the Stadium’s restrooms have designated accessible wheelchair stalls and the 

Settlement provides comprehensive remediation regarding same. Settlement Agreement § III.A.1.i., 

Exh. A at Items 823 through 1502.1. Finally, it was not necessary to remediate the two dirt sections in 

the pedestrian right of way because the Settlement provides compliant accessible parking in the Main 

Lot immediately adjacent to the Stadium, and compliant paths of travel from the Main Lot to the 

Stadium’s entrances. See Id., Ex. J. 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 15 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

Wallace Decl. ¶¶ 28-29. The Settlement will also remediate numerous other barriers in the Stadium’s 

stairs and breastfeeding stations that were not included in the Complaint. 

The detailed remedial access work that is specified in the Settlement Agreement and Exhibits 

A-L will bring the Stadium and its surrounding pedestrian right of way into full compliance with the 

2010 ADAS and the 2019 CBC. Moreover, the Settlement provides extensive injunctive relief 

regarding all of the other problems with ticketing, transportation, and other services that were 

described by the Class Members in their declarations. See Appendix of Class Member Declarations 

(ECF No. 139). Specifically, the Settlement mandates the following access work and improvements, 

all of which must fully comply with the 2010 ADAS and the 2019 CBC: 

Parking, Exterior Path of Travel, and Entrances. The Settlement will provide 282 accessible 

parking spaces immediately adjacent to the Stadium in the Main Lot. Settlement Agreement § 

III.A.3.a, Ex. J. This is a sufficient number of parking spaces to meet the accessible parking 

requirement for all of the lots that Defendants use to provide parking. Wallace Decl. ¶ 20. An 

accessible path of travel will connect the accessible parking spaces in the Main Lot to the primary 

entrances to the Stadium at Gates A and C. The accessible path of travel, clearly marked and eight feet 

in width (i.e., double the 48 inch width specified in the 2010 ADAS and the 2019 CBC), will connect 

all of the accessible external features of the Stadium, including any amenities in the Main Lot (such as 

portable toilets and coat check), the stores and other points of interest in the Plaza, to the accessible 

Box Office windows, and the Stadium restaurants. Settlement Agreement §§ III.A.1.b, Exs. B, C, and 

J. The specifications for this remedial work are set forth in the drawings comprising Exhibit B (for the 

Plaza area and exterior entrances to the Stadium) and Exhibit J (for the path of travel from the parking 

lot) to the Settlement Agreement. The accessible path of travel to be established and maintained 

leading to and between the Bourbon Steak, Bourbon Pub, and Tailgate restaurants is described in 

further detail at Section III.A.2 of the Settlement Agreement. As a result of this access work, Class 

Members will no longer have to struggle with inaccessible parking, inaccessible security gates, 

inaccessible entrances, inaccessible ticket windows at the Box Office, and many other similar access 

problems that existed on the exterior of the Stadium. And, the parking adjacent to the Stadium will be 

priced at the lowest price Defendants charge for parking in the remote parking lots. Id. at § III.A.3.b. 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 16 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

Pedestrian Rights of Way Leading to the Stadium. Some Class Members may continue to 

choose to park in the fifteen off-site parking lots that also serve Levi’s Stadium. The pedestrian right 

of way connecting those off-site parking lots to the Stadium contain numerous barriers to access, 

including curb ramps that lack a flush transition to the street and have excessive running, cross, 

counter, and side-flare slopes; sidewalks with excessive running and cross slopes, surface gaps, and 

abrupt changes in level; and pedestrian signals that fall outside of reach range for persons using 

wheelchairs and scooters. The proposed Settlement requires the City of Santa Clara to make these 

portions of the pedestrian right of way fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. In total, 

the Settlement requires the remediation of 454 non-compliant conditions, including 236 curb ramp 

barriers present on 97 curb ramps, 203 sidewalk barriers, and 15 barriers related to inaccessible 

pedestrian signals. Id. § III.A.4; Exs. H, I. 

