law offices of ronald a. marron ronald a. marron … · [email protected] michael t....
TRANSCRIPT
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
LAW OFFICES OFRONALD A. MARRON RONALD A. MARRON (SBN 175650) [email protected] MICHAEL T. HOUCHIN (SBN 305541) [email protected] LILACH HALPERIN (SBN 323202) [email protected] 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, California 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL GRAVES, KEITH GREN,
and MICHAEL WHEALEN, on behalf
of themselves, all others similarly
situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
CLASS ACTION
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
Date: February 24, 2020
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Ctrm: 8D
Judge: Hon. Christina A. Snyder
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2236
1 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on February 24, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., or
as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 8D of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California located at 350 W. First
Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, before the Honorable Christina A. Snyder,
presiding, Plaintiffs Michael Graves, Keith Gren, and Michael Whealen
(“Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e), for an Order Granting Final Approval of a Class Action
Settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant United Industries Corporation
(“UIC”).
This Unopposed Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, Plaintiffs’
concurrently-filed Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, the
concurrently-filed Declaration of Ronald A. Marron in Support of the Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Exhibit 1 attached
thereto, the Declaration of Gajan Retnasaba in Support of the Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Exhibits A through E attached
thereto, all prior pleadings and proceedings in this matter, and all other evidence
and written and oral argument that will be submitted in support of the Motion.
DATED: January 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ronald A. Marron
RONALD A. MARRON
LAW OFFICES OF
RONALD A. MARRON
RONALD A. MARRON
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2237
2 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Michael T. Houchin
Lilach Halperin
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, California 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2238
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC RONALD A. MARRON (SBN 175650) [email protected] MICHAEL T. HOUCHIN (SBN 305541) [email protected] LILACH HALPERIN (SBN 323202) [email protected] 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL GRAVES, KEITH GREN,
and MICHAEL WHEALEN, on behalf
of themselves, all others similarly
situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
CLASS ACTION
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
Date: February 24, 2020
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Ctrm: 8D
Judge: Hon. Christina A. Snyder REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:2239
i Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
I. THE LITIGATION, SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS, AND
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL .......................................................................... 2
II. NOTICE HAS BEEN FULLY DISSEMINATED TO THE CLASS. .............. 5
A. Publication Notice ......................................................................................... 6
B. Social Media Notice ...................................................................................... 6
C. Press Release ................................................................................................. 7
D. Settlement Website, Email, and Phone Line ................................................. 7
E. CAFA Notice ................................................................................................. 8
III. CLAIMS RATE, OPT-OUTS, AND OBJECTIONS ........................................ 8
IV. THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD RECEIVE FINAL APPROVAL. .................. 9
A. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel Have Adequately Represented the Class. .....11
B. The Settlement was Negotiated at Arm’s Length. ......................................13
C. The Relief Provided to the Class is Adequate. ............................................13
1. The Costs, Risks, and Delay of Trial and Appeal Support Final
Approval. ..........................................................................................................16
2. The Proposed Method of Distribution is Effective. .............................17
3. The Requested Attorneys’ Fees and Incentive Awards are Fair and
Reasonable. ......................................................................................................18
4. There Are No Side Agreements at Issue. .............................................18
D. The Proposed Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably Relative to Each
Other. ....................................................................................................................19
E. The Absence of Governmental Participation Supports Approval. ..............19
F. The Reaction of the Class Members to the Proposed Settlement Has Been
Favorable. .............................................................................................................19
V. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS SHOULD BE CERTIFIED. ......20
A. The Class Satisfies Rule 23(a). ...................................................................20
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:2240
ii Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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. Numerosity. ..........................................................................................20
2. Commonality. ......................................................................................21
3. Typicality. ............................................................................................22
4. Adequacy. ............................................................................................22
B. The Class Satisfies Rule 23(b)(3)................................................................23
1. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate. ...........................23
2. A Class Action Is the Superior Mechanism for Adjudicating this
Dispute. ............................................................................................................25
VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................25
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:2241
iii Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
521 U.S. 591 (1997) ...................................................................................... 20, 23
Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.,
158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1994) .........................................................................21
Balderas v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC,
2014 WL 3610945 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2014) .....................................................15
Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec.,
361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................10
Curtis-Bauer v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,
2008 WL 4667090 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008) .....................................................16
Downey Surgical Clinic, Inc. v. Optuminsight, Inc.,
2016 WL 5938722 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2016) ....................................................15
Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
705 F. Supp. 2d 231 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) .................................................................20
Garcia v. Pancho Villa's of Huntington Village, Inc.,
2012 WL 1843785 (E.D. N.Y. 2012) .................................................................... 6
Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
2010 WL 1687832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) ....................................................19
Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon,
457 U.S. 147 (1982). ............................................................................................22
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................ 10, 11, 23
In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .........................................................................25
In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
2019 WL 3290770 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2019) ....................................................10
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:2242
iv Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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 re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,
926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ...............................................................................24
In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000) .......................................................................11
In re Netflix Privacy Litig.,
2013 WL 1120801 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013) ............................................ 16, 19
In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ........................................................ 12, 20
In re Syncor ERISA Litig.,
516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................... 9
In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, &
Prod. Liab. Litig., 2013 WL 3224585 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) ......................17
LaGarde v. Support.com, Inc.,
2013 WL 1283325 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ....................................................19
Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC,
2012 WL 1932283 (S.D. Cal. 2012) ...................................................................... 6
Ma v. Covidien Holding, Inc.,
2014 WL 360196 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) ........................................................15
Mollicone v. Universal Handicraft,
2018 WL 3913689 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2018) .....................................................18
Nat'l Rural Telecommunications Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................. 13, 20
Rawa v. Monsanto Co.,
2018 WL 2389040 (E.D. Mo. May 25, 2018) .....................................................17
Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp.,
563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ 12, 16
Singer v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
2010 WL 2196104 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2010)........................................................18
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:2243
v Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Slaven v. BP Am., Inc.,
190 F.R.D. 649 (C.D. Cal. 2000) .........................................................................21
Stovall-Gusman v. W.W. Granger, Inc.,
2015 WL 3776765 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2015) .....................................................14
Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc.,
667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) .................................................................................25
Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc.,
266 F.R.D. 482 (E.D. Cal. 2010) .........................................................................18
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
564 U.S. 338 (2011) .............................................................................................21
Weeks v. Kellogg Co.,
