4842 40496777.1 -3199-9609.4

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jane V.; John A.; John E.; Jane F.; John D.; 

John M.; Jane N.; and John W.; individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Motel 6 Operating L.P., a limited 

partnership; G6 Hospitality LLC, a limited 

liability company, dba Motel 6; and Does 1-

10,

Defendants.

No.: 2:18-cv-00242-DGC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiffs Jane V.; John A.; John E.; Jane F.; John D.; John M.; Jane N.; and John 

W. and Defendants Motel 6 Operating L.P. and G6 Hospitality LLC have entered into a 

Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. The Parties have filed a

Joint Motion for an Order (1) Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, 

(2) Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class, (3) Appointing Class Representatives and 

Class Counsel, (4) Approving Notice Plan, and (5) Setting Final Approval Hearing.

Having reviewed the Settlement Agreement, the Joint Motion and the pleadings 

and other papers on file in this action, the Court finds that the Joint Motion should be 

GRANTED and that this Order should be entered. The Court gives its preliminary 

approval to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, subject to a Final Approval Hearing 

to be held for the purpose of deciding whether to grant final approval to the settlement.
- 2 -

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS 

FOLLOWS:

DEFINITIONS

1. For purposes of this Order, the Definitions in Section III of the Settlement 

Agreement shall apply.

RULE 23(a)

2. The Court finds that each of the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) is satisfied.

a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 

Defendants stipulate that the Primary Class contains thousands of members, and 

common sense indicates that Classes 2 and 3 are sufficiently numerous. See 

Newberg on Class Actions § 3.3 (4th ed.2002) (where “the exact size of the class is 

unknown, but general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large, the 

numerosity requirement is satisfied”).

b. There are numerous questions of law or fact common to the class. 

All class members are individuals whose Guest Information was provided to 

Federal Immigration Authorities or who were questioned or placed in immigration 

removal proceedings as a result of Guest Information being provided to Federal 

Immigration Authorities.

c. The claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of 

the class. Defendants’ records indicate that six Plaintiffs are members of the 

Primary Class. All but one Plaintiff was arrested at a Motel 6 property, placed in 

removal proceedings, and is either a Primary Class member or shared a room at 

Motel 6 with a Primary Class member at the time of his or her arrest. They are 

thus members of Class 3. The remaining proposed class representative was 

interrogated by Federal Immigration Authorities at a Motel 6 property while 

sharing a room with a Primary Class member, but was not placed in removal 

proceedings. She is thus a member of Class 2.
- 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

d. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the class. Plaintiffs do not have interests that conflict with the proposed 

Settlement Class. Plaintiffs allege that they, like all Class Members, contracted for 

hospitality services and had their Guest Information disclosed to Federal 

Immigration Authorities or were interrogated and/or placed in removal procedures 

as a result of Guest Information being disclosed to Federal Immigration 

Authorities. Plaintiffs’ counsel also satisfies the adequacy requirement, as is 

evidenced by their thorough investigation, detailed Complaint, and extensive work 

in mediating and negotiating the proposed Settlement. Plaintiffs’ counsel has 

numerous years’ experience, and demonstrated success, in bringing class action 

claims. MALDEF, one of Plaintiffs’ counsel, is a longstanding non-profit whose 

mission is to provide legal services to individuals such as Plaintiffs and members 

of the Settlement Class. Proposed Class Counsel are competent and qualified and 

will more than adequately protect the Class’ interests.

RULE 23(b)

3. For purposes of equitable and monetary relief under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), respectively, the classes represented by Plaintiffs are 

defined as follows:

a. A Primary Class, consisting of all persons who stayed at an Operated 

Location between February 1, 2017, and November 2, 2018, and whose 

Guest Information was provided to Federal Immigration Authorities by 

Defendants’ employees, except those who file a timely request to opt-out of 

the monetary damages provisions. 

b. Class 2, consisting of all persons who are not members of Class 3 who were 

questioned and/or interrogated by Federal Immigration Authorities at an 

Operated Location as a result of a Primary Class Member’s Guest 

Information being provided to Federal Immigration Authorities, except 
- 4 -

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

those who file a timely request to opt-out of the monetary damages 

provisions. 

c. Class 3, consisting of all persons who were placed in immigration removal 

proceedings in connection with their encounter with Federal Immigration 

Authorities at an Operated Location as a result of a Primary Class Member’s 

Guest Information being provided to Federal Immigration Authorities, 

except those who file a timely request to opt-out of the monetary damages 

provisions. 