Stadium Box Office. To ensure an accessible box office and approach to the box office at the 

Stadium, Defendants are required to remediate the box office-related barriers identified in Exhibit A to 

the Settlement Agreement in the manner specified and in Section III.A.1.c. and Exhibit C of the 

Settlement. This includes removing the foot bar at the base of the designated accessible ticket window 

to allow a forward approach by wheelchair users, raising the existing grade to provide a level 

accessible area in front of the window, using accessible queuing plans, providing signage for the 

accessible window and providing all services at the accessible window that are offered to the public. 

Id., Ex. C notes 8, 11. 

Interior Circulation Within the Stadium. The Settlement ensures that Class Members will have 

an accessible path of travel throughout the Stadium. Defendants are required to remediate the specific 

conditions in the interior path of travel identified in Exhibit A in the manner specified therein, and no 

ramps in the path of travel will be permitted to have excessive running slopes. Id. § III.A.1.e. The 

location and specifications of the accessible interior path of travel are set forth in Exhibit D. 

Signage, Access Map, and Trained Stadium Staff. The Settlement also requires a detailed 

signage plan to direct Class Members to the accessible exterior and interior features of the Stadium. 

Settlement Agreement § III.A.1.e, Ex. D. Clearly marked accessible paths and overhead signage will 

guide Class Members from the Main Lot to the entrances to the Stadium, and to the entrances leading 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 17 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

to the elevators. Id. This information will also be provided in a comprehensive access map that will 

be available both electronically and on paper. Id. § III.D. Further, Stadium employees will be trained 

on the location of accessible elevators, restrooms, and seating so that Class Members can get reliable 

assistance with finding their way to their seats. Id. § III.F.1. Under the Settlement, Class Members 

will no longer have to struggle and engage in trial and error efforts to find the accessible routes and 

features within the Stadium. 

Accessible seating, companion seating, and restrooms. The Settlement requires Defendants to 

make extensive access improvements within the Stadium itself. Significantly, it requires Defendants to 

perform access work to the designated accessible seating so that it strictly complies with the 

requirement of the 2010 ADAS for level seating spaces. Id., Ex. E. As a result of this access work, 

Class Members who use wheelchairs will no longer roll around in their seating spaces because of the 

excessive drainage gradient that was erroneously constructed. The number of accessible and 

companion seats shall comply with the 2010 ADAS standards. Arm rests and cupholders will be 

provided for companion seats to make them equivalent to standard seating. Id. § III.A.1.f., Ex. E. 

Further, Defendants will be required to remove all of the barriers identified in the Stadium’s restrooms 

in accordance with the remedial work specified in Exhibit A to the Settlement. Id. at § III.A.1.i., Ex. A 

at Items 823 through 1502.1. 

Social and Dining Spaces and Features, Including Restaurants, Bars, Drink Rails, and Drinking 

Fountains. Some of the most significant barriers in the Stadium included the general lack of accessible 

tables in restaurants, accessible lowered sections in bars, and the inaccessibility of other social spaces 

such as the Stadium drink rails and other counters at which patrons congregate or make purchases from 

Stadium personnel. As a result of the Settlement, Defendants will provide accessible seating and bar 

spaces at all locations at which food and drink is served or consumed within the Stadium. Settlement 

Agreement §§ III.A.1.g, III.A.1.h, III.A.2, Ex. E. Further, the Settlement requires that all of the 

Stadium’s drinking fountains be made accessible. Id. § III.A.1.j. 

Shops and Concessions. The Settlement requires that all of the barriers identified in the 

Stadium’s shops and concessions be remediated in accordance with Exhibit A. Id. §§ III.A.1.k, m. 

This access work will provide Class Members and their companions with equal access to the Stadium’s 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 18 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

shops and concessions. 