2013 WL 6531177 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2013) ....................................................18
Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists,
2011 WL 1230826 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011) .......................................................18
Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,
2019 WL 1966112 (E.D. Wash. May 2, 2019) ...............................................9, 10
Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.,
253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................23
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1715 ........................................................................................................ 8
Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 407.010 ......................................................................................... 3
Other Authorities
4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:48 (5th ed.) ..................................................11
4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:49 (5th ed.) ...................................................12
4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:50 (5th ed.) ..................................................13
4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:51 (5th ed.) ...................................................14
4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:53 (5th ed.) ..................................................17
4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:56 (5th ed.) ..................................................19
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:2244
vi Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)...................................................................................... 5, 20, 23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ............................................................................................20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ............................................................................................21
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ............................................................................................22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ............................................................................................22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) ................................................................................................23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ................................................................................... 2, 5, 23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ................................................................................... 2, 9, 10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(B) ......................................................................................13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C) ......................................................................................14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(D) ......................................................................................19
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(3) ............................................................................................18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) ................................................................................................11
Fed. R. Civ. P.. 23(e)(2)(A) .....................................................................................11
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:2245
1 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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. INTRODUCTION
On September 18, 2019, this Court entered an Order preliminarily approving
a Class Action Settlement (“Settlement”) between Plaintiffs Michael Graves, Keith
Gren, and Michael Whealen (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of the Class, and Defendant
United Industries Corporation (“Defendant” or “UIC”) (ECF No. 77). The Parties
reached the Settlement after protracted discussions over the course of several
months. The Settlement is memorialized in the Class Action Settlement
(“Agreement”) filed with this Court on August 19, 2019 (ECF No. 71-3), and
resolves all claims against Defendant in the litigation.1
The Settlement preliminarily approved by this Court will provide meaningful
monetary and other equitable relief to an estimated 67,976 class members who have
submitted validated claims as part of the claims process.2 See Declaration of Gajan
Retnasaba filed concurrently herewith (“Retnasaba Decl.”), ¶¶ 17-18. Although
Defendant continues to deny Plaintiffs’ allegations, it has agreed under the
Agreement to pay $2,500,000 into a settlement fund, which will be used to pay class
members’ claims. Agreement at § 7.4. In addition, if, with respect to any Product
manufactured by UIC after June 1, 2020, UIC elects to state on its Product label that
such Product "Makes Up to __ Gallons" of end-use herbicide, Defendant will include
on such labeling, mixing directions that are acceptable to EPA-equivalent agencies
of the State(s) in which the Product is registered for sale (such acceptability being
deemed by virtue of such agency(ies) registration of such Product). 3 Agreement at
1 Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms in this Memorandum of Points and Authorities have the same meaning as in the Settlement Agreement. 2 The parties expect that the final number of approved claims will be lower than this number once the Settlement Administrator accounts for duplicate and/or fraudulent claims. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 18. 3 The ultimate timing and content of any label changes shall be at the sole discretion of UIC. Nothing in the Agreement shall require UIC, or any third parties (including, without limitation, UIC’s resellers, retailers, customers, distributors, or sales
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:2246
2 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
§ 7.3.
The Settlement should now receive the Court’s final approval because it is
demonstrably “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e)(2). For the reasons below, and those stated in Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement (ECF No. 71-1), Plaintiffs ask that the Court
certify the Class for Settlement purposes under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), find that
the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2), and thus grant
final approval of the Settlement.
I. THE LITIGATION, SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS, AND
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
On September 21, 2017, original plaintiff Gregory Arthur (“Arthur”) filed this
putative class action alleging violations of consumer protections laws against
Defendant and on November 27, 2017, Arthur filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint. (ECF Nos. 1, 16). The First Amended Complaint alleged that the “Makes
Up To __ Gallons” representation on the Spectracide® Concentrate Products is
deceptive because UIC fails to disclose that “the Spectracide Concentrates were in
fact only capable of making a fraction of the number of gallons represented when
diluted to the same strength as ‘Ready-to-use’ Spectracide according to UIC’s own
instructions.” (Id. at ¶ 16).
On January 12, 2018, UIC moved to dismiss Arthur’s First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 22). Then, on January 15, 2018, Arthur filed a Motion for Class
Certification and to appoint class counsel. (ECF No. 23). On March 23, 2018, the
Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part UIC’s Motion to Dismiss
Arthur’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 34). The Court dismissed Arthur’s
request for injunctive relief, but granted him leave to amend to file a Second
brokers) to remove from point of sale any Product manufactured prior to June 1, 2020 and nothing in the Agreement shall require UIC to make claims on any Product label with respect to the number of gallons of end-use herbicide that such Product will yield. Agreement at § 7.3.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:2247
3 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 34). On April 16, 2018, Arthur filed his Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39), which UIC answered on April 30, 2018 (ECF
No. 40). On May 17, 2018, the Court entered an Order denying Arthur’s Motion for
Class Certification without prejudice, holding that Arthur could not adequately
represent the putative class. (ECF No. 47).
On June 25, 2018, Arthur and UIC filed a Joint Stipulation to dismiss Arthur
from the Litigation, for leave to substitute Michael Graves and Keith Gren as
plaintiffs and putative class representatives, and for leave for Graves and Gren to
file a Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 53). On June 26, 2018, the Court entered
an Order substituting Graves and Gren as named plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives, dismissing Arthur from the Litigation, and granting Graves and
Gren leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 54). On June 28, 2018,
Graves and Gren filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint against UIC
(ECF No. 55), which UIC answered on July 19, 2018. (ECF No. 59).
On July 12, 2018, the Court entered an Order staying the Litigation pursuant
to a Joint Stipulation filed by Graves, Gren, and UIC seeking time to allow them to
engage in settlement discussions (ECF No. 58). On September 7, 2018, Michael
Whealen sent UIC a consumer notice and demand letter on behalf of himself and a
proposed nationwide class concerning the Products. On May 15, Class Counsel filed
a Fourth Amended Complaint adding Whealen as a named Plaintiff in addition to
Graves and Gren. (ECF No. 63). The Fourth Amended Complaint also adds a cause
of action under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat.
§§ 407.010, et seq. in addition to causes of action under California’s consumer
protection laws. (ECF No. 63 at ¶¶ 52-58).
Plaintiffs and UIC have engaged in substantial discovery. On October 26,
2017, Arthur served a first set of Interrogatories and a first set of Request for
Production of Documents on UIC. See Declaration of Ronald A. Marron filed
concurrently herewith (“Marron Decl.”), ¶ 3. In exchange for Arthur’s agreement to
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:2248
4 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
extend UIC’s time to serve written responses and objections, UIC produced several
documents that were crucial to Arthur’s claims in the litigation including the
suggested retail prices for the Products, annual sales of the Products, and Product
labels that were in use during the class period. Marron Decl., ¶ 3. On February 16,
2018, UIC served objections and responses to Arthur’s discovery requests. Marron
Decl., ¶ 4. UIC also produced a second batch of documents relating to Plaintiffs’
claims, including communications with the Environmental Protection Agency
(“EPA”) relating to the labels of the Products. Marron Decl., ¶ 4. Class Counsel sent
a meet and confer letter to UIC on March 23, 2018 regarding remaining deficiencies
with its written discovery responses. Marron Decl., ¶ 5. Following extensive meet
and confer efforts, the Parties reached an agreement on the scope of Plaintiff’s
discovery requests. Marron Decl., ¶ 5.
On January 26, 2018, UIC served a deposition notice on Gregory Arthur that
included several document requests. Marron Decl., ¶ 6. On January 31, 2018, Arthur
served objections and responses to UIC’s document requests. Marron Decl., ¶ 6. On
February 2, 2018, UIC then took the deposition of Gregory Arthur. In support of
Arthur’s Motion for Class Certification, Class Counsel submitted an expert report
from Charlene L. Podlipna, CPA detailing a proposed class wide damages model.