4. For purposes of the injunctive relief set forth in the proposed settlement, 

Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Primary 

Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs’ request for monetary relief in this case is 

“incidental” to the Complaint’s primary claims for injunctive relief. Wal-Mart Store, Inc. 

v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Plaintiffs have obtained an agreement by Defendants 

to stop the conduct at issue and institute policies and procedures for addressing requests 

from Federal Immigration Authorities to prevent the conduct alleged in the complaint 

from reoccurring and to enable Motel 6 guests to raise concerns if they believe the alleged 

conduct has recurred, as memorialized in the Agreement. Further, claims by Class 

Members for monetary relief are secondary in that the compensation flows directly out of 

Defendants’ conduct that affected all class members.

5. For purposes of the monetary relief set forth in the proposed settlement,1 the 

questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over questions affecting only 

individual members. Further, damages can be measured with a common methodology 

 1 The Agreement provides that: (1) Defendants will pay $50 in damages to each member 

of the Primary Class who is not also a member of either Class 2 or Class 3 and makes a 

legitimate claim in the determination of the Claims Administrator, up to a class-wide total 

of $1,000,000; (2) Defendants will pay $1000 in damages to each member of Class 2 who 

makes a legitimate claim in the determination of the Claims Administrator, up to a 

subclass-wide total of $1,000,000; and (3) Defendants will pay each member of Class 3 

who makes a legitimate claim in the determination of the Claims Administrator an amount 

in damages of at least $7,500 to be determined by the Claims Administrator in 

consultation with Class Counsel, up to a class-wide total of $5,600,000.
- 5 -

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

that is directly connected to the alleged wrong as described in the Agreement. See 

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 34–38 (2013).

6. Class treatment is also the superior means to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims. 

Resolving all claims in one proceeding will preserve efficiency for the parties and judicial 

economy. See Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 338-339 (1980). In 

addition, continued litigation without class certification could potentially “dwarf potential 

recovery.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1023.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

7. At this preliminary approval stage, a final analysis of the settlement’s merits 

is not required. Instead, a more detailed assessment is reserved for final approval after 

class notice has been sent and class members have had the opportunity to object to, or to 

opt-out of the monetary damages provision of, the settlement. See Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 

23.165[3] (3d ed. 2005). Accordingly, “[p]reliminary approval of a settlement and notice 

to the proposed class is appropriate [i]f [1] the proposed settlement appears to be the 

product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations, [2] has no obvious deficiencies, 

[3] does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of 

the class, and [4] falls with[in] the range of possible approval[.]” Vasquez v. Coast Valley 

Roofing, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1125 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citation and internal 

quotations omitted); accord Horton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 266 F.R.D. 360, 363 (D. Ariz. 

2009) (Campbell, J.). All of the above factors are amply satisfied here and the terms are 

fair. All factors required for issuing notice under the amendments to Rule 23(e) effective 

December 1, 2018 are also satisfied here.

8. The Parties’ negotiations were also vigorous and contested, with both 

Parties represented by experienced counsel. The Parties engaged in a series of informal, 

arm’s length discussions over a period of months before enlisting the services of an 

independent, professional mediator. A full-day mediation resulted in a tentative 

settlement Agreement. These lengthy negotiations before a third party demonstrate that 

the settlement was not collusive. See, e.g., Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., No. C-06-
- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5428 MHP, 2007 WL 3225466, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007) (“The assistance of an 

experienced mediator in the settlement process confirms that the settlement is noncollusive.”). The Agreement does not give preferential treatment to the Class 

Representatives.

CONDITIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION

9. The Court conditionally certifies for settlement purposes the following class 

and subclasses of plaintiffs:

10. A Primary Class, consisting of all persons who stayed at an Operated 

Location between February 1, 2017, and November 2, 2018, and whose Guest Information 

was provided to Federal Immigration Authorities by Defendants’ employees, except those 

who file a timely request to opt-out of the monetary damages provisions.