Boxes and Suites. The Settlement will make significant access improvements to the Stadium’s 

boxes and suites. Defendants will be required to provide accessible tables and other furniture within 

the boxes and suites in place of the existing inaccessible furniture. In addition, Defendants will be 

required to provide compliant accessible seating in the boxes and suites so that users with mobility 

disabilities will be able to access their seats and enjoy an unobstructed sightline to watch Stadium 

events. Id. § III.A.1.l. 

Stairs and Handrail Extensions. The Settlement requires Defendants to provide compliant 

handrail extensions throughout the Stadium so that Class Members will be able to safely and easily 

transition from stairs and ramps to the landings at the top and bottom of same. Id. § III.A.1.n. In 

addition, the Settlement requires important access fixes that go beyond the barriers identified in 

Exhibit A to the Complaint, and which Plaintiffs would not have been able to obtain at trial. 

Specifically, the Settlement requires that Defendants remove access barriers in the Stadium’s external 

stairways, including barriers such as abrupt nosings on the risers of the stairs that constitute a tripping 

hazard. Id. § III.A.1.s. This important access and safety work will be performed on the external stairs 

at Gate A and Gate C, as well as the internal stairs at Toyota Gate F, the stairs within the Stadium bowl 

itself, and the stairs within the United Club. Id.

First Aid and Breastfeeding Stations. Work required to make the Dignity Health First Aid 

Room on Level 300 (Main Concourse) accessible are specified in Section III.a.1.p. of the Settlement 

Agreement. The Settlement also requires that all of the inaccessible conditions in the Stadium’s 

breastfeeding stations be remediated so that women with disabilities will be able to access these 

important features. Id. § III.A.1.p. 

Restaurants. The Settlement requires Defendants to ensure that the Stadium restaurants 

remediate numerous access barriers identified in Exhibit A, including inaccessible entrances, paths of 

travel, dining areas, tables and restrooms. Settlement Agreement § III.A.2. 

Auditorium – Section III.A.1.r. of the Settlement Agreement requires that Defendants provide 

an accessible means for gaining access to the stage and integrated accessible and companion seating. 

Ticketing. The Settlement provides important relief regarding ticketing. Defendants will no 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 19 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

longer require Class Members to purchase or exchange standard tickets for tickets for accessible 

seating at the Stadium Box Office. Instead, Class Members may now simply purchase or exchange 

standard tickets for tickets for accessible seating electronically without being required to go to the Box 

Office in-person. Id. § III.C. 

Other Relief. The Settlement requires Defendants to provide accessible shuttles and golf carts, 

to maintain the Stadium’s access features in operating condition by performing maintenance on a 

specific schedule, and to provide Class Members with a complaint and grievance procedure regarding 

access or service problems. Id. §§ III.B, III.E, X. 

Compliance Period and Deadlines. In all cases, express deadlines are set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement for the completion of the specified remediation work to be undertaken. 

Although these deadlines vary depending on the scope of the work and other factors identified during 

the settlement negotiations, all of the remedial work must be completed within a three-year compliance 

period. Id. § II.D. 

Monitoring. Under the Settlement Agreement’s reporting and monitoring provisions, Class 

Counsel will be able to ensure that Defendants complete all of the access work and other remedial 

measures required by the Settlement. The Settlement Agreement includes periodic reporting 

requirements for Defendants to provide specific information regarding their progress and the status of 

scheduled access work. Id. § X.B. Class Counsel are entitled to review designs, drawings, plans and 

specifications for the access work and to conduct semi-annual inspections to monitor compliance. Id. 

§§ X.B., XI. The Settlement provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees for Class Counsel and for 

reasonable expert costs on an annual basis in connection with these monitoring and enforcement 

activities. Id. § XIV.B. 

Continuing Jurisdiction. This Court will also retain jurisdiction in the event that the Parties are 

unable to resolve any disputes regarding implementation. Settlement Agreement § XV.