Marron Decl., ¶ 7. On January 26, 2018, UIC served a Notice of Deposition Duces
Tecum on Ms. Podlipna that contained several document requests. Marron Decl., ¶
7. On February 14, 2018, Class Counsel served objections and responses to the
document requests that were served on Ms. Podlipna. Marron Decl., ¶ 7. On
February 16, 2018, UIC took the deposition of Ms. Podlipna on topics relating to her
expert opinion and report. Marron Decl., ¶ 7. After Plaintiffs Graves and Gren filed
their Third Amended Complaint, UIC promptly began pursuing discovery from the
new named Plaintiffs. Marron Decl., ¶ 8. On June 29, 2018, UIC served a Notice of
Deposition Duces Tecum on Plaintiff Gren that contained several document
requests. Marron Decl., ¶ 8. UIC then took the deposition of Plaintiff Keith Gren on
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:2249
5 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
July 12, 2018. Marron Decl., ¶ 8. Plaintiff Gren’s deposition lasted more than five
hours. Marron Decl., ¶ 8.
Following Plaintiff Gren’s deposition, the Parties began engaging in
preliminary settlement discussions. During the course of several months the Parties
engaged in hard-fought settlement negotiations that resulted in the Settlement
Agreement. Marron Decl., ¶ 9. The several months that it took to work out significant
details and vigorous disagreements between the parties demonstrate that this
proposed resolution was the product of heavily disputed and arm’s length
negotiation. Marron Decl., ¶ 9.
On June 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the class action settlement with Defendant. (ECF No. 64-1). On June
27, 2019, the Court entered an Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Approval Without Prejudice, and ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended motion to
address the requirements of Rule 23(e)(3). (ECF No. 65). On August 19, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the class action
settlement, which the Court granted on September 18, 2019. (ECF Nos. 71, 77). In
its preliminary approval order, the Court conditionally certified the nationwide
settlement class noting that the requirement of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3) had been satisfied. (ECF No. 77 at 12-18). The Court also
preliminarily approved the settlement noting that the relevant factors weighed in
favor of approval. (ECF No. 77 at 4-12).
II. NOTICE HAS BEEN FULLY DISSEMINATED TO THE CLASS.
The Parties developed a notice program with the assistance of Classaura Class
Action Administration (“Classaura”), a firm that specializes in the development,
design, and implementation of class-action notice plans. The program was executed
in accordance with its design and the terms approved by the Court. In consultation
and collaboration with the parties, Classaura has taken steps to provide the Court-
ordered Notice to Class Members. These notice procedures are consistent with the
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:2250
6 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
class-action notice plan that was approved by this Court as being the best notice
practicable under the circumstances.
The costs of providing notice to the class members totals $129,432.4
Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 21. The cost of notice and administration account for just 5.18%
of the total settlement fund. The Court should find that these notice and
administration costs are reasonable and can be properly deducted from the
Settlement Fund.5 Below is a summary of the notice that was provided to the class
members.
A. Publication Notice
Notice was published in USA Today, a national magazine with a circulation
of approximately 600,000 and a reach of approximately 1,600,000 readers.
Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 3 & Ex. A. The notice was published Friday, November 1, 2019.
Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 3 & Ex. A.
B. Social Media Notice
On November 1, 2019, Classaura began an online advertising campaign on
Facebook.com. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 4. The advertising targeted adults residing in the
United States who were identified as having an interest in gardening, landscaping,
or lawn. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 4 & Ex. B. The Facebook advertising campaign
4 The costs incurred to provide notice of the settlement via publication, settlement website, Press Release, Online Notice, and CAFA is $70,000. The costs to administer the settlement, and process claims is $8,457 (assuming 84,572 claims). The cost to distribute payment to class members is $50,975 (assuming 67,967 approved claims). This brings the total cost to $129,432. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 21. 5 See Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, 2012 WL 1932283, *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (deducting the cost of notice from the settlement fund created by defendant); Garcia v. Pancho Villa's of Huntington Village, Inc., 2012 WL 1843785, *2 (E.D. N.Y. 2012) (approving a settlement fund that included the costs of settlement notice).
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:2251
7 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
generated 13,069,323 impressions.6 Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 5. The Facebook advertising
campaign also had a reach7 of 11,360,237 unique users. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 6. The
online advertising campaign also made submissions to Consumer Class Action
Websites, which are websites used by consumers to stay informed of class action
settlements that may apply to them. Consumer class action websites that displayed
a summary of the settlement included ClassActionRebates.com and
TopClassActions.com. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 7.
C. Press Release
Classaura crafted a neutral informational press release, providing a summary
of the settlement. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 8. On November 1, 2019, the press release was
released using the PR Newswire’s US1 National Newsline. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 8 &
Ex. C. US1 National Newsline provides the press release to thousands of media
outlets across the country, including national and local newspapers, websites, and
television and radio stations. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 8. The press release was picked up
and republished by 121 media outlets. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 8.
D. Settlement Website, Email, and Phone Line
The Settlement Website (www.MakesUpToSettlement.com) was made
publicly accessible on November 1, 2019, providing information on the lawsuit and
access to case documents. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 11. The website includes a summary
of the case, a list of important dates, answers to frequently asked questions, key case
filings (complaint, amended complaints, motion for preliminary approval, order
denying in part motion for preliminary approval, renewed motion for preliminary
6 An “impression” (in the context of online advertising) is the number of times an ad was displayed to an individual on any given site. The impression is displayed and gives an individual the opportunity to click on the advertisement and be directed to the Settlement Website for more information. Each time an ad is displayed to a visitor, it is counted as one impression. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 5. 7 “Reach” is defined as the number of different people that the advertisement was exposed to. Each time an ad is displayed to a user that has not previously been exposed to the advertisement through that medium, it is counted as adding one to the reach. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 6.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:2252
8 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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, preliminary approval order, long and short form notice of class action
settlement, as well as the settlement agreement), and contact information. Retnasaba
Decl., ¶ 11. Plaintiffs’ fee motion was uploaded to the settlement website on January
7, 2020. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 11. The Settlement Website also displayed the claim
filing deadline, the deadline to opt-out of the class settlement, the deadline to submit
an objection, and the date of the Fairness Hearing. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 11. The
website address was set forth in all of the public notices described above, as well as
on the Claim Form. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 11. To date the website has been visited
117,852 times. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 11.
A dedicated email address ([email protected]) was also set
up on October 10, 2019 to answer questions from potential class members.
Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 12. To date, Classaura has received and answered 173 emails.
Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 12. A dedicated toll-free number (888-978-8269) was also set up
on October 20, 2019, providing pre-recorded information and allowing class
members to leave a voicemail requesting further information. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 10.
To date, Classaura has received 85 phone calls and answered 14 voicemail calls.
Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 10.
E. CAFA Notice
In accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C.
§ 1715, Classaura compiled a CAFA Notice Packet containing a CD-ROM with the
necessary case documents as well as cover letter. Retnasaba Decl., ¶¶ 13-14 & Ex.
