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 

Sarah Jordan, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Freedom National Insurance Services 

Incorporated, 

Defendant.

No. CV-16-00362-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 

 Before the Court are the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class 

Settlement Agreement and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (Docs. 47, 

48.) On July 13, 2017, the above-captioned case came on for a Final Approval 

Hearing on the proposed class action settlement. 

In March 2017, after arms-length negotiations, Plaintiff and Defendant 

entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Agreement”), which is subject to review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 

On March 29, 2017, the Parties filed the Agreement, together with their Joint Motion 

for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 

the “Preliminary Approval Motion”). (Doc. 43.) 

On April 4, 2017, upon consideration of the Preliminary Approval Motion and 

the record, the Court entered an Order Conditionally Granting Preliminary Approval 

of Settlement (“Preliminary Approval Order”). Pursuant to the Preliminary 

Case 2:16-cv-00362-DLR Document 52 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

Approval Order, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement 

agreement, approved the form of the notice to class members, and set the date and 

time of the Fairness Hearing. 

On April 5, 2017, within ten days of filing the proposed settlement with the 

Court, Defendant complied with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1715. (Doc. 50.) 

On July 12, 2017, the Parties filed their Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement (“Final Approval Motion”) and Class Counsel filed a motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs (“Fee Motion”). (Docs. 47, 48.) 

On July 13, 2017, a Final Fairness Hearing was held pursuant to Rule 23 to 

determine whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, 

adequate, and in the best interest of the Class Members and should be fully and 

finally approved by the Court. The Court has read and considered the Agreement, 

Final Approval Motion, Fee Motion, and the record as a whole (all capitalized terms 

used herein have the meanings defined herein and/or in the Agreement). 

The Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of 

law, and hereby orders as follows: 

I. Jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 

Lawsuit and over all settling parties hereto. 

II. Class Notice. Class action notices and claim forms were mailed to all 

of the Class Members. The form and method for notifying the Class Members of the 

settlement and its terms and conditions satisfied the requirements of Rule 

23(c)(2)(B) and due process, and constituted the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances. The Court finds that the proposed notice was clearly designed to 

advise the Class Members of their rights. 

III. Fairness. The Court finds that the settlement of the Lawsuit, on the 

terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement and as set forth below, is in all 

respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the 

Class Members, especially in light of the benefits to the Class Members; the strength 

Case 2:16-cv-00362-DLR Document 52 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

of the Plaintiff’s alleged claims; the strength of Defendant’s alleged defenses; the 

complexity, expense, and probable duration of further litigation; the risk and delay 

inherent in possible appeals; the risk of collecting any judgment obtained on behalf 

of the Class; the limited amount of any potential total recovery for the Class; and the 

fact that Defendant is paying the maximum statutory damages allowed by law for an 

alleged violation that is not egregious. 

IV. Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The Court has reviewed the Fee Motion, 

and all documents submitted in support thereof, including Class Counsel’s itemized 

time sheets and expenses and its affidavit regarding the attorneys and paralegals for 

whom the Fee Motion seeks reimbursement. The Court finds that the 124.3 hours of 

work performed by attorneys and the 11.8 hours of work performed by paralegals 

were reasonably spent on this matter. The Court further finds that the hourly rates 

requested by Class Counsel ($400/hour for partner Russell S. Thompson IV; 

$400/hour for attorney Joseph Panvini; $350/hour for attorney David N. McDevitt; 

$250/hour for attorney Michael Rolland; $250/hour for attorney Ryan Pittman; 

$150/hour for paralegal Tremain Davis; $150/hour for paralegal Zac Landis; 

$150/hour for Chris Bruner) are reasonable, given the experience, reputation and 

ability of those for whom the rates are sought, the outcome of the representation, the 

customary fees charged, and the novelty or difficulty of the issued presented in this 

matter. The Court further finds that the expenses for which reimbursement is sought 

were reasonably and necessarily incurred. 

V. Approval of Terms. The Agreement, which is on file in this case shall 

be deemed incorporated herein, and the proposed settlement set forth in the 

Agreement is finally approved and shall be consummated in accordance with the 

terms and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by this Court. 

The material terms of the Settlement include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Case 2:16-cv-00362-DLR Document 52 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

 Defendant shall and has established a class settlement fund 

(“Settlement Fund”) in the amount of $85,000.00 to consummate this 

settlement; 

 Plaintiff shall be entitled to $2,500.00 in compensation of her service to 

the Class from the Settlement Fund; 

 Class Counsel shall be entitled to a total of $35,000.00 in attorneys’ 

fees and litigation expenses, which the Court finds to be a reasonable 

fee in relation to the work expended, from the Settlement Fund; 

 The Administrator shall receive a total of $20,000 from the Settlement 

Fund for the cost of administering notice and processing claims; and 

 The Administrator shall mail checks to the 6,788 of 6,941 class 

members whose addresses were not previously determined to be 

undeliverable in the amount of $4.05, representing each such person’s 

pro rata share of the balance of the Settlement Fund. 

VI. Objections and Exclusions. The Class Members were given a fair and 

reasonable opportunity to object to the settlement. No Class Member objected to the 

settlement. The Class Members who made valid and timely requests for exclusion 

are excluded from the class and settlement and are not bound by this Order. No 

other Class Member is excluded. This order is binding on all Class Members. 

VII. Release of Claims and Dismissal of Lawsuit. The Releases set forth 

in the Agreement are hereby approved. Pursuant to the Releases contained in the 

Agreement, the Released Claims are compromised, settled, released, discharged, and 

dismissed with prejudice by virtue of these proceedings and this Order. Plaintiff, the 

Class Members, and all of their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, 

and any person or entity acting for, on behalf of, or for the benefit of any such 

persons are hereby permanently enjoined from suing upon, pursuing, or demanding 

any legal or equitable relief for any of the Released Claims, save and except for the 

compensation set forth above. 

Case 2:16-cv-00362-DLR Document 52 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

This Order, the Agreement, and the existence and nature of the Settlement are 

not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by Defendant of any liability or 

wrongdoing in this or in any other proceeding. 

 The Court hereby retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the 

Parties and all matters relating to the Lawsuit and/or Agreement, including the 

administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation, enforcement, and 

consummation of the settlement and this Order. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Final Approval Motion and Fee Motion (Docs. 47, 

48) are GRANTED as set forth in this Order. This action is hereby dismissed with 

prejudice as to all other issues and as to all parties and claims. The Clerk is directed 

to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 20th day of July, 2017. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00362-DLR Document 52 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 5