In summary, the Settlement constitutes an excellent result for the Plaintiff Classes. It provides 

Class Members with comprehensive injunctive relief, including a detailed remedial plan to remove 

over 2,674 access barriers which will guarantee that the Stadium and its related facilities provide full 

and equal access as required by the ADA and the Unruh Act. Wallace Decl. ¶¶ 19-29. It is doubtful 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 20 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

that this Court could have ordered greater injunctive relief if Plaintiffs prevailed at trial. 

(b) Damages

A proposed settlement is not to be measured against “a hypothetical or speculative measure of 

what might have been achieved.” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625; see also, In re Anthem, Inc. 

Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 322 (N.D. Cal. 2018); Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. 

DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 527 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“[I]t is well-settled law that a proposed 

settlement may be acceptable even though it amounts to only a fraction of the potential recovery that 

might be available to the class members at trial.”). 

The Class damages fund represents an outstanding result for the Damages Class. As an initial 

matter, the $24 million damages fund in this case is the largest ever obtained in a physical access case 

under Title III of the ADA with Unruh Act damages claims. Wallace Decl. ¶ 47; see also ECF No. 

375-19 (settlement comparison chart). This non-reversionary fund will guarantee a substantial 

recovery to the Damages Class Members who make claims, with a minimum recovery of $4,000 and a 

maximum recovery of $80,000 per person depending on the number of visits during which the Class 

Member encountered an access barrier that caused them “difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment,” 

and depending on the number of valid claims filed. Id. §§ VII.A; VII.D; VIII.A.1. 

The $24 million recovery compares favorably with Plaintiffs’ estimates of total exposure. As 

one point of comparison, the $24 million settlement amount represents 34.3% of the approximate $70 

million outside exposure analysis calculated by Plaintiffs’ damages expert. Plaintiffs’ aggregate 

damages model was based on the assumption that a Class Member was in attendance at a particular 

event if 100% of the seats sold to that Class Member were used. If a lesser percentage of seats were 

actually used for a particular event, the damages calculation for that Class Member was based on a 

corresponding percentage of the statutory amount of $4,000. This assumes the seats were actually sold 

to and used by Class Members with mobility disabilities, and that they encountered at least one barrier 

that caused them “difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment” on each occasion that they attend an 

event.4

 Wallace Decl. ¶ 32. Plaintiffs’ damages expert calculated interest on these claims at 

4

 Under the Unruh Act, a plaintiff may recover the $4,000 minimum per visit to a place of public 

accommodation, not per barrier encountered on any visit. Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56(a). 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 21 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

approximately $9 million, using a 10% interest rate which was likely to be disputed at trial. Id. These 

figures are based on Plaintiffs’ assessment of a best-case scenario. Id. To have obtained such a result 

at trial, Plaintiffs would have had to prove that all Damages Class Members visited the Stadium on at 

least one occasion and encountered a barrier that caused them “difficulty, discomfort or 

embarrassment.” During expert discovery, Defendants strongly disputed that Plaintiffs’ damages 

model provided a reliable and accurate means of calculating the number of visits on which Class 

Members encountered such barriers. They also strongly disputed that such claims could be resolved 

manageably at a class trial. Indeed, the uncertain and risky nature of calculating the number of visits 

by disabled class members to a public accommodation which would qualify for a $4,000 damages 

award was recognized by Judge Alsup in his decision in the Castaneda case, and was a factor in his 

approval of the damages fund. Castaneda v. Burger King Corp., No. 3:08-cv-04262-WHA, 2010 WL 

2735091, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2010). 

Moreover, the Damages Class’s recovery of 34.3% of Plaintiffs’ maximum estimated class 

damages compares favorably with recoveries that have been held to be fair, reasonable, and adequate 

in other class actions. See, e.g., In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. at 319 (approving 

recovery of 14.5% of the “projected recovery that Settlement Class Members would be entitled to if 

they prevailed on their claims” and collecting authorities); Edwards v. Nat’l Milk Producers Fed’n, 

No. 4:11-cv-04766-JSW, 2017 WL 3623734, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2017) (approving recovery of 

30% of maximum damages); In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litig., No. 3:10-md-2143 RS, 

2016 WL 7364803, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) (approving 31% of maximum damages); Winans v. 

Emeritus Corp., No. 3:13-cv-03962-HSG SG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3212, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 

2016) (approving recovery of 33.2% of maximum damages and collecting authorities). 