E. On August 29, 2019, CAFA Notice was mailed via United States Postal Service
(USPS), Priority Mail Service, to the U.S. Attorney General, the Attorneys General
of each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and the Attorneys General of
the 5 recognized U.S. Territories. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 15.
III. CLAIMS RATE, OPT-OUTS, AND OBJECTIONS
To date, Classaura has received 84,572 claim forms from prospective class
members. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 17. Out of the total claim forms received, Classaura
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:2253
9 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
has found 16,605 claim forms to be invalid due to being duplicative or not meeting
the settlement criteria. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 18. Classaura estimates that there will be
approximately 67,967 valid claim forms. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 18. Settlement Class
members are eligible to request payment for up to four purchases per household on
their claim forms. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 19. The average claim for reported 3.6
purchases. Id. Thus, Classaura estimates that the total number of valid claims that
will be paid is 248,042. Id. In addition, there have been no requests for exclusion
from the settlement (Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 20) and no class members have objected to
the settlement.
IV. THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD RECEIVE FINAL APPROVAL.
“[T]here is a strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly where
complex class action litigation is concerned.” In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d
1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2008). Approval of a proposed class action settlement is
governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). “[T]he 2018 amendment to Rule
23(e) establishes core factors district courts must consider when evaluating a request
to approve a proposed settlement.” Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No.
2:14-CV-0175-TOR, 2019 WL 1966112, at *2 (E.D. Wash. May 2, 2019).
Rule 23(e) now provides that the Court may approve a class action settlement
“only after a hearing and only on a 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; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of
payment; and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and
(D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(e)(2).
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 16 of 33 Page ID #:2254
10 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
“Under Rule 23(e), both its prior version and as amended, fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy are the touchstones for approval of a class-action
settlement.” Zamora, 2019 WL 1966112, at *2. “The purpose of the amendment to
Rule 23(e)(2) is establish [sic] a consistent set of approval factors to be applied
uniformly in every circuit, without displacing the various lists of additional approval
factors the circuit courts have created over the past several decades.” Id. Factors that
the Ninth Circuit have typically considered include (1) the strength of plaintiffs’
case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3)
the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered
in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;
and (6) the experience and views of counsel. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d
1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998); Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575
(9th Cir. 2004).
“While the Ninth Circuit has yet to address the amendment to Rule
23(e)(2)….the factors in amended Rule 23(e)(2) generally encompass the list of
relevant factors previously identified by the Ninth Circuit.” Zamora, 2019 WL
1966112, at *2 (alteration in original). Indeed, “[t]he goal of this amendment is not
to displace any factor, but rather to focus the court and the lawyers on the core
concerns of procedure and substance that should guide the decision whether to
approve the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) advisory committee's note to 2018
amendment. “Accordingly, the Court applies the framework set forth in Rule 23 with
guidance from the Ninth Circuit’s precedent, bearing in mind the Advisory
Committee’s instruction not to let ‘[t]he sheer number of factors’ distract the Court
and parties from the ‘central concerns’ underlying Rule 23(e)(2).” In re Extreme
Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-CV-04883-BLF, 2019 WL 3290770, at
*6 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2019); see also Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 16-CV-
05479-JST, 2018 WL 6619983, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018).
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 17 of 33 Page ID #:2255
11 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
A. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel Have Adequately Represented the
Class.
Rule 23(e)(2)(A) requires the Court to consider whether “the class
representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(A). This analysis is “redundant of the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4)
and Rule 23(g), respectively.” Final approval criteria—Rule 23(e)'s multifactor test,
4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:48 (5th ed.). A determination of adequacy of
representation requires that “two questions be addressed: (a) do the named plaintiffs
and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (b) will
the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of
the class?” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000), as
amended (June 19, 2000) (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020); see also Hefler, 2018
WL 6619983, at *6.
The proposed class representatives in this action have no conflicts of interest
with other class members and each have prosecuted this action vigorously on behalf
of the Class.8 Each of the named Plaintiffs have suffered the same injuries as the
absent class members because each purchased a Spectracide® Concentrate product,
for personal and household use, in reliance on the “Makes Up To ___” gallons
statement on the front of the label which they took to mean would, in fact, make up
to the advertised amount of gallons when used as directed for general weed control.
(See Fourth Amended Complaint, ECF No. 63 at ¶¶ 30-32). Each of the named
Plaintiffs have been dedicated to vigorously pursuing this action on behalf of the
class and each have kept themselves informed about the status of the proceedings.
On July 12, 2018, UIC took the deposition of Plaintiff Keith Gren and the deposition
lasted for more than five hours. Marron Decl., ¶ 9. Plaintiffs Graves and Whealen
8 See Declarations of Michael Graves (Dkt. No. 71-7), Keith Gren (Dkt. No. 71-8),
and Michael Whealen (Dkt. No. 71-9) that were previously submitted in support of
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 18 of 33 Page ID #:2256
12 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
were similarly willing to sit for depositions and each of the named Plaintiffs were
fully prepared to testify at trial. Accordingly, the named Plaintiffs have adequately
represented the Class.
Class Counsel have also vigorously represented the Class and have no
conflicts of interest. The Settlement was negotiated by counsel with extensive
experience in consumer class action litigation. See Marron Decl., ¶¶ 17-36 & Ex. 1
(firm resume of Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron). Through the discovery process,
Class Counsel has obtained sufficient information and documents to evaluate the
strengths and weaknesses of the case. Marron Decl., ¶ 3. See Final approval
criteria—Rule 23(e)(2)(A): Adequate representation, 4 NEWBERG ON CLASS
ACTIONS § 13:49 (5th ed.) (“if extensive discovery has been done, a court may
assume that the parties have a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses
of their respective cases and hence that the settlement's value is based upon such
adequate information.”). The information reviewed by class counsel includes sales
information for the Spectracide® Concentrate products during the class period, the
labels for the Spectracide® Concentrate products in use during the class period, and
Defendant’s communications with the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
relating to the labels of the Products. Marron Decl., ¶¶ 3-4. Based on their
experience, Class Counsel concluded that the Settlement provides exceptional
results for the class while sparing the class from the uncertainties of continued and
protracted litigation. Marron Decl., ¶ 16. See, e.g., In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559
F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“The recommendations of plaintiffs’
counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness.”); Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g
Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 976 (9th Cir. 2009) (deference to Class Counsel’s evaluation
of the Settlement is appropriate because “[p]arties represented by competent counsel
are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each
party’s expected outcome in litigation.”). Accordingly, adequacy of representation
is satisfied.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 19 of 33 Page ID #:2257
13 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
B. The Settlement was Negotiated at Arm’s Length.
Rule 23(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to consider whether “the proposal was
negotiated at arm's length.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(B). “This inquiry aims to root
out settlements that may benefit the plaintiffs' lawyers at the class's expenses,
sometimes called ‘collusive settlements.’” Final approval criteria—Rule
23(e)(2)(B): Arm's length negotiation, 4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:50 (5th
ed.). Here, the settlement was negotiated at arm’s length after hard-fought litigation
and discovery. The Parties did not begin settlement discussions until after the Court
had ruled on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 190) and after the Parties had exchanged written discovery and documents,
which speaks to the fundamental fairness of the process. Marron Decl., ¶ 9. See Nat'l
Rural Telecommunications Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (C.D. Cal.