11. Class 2, consisting of all persons who are not members of Class 3 who were 

questioned and/or interrogated by Federal Immigration Authorities at an Operated 

Location as a result of a Primary Class Member’s Guest Information being provided to 

Federal Immigration Authorities, except those who file a timely request to opt-out of the 

monetary damages provisions.

12. Class 3, consisting of all persons who were placed in immigration removal 

proceedings in connection with their encounter with Federal Immigration Authorities at an 

Operated Location as a result of a Primary Class Member’s Guest Information being 

provided to Federal Immigration Authorities, except those who file a timely request to 

opt-out of the monetary damages provisions.

13. Jane V.; John A.; John E.; John D.; John M.; and John W. are designated as 

class representatives of the Primary Class. Jane F. is designated as class representative of 

Class 2. Jane V.; John A.; John E.; John D.; John M.; Jane N.; and John W. are designated 

as class representatives of Class 3.

14. MALDEF and the Ortega Law Firm are appointed as counsel to the class.
- 7 -

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. The Court appoints Martin F. Scheinman, Esq. to serve as the Settlement 

Administrator to perform the tasks described, and be compensated as set forth, in the 

Settlement Agreement.

16. The Court appoints Arden Claims Service in Port Washington, New York to 

serve as the Claims Administrator to perform the tasks described, and be compensated as 

set forth, in the Settlement Agreement.

NOTICE

17. The Claims Administrator shall by ________________ cause notice to be 

mailed in the name of the clerk by first class mail, postage prepaid, to all class members 

who can be identified by the means described in the Settlement Agreement. The Notice 

shall be substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B, and be sent in both English and 

Spanish.

18. In addition, the Class Counsel shall cause notice of the class settlement to be 

published substantially in the form attached as Exhibit C on MALDEF’s Facebook and 

Twitter accounts and the Claims Administrator shall cause notice of the class settlement to 

be published substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D on the website to be 

established by the Claims Administrator. The notice shall be posted in both English and 

Spanish.

19. The Court finds that notice in the manner set forth herein is reasonable and 

constitutes due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice, is 

the best practicable notice, and is reasonably calculated to apprise members of the Primary 

Class of the pendency of this action and of their right to object or to exclude themselves 

from the monetary portions of this settlement.

REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION AND CLAIM FORMS

20. Any member of the Settlement Class who wishes to be excluded from the 

settlement must comply with the terms set forth in Exhibit D and incorporate the language 

set forth in Section XII.F.1.b.i of Exhibit A and submit a request for exclusion received 

online by the Claims Administrator or postmarked no later than _________________.
- 8 -

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. Any Member of the Settlement Class who submits a request for exclusion 

and wishes to rescind that request must do so by _________. The request to rescind the 

request for exclusion must comply with the terms set forth in Exhibit D, and incorporate 

the language set forth Section XII.F.1.c.i of Exhibit A.

22. Potential Class Members who seek monetary damages must complete a 

claim form substantially in the form attached as Exhibit E and cause it to be filed with the 

Claims Administrator by ____________________. The claim form must be postmarked 

or submitted online on or before such date in order to be considered timely. Failure to file 

a timely claim form, for any reason whatsoever, shall bar the potential Class Member 

from having his or her claim considered and from receiving monetary damages from the 

Settlement Account. Claims may be filed by deceased claimants through representatives 

of their estate if appropriate documentation is provided.

23. The Claims Administrator shall make the determination as to whether a 

claim form is complete. If it is not complete, the Claims Administrator shall request 

additional information from the claimant, if it appears that such additional information 

would complete the Claim Form. Such requests for information shall be in writing and 

shall specify the information necessary to complete the claim form. The requests for 

information will be sent via first class mail, printed in English and Spanish, and inform 

the claimant that a response must be returned no later than forty-five (45) days from the 

date the request for information was mailed. The claimant must provide the requested 

information, signed under penalty of perjury, to the Claims Administrator by mail with a 

postmark no later than forty-five (45) days from the date of the mailed request for 

information. Such additional information shall be considered part of the original claim 

form and will relate back to the original filing date. The failure of a claimant to timely 

respond to the request for information may result in the denial of the claim.