(c) The Settlement Does Not Permit Any Reversion

The Settlement does not permit any reversion of any part of the Class damages fund to 

Defendants. The entire $24 million class damages fund will be distributed to Class Members who 

make validated claims. Settlement Agreement § VIII. 

(d) The Settlement Contains a Narrow Release of Claims 

The Settlement only releases the claims that were alleged, or that could have been alleged, 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 22 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

based on the factual allegations of the Fourth Amended Complaint. In exchange for the equitable 

relief provided for by the Agreement, Class Members and Plaintiffs release “any and all claims that are 

the subject of, included within, and/or arise from this lawsuit, including without limitation, all claims, 

liabilities, obligations, demands, actions, and claims under Title II and Title III of the ADA and 

California Civil Code § 51, et seq., and their accompanying regulations that were brought or could 

have been brought based on the facts alleged in the Complaint against the Released Parties for 

injunctive or declaratory relief only relating to Conditions that allegedly deny access to the facilities 

specified in Exhibit A and access to Defendants’ ticketing services for wheelchair accessible and 

companion seating.” Id. § XIII.A.1. This release only applies for the duration of the agreement, i.e. 

three and a half years after it becomes effective. Id. § XVI. The scope of the release for the Damages 

Class is essentially the same, except that it only releases claims for statutory damages that were 

brought or could have been brought based on the facts alleged in the Complaint for the period of time 

up to the date on which the Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. 

Settlement at § XIII.A.2. These narrow releases fully accord with Ninth Circuit precedent. Hesse v. 

Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010). 

ii. The Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further 

Litigation 

Consistent with Court’s finding at preliminary approval, the potential risks, expense, 

complexity and duration of further litigation of this case support final approval. See Preliminary 

Approval Order (ECF No. 392 ¶ 4). Courts have long recognized the inherent risks and “vagaries of 

litigation,” and emphasized the comparative benefits of “immediate recovery by way of the 

compromise to the mere possibility of relief in the future, after protracted and expensive litigation.” 

Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 526; see also, In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 

F.R.D. at 318 (delay in recovery as a result of trial and appellate proceedings weighs in favor of final 

approval where “[s]ettlement provides the Class with timely, certain, and meaningful recovery”). The 

“inherent” risks of protracted litigation, trial and appeal are all factors that militate in favor of 

settlement in systemic access cases under the ADA. See, e.g., Castaneda, 2010 WL 2735091, at *3; 

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dept. of Transp., No. 4:06-cv-05125-SBA, 2010 WL 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 23 of 31
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 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

2228531, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2010) (“The settlement affords significant and immediate relief that 

may never have materialized had the trial concluded.”). Proceeding to the series of short trials 

regarding groups of barriers that this Court had ordered (and the inevitable appeals of those decisions) 

would have added many years to the resolution of this case. Each trial would have required the 

presentation of extensive expert testimony, thereby increasing the expense of these already lengthy 

proceedings. Given the importance of the accessibility of the Stadium to the Class Members lives, the 

potential for years of delayed recovery is a significant concern. Considered against the risks of 

continued litigation, and the importance of the accessibility of the Stadium and its related facilities to 

the Class Members, the totality of relief provided under the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, 

and adequate. Wallace Decl. ¶¶ 38-46. 

iii. The Settlement Provides Important Procedural Protections to the

Class Members, and Provides an Effective Method for Distributing 

Monetary Relief to the Class. 

Members of the Injunctive Relief and Companion Classes, as well as Damages Class Members 

who do not opt out, have been given the opportunity to object to the settlement and to appear at the 

Final Approval/Fairness Hearing in order to have their objections heard by the Court. Damages Class 

Members who did not already opt out of the case at the class certification stage have been given 

another opportunity to opt-out of the proposed Settlement should they so desire. Settlement 

Agreement § VI. This satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(e)(4). 