2004) (“A settlement following sufficient discovery and genuine arms-length
negotiation is presumed fair.”).
The several months that it took to work out significant details and vigorous
disagreements between the parties demonstrate that this proposed resolution was the
product of heavily disputed and arm’s length negotiation. Marron Decl., ¶ 9. The
settlement negotiations were hard-fought, with both Parties and their counsel
thoroughly familiar with the applicable facts, legal theories, and defenses on both
sides. Marron Decl., ¶ 9. Accordingly, the Settlement is the product of genuine arms-
length negotiations.
C. The Relief Provided to the Class is Adequate.
Rule 23(e)(2)(C) requires that the Court consider whether “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; (iii) the terms of any
proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of payment; and (iv) any
agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 20 of 33 Page ID #:2258
14 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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(e)(2)(C). “Before the Rule arrives at the articulation of sub-factors, its general
directive asks whether the class's relief is adequate.” Final approval criteria—Rule
23(e)(2)(C): Adequate relief, 4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:51 (5th ed.). “In
evaluating the value of the class members' claims, the court need not decide the
merits of the case nor substitute its judgment of what the case might be worth for
that of class counsel; however, ‘the court must at least satisfy itself that the class
settlement is within the ‘ballpark’ of reasonableness.’” Id. (citation omitted).
UIC has agreed to settle this matter for a non-reversionary total of $2,500,000.
Agreement at § 7.4. During the class period, UIC sold retail units of
Spectracide® Concentrate products in the United States and UIC’s total sales of
Spectracide® Concentrate Products in the United States totals . Marron
Decl., ¶ 14. The $2,500,000 nationwide settlement amount is reasonable considering
that damages would be limited to a fraction of total sales if Plaintiffs were to prevail
at trial. As previously explained by Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Charlene L. Podlipna,
CPA, the Spectracide® Concentrate products are underfilled by 36% to 38% based
on Plaintiffs’ claims that reasonable consumers’ intend purpose for the Products is
“general weed control.” (ECF No. 23-14 [Podlipna Decl., ¶ 13]). Damages for the
nationwide class would be based on the Benefit of the Bargain method, which is
based on the difference between the amount Plaintiffs reasonably expected to receive
and the actual amount received. (ECF No. 23-14 [Podlipna Decl., ¶ 15]).
Accordingly, the projected maximum for nationwide class damages would be
approximately if Plaintiffs were to prevail at trial.
nationwide sales x .38 underfill percentage = ).
The $2,500,000 settlement fund accounts for % of total damages that
would be available at trial, which is well within the range of reason. See, e.g., Stovall-
Gusman v. W.W. Granger, Inc., No. 13-cv-02540-HSG, 2015 WL 3776765, at *4
(N.D. Cal. June 17, 2015) (granting final approval of a net settlement amount
representing 7.3% of the plaintiffs’ potential recovery at trial); Balderas v. Massage
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 21 of 33 Page ID #:2259
15 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Envy Franchising, LLC, No. 12-cv-06327NC, 2014 WL 3610945, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
July 21, 2014) (granting preliminary approval of a net settlement amount
representing 5% of the projected maximum recovery at trial); Ma v. Covidien
Holding, Inc., No. SACV 12-02161-DOC (RNBx), 2014 WL 360196, at *5 (C.D.
Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) (finding a settlement worth 9.1% of the total value of the action
“within the range of reasonableness”); Downey Surgical Clinic, Inc. v.
Optuminsight, Inc., No. CV09-5457PSG (JCx), 2016 WL 5938722 at *5 (C.D. Cal.
May 16, 2016) (granting final approval where recovery was as low as 3.21% of
potential recovery at trial).
The amount of recovery per claimant is also adequate considering that
Settlement Class Members can claim $6.25 in cash from the Settlement Fund for
each Claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four (4) claims per household
(total payable per household in no event to exceed $25, unless distribution is
increased pro rata). Agreement at § 7.2.1. Here, approximately 67,967 valid claim
forms were submitted by settlement class members and 248,042 valid claims will be
paid by the settlement administrator. Retnasaba Decl., ¶¶ 18-19. Once notice and
administration costs along with Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and
incentive awards are deducted from the $2,500,000 Settlement Fund, there will be
approximately $1,602,477.37 available for distribution to the Settlement Class.9 This
means that there will be a slight pro rata increase and $6.46 will be paid for each
valid and timely claim submitted. ($1,602,477.37 in available funds for distribution
/ 248,042 valid claims = $6.46 per claim). Because the average valid claim form
reported 3.6 purchases, average settlement class members will receive
9 Notice and Administration costs total $129,432. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 21. Plaintiffs are also requesting $725,000 in attorneys’ fees, $32,090.63 in litigation costs, and $11,000 in total incentive awards. (See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards, Dkt. No. 78-1). Once notice and administration costs and Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards are deducted from the $2,500,000 Settlement Fund, there will be $1,602,477.37 available for distribution to Settlement Class Members who submitted timely and valid claims.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 22 of 33 Page ID #:2260
16 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
approximately $23.26. This recovery is significant considering that a 64-ounce bottle
of Spectracide® Concentrate, the most expensive bottle size, sells for approximately
$30.00 at retail stores. The approximately $6.46 recovery per claim is an excellent
result considering it will account for around 21.5% of total damages that would be
recoverable at trial per purchase. Marron Decl., ¶ 13. Moreover, the settlement
agreement provides for injunctive relief. Agreement at § 7.3. This is significant
because the Court previously dismissed Arthur’s claim for injunctive relief. (ECF
No. 34).
1. The Costs, Risks, and Delay of Trial and Appeal Support Final
Approval.
The costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal further support final approval.
Proceeding in this litigation in the absence of settlement poses various risks such as
failing to certify a class, having summary judgment granted against Plaintiffs, or
losing at trial. Such considerations have been found to weigh heavily in favor of
settlement. See Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 966; Curtis-Bauer v. Morgan Stanley & Co.,
Inc., No. C 06-3903 TEH, 2008 WL 4667090, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008)
(“Settlement avoids the complexity, delay, risk and expense of continuing with the
litigation and will produce a prompt, certain, and substantial recovery for the
Plaintiff class.”). Even if Plaintiffs are able to certify a class, there is also a risk that
the Court could later decertify the class action. See In re Netflix Privacy Litig., No.
5:11-cv-00379 EJD, 2013 WL 1120801, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013) (“The
notion that a district court could decertify a class at any time is one that weighs in
favor of settlement.”) (internal citations omitted). The Settlement eliminates these
risks by ensuring Class Members a recovery that is “certain and immediate,
eliminating the risk that class members would be left without any recovery . . . at
all.” Fulford v. Logitech, Inc., No. 08-cv-02041 MNC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
29042, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010).
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 23 of 33 Page ID #:2261
17 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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. The Proposed Method of Distribution is Effective.