24. For claims received after the filing deadline, the Claims Administrator shall 

notify late-filing claimants that their claims are untimely and that they are not eligible for 

any monetary award. The Claims Administrator shall also inform late-filing claimants 
- 9 -

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

that they may seek a review of the determination that they filed untimely by requesting the 

Claims Administrator to reconsider its determination. The Claims Administrator may 

reverse its determination that a claim was not timely filed only if the claimant proves that 

(1) the claim form was filed on or before the filing deadline and that the untimeliness 

determination is erroneous; or (2) that he or she could not timely complete the claim form 

due to exceptional circumstances, which includes deportation, change of address, or other 

events that the Claim Administrator may consider.

APPEALS OF CLAIMS ELIGIBILITY

25. Within ninety (90) days of the close of the claims filing period, all ineligible 

claimants shall receive written notice of their ineligibility for monetary damages. Any 

claimants wishing to seek review of their ineligibility determinations must do so by 

returning a written request for review to the Claims Administrator by mail with a 

postmark no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of the notice of claim 

ineligibility. Failure to file a timely request for review shall bar a claimant from 

challenging a determination of ineligibility.

26. The Claims Administrator shall resolve the requests for review based on the 

written requests for review and any other documentation or written information submitted 

by the claimant, or deemed necessary by the Claims Administrator. The Claims 

Administrator may seek further written information from the claimant as to the basis of 

their request and may consider the written arguments of Class Counsel or Defendants.

27. The Claims Administrator shall attempt to expeditiously resolve any 

requests for review within sixty (60) days after the filing of the request for review. The 

Claims Administrator's decisions shall be communicated to the claimant in writing and 

shall be binding and non-appealable.

OBJECTIONS

28. Class Members objecting to the terms of the Agreement must submit them 

online or postmarked to the Claims Administrator by ________. The written objection 

must include (1) a detailed statement with specificity of the reasons for the objection; (2) 
- 10 -

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

the objecting Class Member’s name, address, and telephone number; (3) the date and 

location of the Operated Location at which the objecting Class Member stayed; (4) the 

circumstances (if any) in which the Class Member was contacted by Federal Immigration 

Authorities and/or placed in removal proceedings; (5) whether the objection applies only 

to the objector, to a specific subset of the class, or to the entire class; and (6) the objecting 

Class Member’s signature.

29. The Claims Administrator will record the date of receipt of the objection 

and forward it to both Class Counsel and Defendants within two (2) business days 

following receipt. The Claims Administrator will also file the original objections with the 

Clerk of the Court no later than five (5) days prior to the scheduled Final Approval 

Hearing date. The Claims Administrator shall retain copies of all written objections until 

such time as it has completed its duties and responsibilities under this Agreement.

FINAL HEARING

30. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on ________________ at 

_______________ for the purpose of determining whether the proposed settlement is fair, 

reasonable and adequate and should be finally approved by the Court, and for ruling on 

the Parties’ request that Defendants shall pay to MALDEF $300,000 for litigation-related 

attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs.

31. The Parties shall file with the Court their motion for final settlement 

approval on a date that is no later than 21 days before the date of the Final Approval 

Hearing. 

32. The Parties will file with the Court a reply brief in support of Final 

Approval that responds to any objections no later than 7 days before the date of the Final 

Approval Hearing.

33. Objectors who intend to appear at the Final Approval Hearing will file with 

the Court and mail to the Parties a Notice of Intent to Appear that complies with the terms 

set forth in Exhibit D no later than 7 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
- 11 -

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

34. The Court reserves the right to adjourn or to continue the Final Approval 

Hearing, or any further adjournment or continuance thereof, without further notice other 

than announcement at the Final Approval Hearing or at any adjournment or continuance 

thereof; and to approve the settlement with modifications, if any, consented to by Class 

Counsel and Defendants without further notice.

35. All pretrial proceedings and deadlines in this lawsuit are stayed and 

suspended until further order of this Court.

DATED this ____ day of ______________, 2018.

______________________________________

David G. Campbell, United States District Judge