The Claims Process set forth in the Settlement Agreement also provides Damages Class 

Members with a full and fair opportunity to submit claims for damages and, should they disagree with 

Defendants’ records regarding the number of events that they attended at the Stadium, to provide 

documentation and/or an explanation to show a different number of visits. Settlement Agreement § 

VII.G, H. If there is a dispute, the Settlement Administrator will consult with the Parties to determine 

whether an adjustment is warranted. Damages payments to eligible Damages Class Members will be 

distributed in the form of checks and checks returned as undeliverable will be traced and re-mailed. Id.

§ VIII.A.3 & 4. These procedural safeguards further support final approval, under both Rule 

23(e)(2)(A)(ii) & D, and the Hanlon/Churchill factors. 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 24 of 31
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

19 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

d. The Settlement Provides an Equitable Plan of Allocation and Does Not 

Grant Preferential Treatment to the Named Plaintiffs. 

Consistent with Rule 23(e)(2)(D), the Settlement provides for an equitable plan of allocation of 

money damages without granting preferential treatment to any particular Class Members. Settlement 

at § VII.A. All of the class members who make claims that confirm, as required under applicable law, 

that they have mobility disabilities and encountered one or more barriers at Levi’s Stadium or its 

related facilities that caused them “difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment” will be able to recover a 

minimum of $4,000 or a maximum of $80,000 depending on the number of visits in which they 

encountered such barriers, and the number of validated claims filed. This objective allocation plan 

does not grant preferential treatment to any member of the Damages Class, or to the Named Plaintiffs, 

who are subject to the same damages allocation plan as the absent Class Members. 

As discussed below, subject to Court approval, the Named Plaintiffs would also receive service 

awards not to exceed $5,000 each, which Plaintiffs submit are fair and reasonable payments to 

recognize and compensate the Named Plaintiffs for the efforts and risks they took in stepping forward 

to assert claims, their participation in discovery and depositions, and the work done on behalf of the 

Plaintiff Classes to prosecute the claims. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Service Awards (ECF No. 394) 

and discussion infra at § III.B. 

3. The Remaining Churchill/Hanlon Factors Also Weigh Strongly in Favor of Final 

Approval. 

a. The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case 

There can be no reasonable dispute that Plaintiffs developed a strong case on the merits. However, 

the Parties disputed which disability access standard applied to the Stadium (the 2010 Americans with 

Disabilities Act Standards (“2010 ADAS”) or the 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act Access Guidelines 

(“1991 ADAAG”). This issue involved novel and difficult questions of law, as well as complex factual 

disputes regarding groundbreaking at the site and the start of construction. The resolution of these legal 

and factual issues was therefore uncertain. If Plaintiffs had lost on this issue, they would not have been 

able to seek relief regarding many access barriers that were covered by the 2010 ADAS, but not by the 

older and more lenient 1991 ADAAG. As this Court has stated, “legal uncertainty favors approval.” In re 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 25 of 31
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

20 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

Yahoo Mail Litig., Nos. 13-CV-4980-LHK, 13-CV-4989-LHK, 13-CV-5326-LHK, 13-CV-5388-LHK, 

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115056, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016); see also, Dickey v. Advanced Micro 

Devices, Inc., No. 15-cv-04922-HSG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30440, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Feb 21, 2020) 

(“Generally, unless the settlement is clearly inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable to 

lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain results.”) (quoting Ching v. Siemens Indus., Inc., No. 3:11-

cv-04838-MEJ, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89002, at *13 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2014)). In contrast, pursuant to 

the Settlement it is guaranteed that all areas of the Stadium will be brought into substantial compliance with 

the 2010 ADAS. Accordingly, this factor favors final approval.

b. The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial 

This was the first disability access case in which a money damages class was certified 

subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). 