“[T]he goal of any distribution method is to get as much of the available
damages remedy to class members as possible and in as simple and expedient a
manner as possible.” Final approval criteria—Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(ii): Distribution
method, 4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:53 (5th ed.). The claims process here
was intentionally straightforward and has allowed Settlement Class members to
make a claim by submitting a valid and timely Claim Form to the Settlement
Administrator without complication. See In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended
Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 8:10ML 02151 JVS,
2013 WL 3224585, at *18 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) (“The requirement that class
members download a claim form or request in writing a claim form, complete the
form, and mail it back to the settlement administrator is not onerous.”).
The Settlement Agreement here provides for pro rata distribution to class,
which will ensure that class members receive as much as the settlement fund as
possible. Agreement at § 7.2.3. As discussed above, there will be a slight pro rata
increase and approximately $6.46 will be paid out for each of the estimated 248,042
valid claims submitted. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 19. If any amounts remain in the
settlement fund following a pro rata distribution to class members, then the
remaining funds will thereafter be awarded cy pres to the National Advertising
Division of the Better Business Bureau (“NAD”). Agreement at § 7.2.3. The
proposed cy pres recipient will only receive funds that are no longer economically
feasible to distribute to the class after a pro rata distribution. Courts have previously
approved NAD as a suitable cy pres recipient. See Rawa v. Monsanto Co., No.
4:17CV01252 AGF, 2018 WL 2389040, at *11 (E.D. Mo. May 25, 2018) (approving
NAD as a cy pres recipient and noting that it “monitors national advertising in all
media for goods and services, enforce[es] high standards of truth and accuracy, and
accepts complaints from consumers”). Accordingly, the Court should find the
proposed distribution method to be effective.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 24 of 33 Page ID #:2262
18 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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. The Requested Attorneys’ Fees and Incentive Awards are Fair and
Reasonable.
Class Counsel has fully addressed the reasonableness of the fee request in
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards that was filed
on January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 78-1). Class Counsel are seeking fees in the amount
of 29% of the total settlement fund. Although the “benchmark” for attorneys’ fees
in the Ninth Circuit is typically 25% of the common fund, Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at
942, Class Counsel’s fee request is within the range of what courts have approved
in other class action cases. See, e.g., Singer v. Becton Dickinson & Co., No. 08–CV–
821–IEG, 2010 WL 2196104 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2010) (awarding 33.33% of $1
million settlement fund); Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 482,
492 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (awarding 33.33% of $300,000 settlement fund); Weeks v.
Kellogg Co., No. CV 09-08102 MMM RZX, 2013 WL 6531177, at *30 (C.D. Cal.
Nov. 23, 2013) (awarding 30% of the $2.5 million settlement fund); Mollicone v.
Universal Handicraft, No. 17-21468-CIV, 2018 WL 3913689, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug.
14, 2018) (awarding Class Counsel fees in the amount of 31.9% of the settlement
fund). In addition, Plaintiffs Graves and Whealen are seeking incentive awards in
the amount of $3,000 each and Plaintiff Gren is seeking an incentive award in the
amount of $5,000. The requested incentive awards are reasonable considering
Plaintiffs’ substantial participation in the case. Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists,
No. C-06-05778 JCS, 2011 WL 1230826, at *36 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011) (“there is
ample case law finding $5,000 to be a reasonable amount for an incentive
payment.”).
4. There Are No Side Agreements at Issue.
Rule 23(e)(3) requires that the Parties “must file a statement identifying any
agreement made in connection with the [settlement] proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(3). No agreements were made in connection with the settlement aside from the
settlement agreement itself. Marron Decl., ¶ 15.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 25 of 33 Page ID #:2263
19 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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 Proposed Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably
Relative to Each Other.
Rule 23(e)(2)(D) requires the Court to consider whether the settlement
agreement “treats class members equitably relative to each other.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(2)(D). “A distribution of relief that favors some class members at the expense
of others may be a red flag that class counsel have sold out some of the class
members at the expense of others, or for their own benefit.” Final approval
criteria—Rule 23(e)(2)(D): Intra-class equity, 4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS §
13:56 (5th ed.). Here, the settlement treats each class member equally. As discussed
above, each valid claim submitted will be paid approximately $6.46 following a
slight pro rata increase. Because each class member is treated equally, the Court
should approve the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
E. The Absence of Governmental Participation Supports Approval.
Although CAFA does not create an affirmative duty for either state or federal
officials to take any action in response to a class-action settlement, CAFA presumes
that—once put on notice—state or federal officials will “raise any concerns that they
may have during the normal course of the class action settlement procedures.”
Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CV 08-1365, 2010 WL 1687832, at
*14 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010). see also LaGarde v. Support.com, Inc., No. C 12-
0609, 2013 WL 1283325, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) (same); In re Netflix
Privacy Litig., No. 5:11-cv-00379, 2013 WL 1120801 at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18,
2013) (same). To date, no state or federal official has raised any objection to the
settlement.
F. The Reaction of the Class Members to the Proposed Settlement
Has Been Favorable.
It is well established that “the absence of a large number of objections to a
proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a
proposed class settlement action are favorable to the class members.” Nat’l Rural
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 26 of 33 Page ID #:2264
20 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 529 (collecting cases). Here, the response from
Class members has been overwhelmingly positive.
There have been no requests for exclusion (Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 20), and no
objections have been filed. This positive reaction to the Settlement indicates the
Court should grant final approval, as the Court “‘may appropriately infer that a class
action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable when few class members object
to it.’” Garner, 2010 WL 1687832, at *14. The absence of objections is particularly
noteworthy here, where notice of the settlement was disseminated to millions of
consumers. See Section II., supra. “‘It is established that the absence of a large
number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong
presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are favorable to the
class members.’” In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1043 (quoting
Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 528-29); see also Dupler v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., 705 F. Supp. 2d 231, 239 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] small number of
class members seeking exclusion or objecting indicates an overwhelming positive
reaction of the class.”). That presumption applies with full force here.
V. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS SHOULD BE CERTIFIED.
When presented with a proposed settlement, a court must first determine
whether the proposed settlement class satisfies the requirements for class
certification under Rule 23. In assessing those class certification requirements, a
court may properly consider that there will be no trial. Amchem Prods., Inc. v.
Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997). For the reasons below, the Class meets the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b).
A. The Class Satisfies Rule 23(a).
1. Numerosity.
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “As a general matter, courts
have found that numerosity is satisfied when class size exceeds 40 members, but not
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 27 of 33 Page ID #:2265
21 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
satisfied when membership dips below 21.” Slaven v. BP Am., Inc., 190 F.R.D. 649,
654 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Here, the proposed class is comprised of tens of thousands of
consumers who purchased the Class Products. To date, the settlement administrator
has received 67,967 valid claim forms. See Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 18. Accordingly, the
numerosity requirement is easily satisfied.
2. Commonality.
Rule 23(a)(2) requires the existence of “questions of law or fact common to
the class.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality is established if plaintiffs and
class members’ claims “depend on a common contention,” “capable of class-wide
resolution . . . [meaning] that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue
that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Because the commonality
requirement may be satisfied by a single common issue, it is easily met. 1 H.