Defendants argued vigorously against certification of a damages class, contending that certification of 

such a class was precluded by the allegedly individualized questions raised by establishing entitlement 

to money damages under California Civil Code Section 55.56. Post Dukes, the Ninth Circuit has not 

yet addressed the propriety of class certification of a disability access case for money damages under 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(3). Thus, there was a significant risk that Plaintiffs would not be able to 

maintain class status through trial with respect to the damages class, and/or that there would be a risk 

of decertification on appeal. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approving the class settlement. 

c. The Extent of Discovery Completed and the Stage of the Proceedings 

Courts require the parties to have conducted sufficient discovery to be able to make an 

informed decision about the value and risks of the action and come to a fair settlement. Linney v. 

Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998). The purpose of the Ninth Circuit’s 

consideration of the extent of the parties’ discovery is to ensure that counsel negotiating the pending 

settlement were fully informed of the facts and issues at stake. Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 967 (affirming 

the district court’s finding that discovery had been extensive where the court “could find that counsel 

had a good grasp on the merits of their case before settlement talks began”); Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027 

(affirming the district court’s approval of class settlement where “[t]here [was] no evidence to suggest 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 26 of 31
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

21 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

that the settlement was negotiated in haste or in the absence of information illuminating the value of 

plaintiffs’ claims”). 

As this Court found when preliminarily approving the Settlement, “substantial evaluation of the 

merits, through extensive litigation, including motion practice, [and] fact and expert discovery over the 

three years since filing, has been conducted such that Counsel for the Parties are able to reasonably 

evaluate their respective positions.” Preliminary Approval Order (ECF 392 ¶ 4). Indeed, at the time of 

settlement the Parties had completed fact and expert discovery, and were in the process of preparing 

for trial. These and other proceedings in the case produced a thorough pre-settlement vetting of the 

factual and legal bases for Plaintiffs’ claims and the key defenses thereto. Thus, by the time the Parties 

reached a settlement, the litigation had proceeded to a point in which the Parties had a clear view of the 

strengths and weaknesses of their cases and were able to make a well-informed decision about 

settlement. Id. ¶ 41. 

In In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, this Court found that this factor favored final 

approval where the parties “engaged in extensive motion practice, including fifteen discovery 

motions,” reached a settlement after class-certification discovery and briefing, and had completed fact 

and expert discovery, including the review of 3.8 million pages of documents. 327 F.R.D. at 320. 

While the parties took and defended far more depositions in In re Anthem than in this case, the overall 

scope of discovery and the stage of proceedings prior to settlement was similar. Accordingly, this 

factor further supports final approval. 

d. The Experience and Views of Counsel 

Courts must also consider the experience and views of counsel regarding the settlement. See 

Churchill Vill., L.L.C., 361 F.3d at 576-77. “Parties represented by competent counsel are better 

positioned than courts to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome in 

litigation.’” See Toys “R” Us, 295 F.R.D. at 455 (quoting In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 

378 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

Class Counsel have extensive experience litigating and settling systemic disability access and 

other complex class actions. Wallace Decl. ¶ 44. Under applicable law, the fact that qualified and 

well-informed counsel endorse the proposed settlement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate weighs 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 27 of 31
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

22 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

in favor of approval. See, e.g., In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. at 320; Koller v. Med 

Foods, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-2400-RS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231901, at *10-11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 

2018); Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. 3:11-cv-03082-LB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19275, at 

*15-16 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016). 

e. The Presence of a Governmental Participant 

In determining the fairness of a settlement, the Court should consider whether the proposed 

settlement includes a governmental participant. Although the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara 

Stadium Authority are government entities and Defendants herein, the Ninth Circuit in Hanlon was 

referring to settlements in which the government was involved as a prosecutor. See Johnson v. Shaffer, 

No. 2:12-cv-1059-KJM-ACP, 2016 WL 3027744, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (citing Hanlon, 150 

F.3d at 1026); Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing SEC 

approval of settlement as weighing in favor of approval, where SEC was prosecuting a parallel action). 