Newberg & Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 3.10, at 3-50 (1992).
There are ample issues of both law and fact here that are common to the
members of the Class. All of the Class Members’ claims arise from a common
nucleus of facts and are based on the same legal theories. Plaintiffs allege that UIC
“Makes Up To __” gallons statement on the Spectracide® Concentrate Product
labels is false and misleading because the Products yield only a fraction of the
advertised “Makes Up To” amount when mixed for “general weed control”
purposes. These alleged misrepresentations were made in a uniform manner to each
of the Class Members. Accordingly, commonality is satisfied by the existence of
these common factual issues. See Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158
F.R.D. 439, 448 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (commonality requirement met by “the alleged
existence of common discriminatory practices”).
Second, Plaintiffs’ claims are brought under legal theories common to the
Class as a whole. Alleging a common legal theory alone is enough to establish
commonality. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019 (“All questions of fact and law need not
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 28 of 33 Page ID #:2266
22 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
be common to satisfy the rule. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent
factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with
disparate legal remedies within the class.”). Here, all of the legal theories asserted
by Plaintiffs are common to all Class Members. Given that there are virtually no
issues of law which affect only individual members of the Class, commonality is
satisfied.
3. Typicality.
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims of the representative plaintiffs be
“typical of the claims … of the class.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “Under the rule’s
permissive standards, representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably
coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially
identical.” See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. In short, to meet the typicality requirement,
the representative plaintiffs simply must demonstrate that the members of the
settlement class have the same or similar grievances. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v.
Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982).
The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Class. Like those
of the Class, their claims arise out of the purchase of Spectracide® Concentrate
products for personal or household use after relying on UIC’s allegedly misleading
“Makes Up To __” gallons representations. The named Plaintiffs have precisely the
same claims as the Class and must satisfy the same elements of each of their claims,
as must other Class Members. Supported by the same legal theories, the named
Plaintiffs and all Class Members share claims based on the same alleged course of
conduct. The named Plaintiffs and all Class Members have been injured in the same
manner by this conduct. Therefore, Plaintiffs satisfy the typicality requirement.
4. Adequacy.
The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is set forth in subsection (a)(4) which
requires that the representative parties “fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs have fully addressed the adequacy
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 29 of 33 Page ID #:2267
23 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
requirement in Section VI(A) above and the same arguments need not be repeated
here.
B. The Class Satisfies Rule 23(b)(3).
In addition to meeting the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs must also
meet one of the three requirements of Rule 23(b) to certify the proposed class. See
Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). Under
Rule 23(b)(3), a class action may be maintained if “the court finds that the questions
of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate and encouraged
“whenever the actual interests of the parties can be served best by settling their
differences in a single action.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022.
1. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate.
The proposed Class is well suited for certification under Rule 23(b)(3)
because questions common to the Class Members predominate over questions
affecting only individual Class Members. Predominance exists “[w]hen common
questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all
members of the class in a single adjudication.” Id. As the U.S. Supreme Court has
explained, when addressing the propriety of certification of a settlement class, courts
take into account the fact that a trial will be unnecessary and that manageability,
therefore, is not an issue. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-62.
In this case, common questions of law and fact exist and predominate over
any individual questions, including, in addition to whether this settlement is
reasonable (see Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026-27), inter alia: (1) whether UIC’s
representations regarding its “Makes up to ___” gallons claim were false and
misleading or reasonably likely to deceive consumers; (2) whether UIC violated the
CLRA, UCL, FAL and the MMPA; (3) whether UIC had defrauded Plaintiff and the
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 30 of 33 Page ID #:2268
24 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Class Members; and (4) whether the Class has been injured by the wrongs
complained of, and if so, whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to damages,
injunctive and/or other equitable relief, including restitution, and if so, the nature
and amount of such relief.
There are also no concerns here about certifying a nationwide settlement class.
Since the Court entered its Preliminary Approval Order, the Ninth Circuit issued its
en banc opinion in In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir.
2019) (“Hyundai”). The Ninth Circuit in Hyundai made clear that it is “‘the foreign
law proponent’ who must ‘shoulder the burden of demonstrating that foreign law,
rather than California law, should apply to class claims.’” Id. at 561. This is
especially relevant here because UIC is not opposing the certification of a
nationwide class involving California and Missouri law. Consequently, UIC is
voluntarily subjecting itself to California and Missouri law, including California’s
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, which
provide greater protections to consumers than other jurisdictions. Where, as here,
UIC’s products were widely distributed and there are significant contacts with
California residents, and where UIC does not oppose California law applying to the
nationwide class, the Mazza choice of law analysis is easily satisfied because the
interests of other states will not be impaired. In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,
926 F.3d at 561. Missouri’s MMPA can also be applied to the nationwide Settlement
Class because UIC maintains its principal place of business in Missouri and Missouri
has significant contacts with the claims of each class member.
Moreover, the considerations driving the rest of the Mazza analysis are
inapplicable here. In the settlement context, other states’ interests would not be
undermined by the application of California and Missouri law because UIC is opting
into a regime that protects consumers more vigorously than other states. In Hanlon,
the Ninth Circuit also held that “the idiosyncratic differences between state
consumer protection laws are not sufficiently substantive to predominate over the
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 31 of 33 Page ID #:2269
25 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
shared claims.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022–23; In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ.
Litig., 926 F.3d at 561 (“no party argued that California’s choice-of-law rules should
not apply to this class settlement”); Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273,
301 (3d Cir. 2011) (“variations in the rights and remedies available to injured class
members under the various laws of the fifty states [do] not defeat commonality and
predominance.”); In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 315 (N.D.
Cal. 2018) (finding that differences between state consumer protection laws do not
defeat predominance and certifying nationwide settlement class). Accordingly, the
Court should find that common issues predominate.
2. A Class Action Is the Superior Mechanism for Adjudicating
this Dispute.
The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class Members. Each individual Class
Member may lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual
prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation necessary to establish
Defendant’s liability. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all
parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system. Individualized litigation
also presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the
class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the
benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision
by a single court. Accordingly, common questions predominate and a class action is
the superior method of adjudicating this controversy.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant final approval of
Plaintiffs’ class action settlement with Defendant United Industries Corporation.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 32 of 33 Page ID #:2270
26 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
DATED: January 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ronald A. Marron
RONALD A. MARRON
LAW OFFICES OF
RONALD A. MARRON
Ronald A. Marron
Michael T. Houchin
Lilach Halperin
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, California 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 33 of 33 Page ID #:2271
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
LAW OFFICES OFRONALD A. MARRON RONALD A. MARRON (SBN 175650) [email protected] MICHAEL T. HOUCHIN (SBN 305541) [email protected] LILACH HALPERIN (SBN 323202) [email protected] 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, California 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL GRAVES, KEITH GREN,
and MICHAEL WHEALEN, on behalf
of themselves, all others similarly
situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF RONALD A.
MARRON IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
Date: February 24, 2020
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Ctrm: 8D
Judge: Hon. Christina A. Snyder REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:2272
1 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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, Ronald A. Marron, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and of
the United States District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern, and Southern
Districts of California as well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United
States Supreme Court. I submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. I make this
Declaration based on my personal knowledge and if called to testify, I could and
would competently testify to the matters contained herein.