Accordingly, this factor weighs neither for nor against final approval of the Settlement Agreement. 

See, e.g., In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig., No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK, 2016 WL 6841655, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2016) (where there is no governmental participant, that factor is “irrelevant”). 

f. The Reaction of the Class Members to the Proposed Settlement 

In determining the fairness of a settlement, the Court should consider class member objections 

to the settlement. The absence of a large number of objections to a proposed settlement raises a strong 

presumption that the terms of the agreement are fair. See, e.g., Churchill Vill., L.L.C., 361 F.3d at 577 

(approving a settlement where “only 45 of the approximately 90,000 [.005 percent] notified class 

members objected to the settlement”); In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. at 321; Nat’l 

Rural Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 529. As discussed, as of the date of this submission, no one 

has objected to the proposed Settlement. Wallace Decl. ¶ 8. 

Moreover, as of the date of this submission, no class member has requested to opt out of the 

proposed Settlement. Id. Finally, notice was mailed and/or emailed to 5,779 potential members of the 

Damages Class. Id. ¶ 9. As of the date of this submission, 3,866 class members have submitted Claim 

Forms. The absence of opts outs, and the high claims rate, also indicate a favorable reaction by the 

class members to the proposed settlement, and provide further support for final approval. See, e.g., 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 28 of 31
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

23 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

Perkins v. Linkedin Corp., No. 5:13-cv-04303-LHK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18649, at *9 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 16, 2016) (“low rates of objections and opt-outs are ‘indicia of the approval of the class’”) 

(citation omitted); Dickey, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30440, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2020) (“[t]he 

27.4% claims rate is an excellent result in the Court’s experience” that supports final approval) (citing 

In re TracFone Unlimited Serv. Plan Litig., 112 F. Supp. 3d 993, 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). For these 

reasons, this factor also favors approval. 

B. The Proposed Service Awards Should Be Approved 

As discussed in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Service Awards (ECF No. 394) and the accompanying 

declarations, Plaintiffs request that this Court approve service awards to Class Representatives Abdul 

Nevarez, Priscilla Nevarez, and Sebastian DeFrancesco for their important and substantial 

contributions to the Plaintiff Classes with respect to both the litigation and settlement of this matter. 

As of the date of this submission, no one has objected to the proposed service awards. Wallace Decl. ¶ 

8. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in their papers, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court 

grant the requested awards. 

C. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Litigation Expenses Should 

Be Approved 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses, and the 

points and authorities in support of their request, are the subject of separate submissions to the Court. 

In accordance with Section XIV.A of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs seek an award of reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in the amount of $13,457,152.40.

As of the date of this submission, no class member has objected to the proposed award of 

attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses since the Class Notice was disseminated. Wallace Decl. 

¶ 8. As explained in Plaintiffs’ Motion Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses, the relief 

obtained here constitutes a truly “excellent result” for the class and fully supports the requested award. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the requested amount in full.

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court (1) grant final 

approval of the Settlement Agreement; and (2) retain jurisdiction over the litigation and the Parties 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 29 of 31
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

24 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

throughout the term of the Settlement Agreement. By separate motions files concurrently herewith, 

Plaintiffs also request that the Court grant service awards of $5,000 to each of the three Class 

Representatives, and award Class Counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses in 

the amount of $13,457,152.40, as set forth in the Settlement. 

Dated: May 25, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 

/s/ Guy B. Wallace 

Guy B. Wallace 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Classes 

 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 30 of 31
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

25 

PLS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK) 783355.12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court 

for the United States District Court, Northern District of California, by using the Court’s CM/ECF 

system on May 25, 2020. 

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be 

accomplished by the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

Dated: May 25, 2020 

/s/ Guy B. Wallace 

Guy B. Wallace 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 395 Filed 05/25/20 Page 31 of 31