2. This action was filed by original plaintiff Gregory Arthur (“Arthur”)
on September 21, 2017. Following the Court’s May 17, 2018 Order denying
Arthur’s Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs Michael Graves and Keith Gren
were added as the Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. On September 7,
2018, Michael Whealen sent UIC a consumer notice and demand letter on behalf
of himself and a proposed nationwide class concerning the Spectracide®
Concentrate Products (the “Products”) at issue in this action. On May 15, 2019, a
Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint was filed adding Michael Whealen as a
named Plaintiff in addition to Graves and Gren.
3. Plaintiffs and UIC have engaged in substantial discovery, which has
allowed class counsel to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the case. On
October 26, 2017, Arthur served a first set of Interrogatories and a first set of
Request for Production of Documents on UIC. In exchange for Arthur’s agreement
to extend UIC’s time to serve written responses and objections, UIC produced
several documents that were crucial to Arthur’s claims in the litigation including
the suggested retail prices for the Products, annual sales of the Products, and
Product labels that were in use during the class period.
4. On February 16, 2018, UIC served objections and responses to
Arthur’s discovery requests. Around that same time, UIC also produced a second
batch of documents relating to Plaintiffs’ claims, including communications with
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:2273
2 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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 Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) relating to the labels of the
Products.
5. Class Counsel sent a detailed meet-and-confer letter to UIC on March
23, 2018 regarding remaining deficiencies with its written discovery responses.
Following extensive meet-and-confer efforts, the Parties reached an agreement on
the scope of Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
6. On January 26, 2018, UIC served a deposition notice on Gregory
Arthur that included several document requests. On January 31, 2018, Arthur
served objections and responses to UIC’s document requests. On February 2, 2018,
UIC then took the deposition of Gregory Arthur.
7. In support of Arthur’s Motion for Class Certification, Class Counsel
submitted an expert report from Charlene L. Podlipna, CPA, detailing a proposed
class wide damages model. On January 26, 2018, UIC served a Notice of
Deposition Duces Tecum on Ms. Podlipna that contained several document
requests. On February 14, 2018, Class Counsel served objections and responses to
the document requests that were served on Ms. Podlipna. On February 16, 2018,
UIC took the deposition of Ms. Podlipna on topics relating to her expert opinion
and report.
8. After Plaintiffs Graves and Gren filed their Third Amended
Complaint, UIC promptly began pursuing discovery from the new named
Plaintiffs. On June 29, 2018, UIC served a Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum on
Plaintiff Gren that contained several document requests. UIC then took the
deposition of Plaintiff Keith Gren on July 12, 2018. Plaintiff Gren’s deposition
lasted more than five hours.
9. Following Plaintiff Gren’s deposition, the Parties began engaging in
preliminary settlement discussions in July of 2018. During the course of several
months the Parties engaged in settlement negotiations that resulted in the
Settlement Agreement. The several months that it took to work out significant
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:2274
3 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
details and vigorous disagreements between the parties demonstrate that this
proposed resolution was the product of heavily disputed and arm’s length
negotiation. The settlement negotiations were hard-fought, with both Parties and
their counsel thoroughly familiar with the applicable facts, legal theories, and
defenses on both sides.
10. In the eyes of Class Counsel, the proposed Settlement provides the
Class with an outstanding opportunity to obtain significant relief at this stage in the
litigation. The Settlement also abrogates the risks that might prevent them from
obtaining any relief.
11. Settlement Class Members can claim $6.25 in cash from the
Settlement Fund for each Claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four (4)
claims per household (total payable per household in no event to exceed $25,
unless distribution is increased pro rata). Agreement at § 7.2.1. This recovery is
significant considering that a 64-ounce bottle of Spectracide Concentrate, the most
expensive bottle size, sells for approximately $30.00 at retail stores like Home
Depot. (See ECF No. 71-4).
12. Even if the Class were to prevail at trial, damages in this action would
not be the total purchase price of the Products. Instead, damages would be based
on a percentage of the total retail price for each of the Products based on the
alleged underfill amount. Plaintiffs’ damages expert has opined that the alleged
underfill amount ranges from 36% to 38% depending on the bottle size. (See ECF
No. 23-14 [Podlipna Expert Report at ¶13]). For example, the total amount of
recovery that would be available at trial would be approximately $10.80 for
purchasers of the 64-ounce bottle size ($30.00 x .36 = $10.80).
13. The amount of recovery per claimant is also adequate considering that
Settlement Class Members can claim $6.25 in cash from the Settlement Fund for
each Claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four (4) claims per household
(total payable per household in no event to exceed $25, unless distribution is
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:2275
4 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
increased pro rata). Agreement at § 7.2.1. Here, approximately 67,967 valid claim
forms were submitted by settlement class members and 248,042 valid claims will
be paid by the settlement administrator. See Declaration of Gajan Retnasaba filed
concurrently herewith (“Retnasaba Decl.”), ¶¶ 18-19. Once notice and
administration costs along with Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and
incentive awards are deducted from the $2,500,000 Settlement Fund, there will be
approximately $1,602,477.37 available for distribution to the Settlement Class.1
This means that there will be a slight pro rata increase and $6.46 will be paid for
each valid and timely claim submitted. ($1,602,477.37 in available funds for
distribution / 248,042 valid claims = $6.46 per claim). Because the average valid
claim form reported 3.6 purchases, average settlement class members will receive
approximately $23.26. This recovery is significant considering that a 64-ounce
bottle of Spectracide® Concentrate, the most expensive bottle size, sells for
approximately $30.00 at retail stores. (See ECF No. 71-4). The approximately
$6.46 recovery per claim is an excellent result considering it will account for
around 21.5% of total damages that would be recoverable at trial per purchase.
14. The Settlement amount is also reasonable considering Defendant’s
total nationwide sales. During the class period, UIC sold retail units of
Spectracide concentrate products in the United States and UIC’s total sales of
Spectracide Concentrate Products in the United States totals . (See
ECF No. 71-5). A review of Defendant’s sales records show that the projected
maximum for nationwide class damages would be approximately
if Plaintiffs were to prevail at trial. ( nationwide sales x .38 underfill
1 Notice and Administration costs total $129,432. Retnasaba Decl., ¶ 21. Plaintiffs are also requesting $725,000 in attorneys’ fees, $32,090.63 in litigation costs, and $11,000 in total incentive awards. (See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards, Dkt. No. 78-1). Once notice and administration costs and Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards are deducted from the $2,500,000 Settlement Fund, there will be $1,602,477.37 available for distribution to Settlement Class Members who submitted timely and valid claims.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:2276
5 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
percentage = ). The $2,500,000 settlement fund accounts for
% of total damages that would be available at trial, which is well within the
range of reason.
15. No agreements were made in connection with the settlement aside
from the settlement agreement itself.
16. Based on my experience, I conclude that the Settlement provides
exceptional results for the Class while sparing the Class from the uncertainties of
continued and protracted litigation.
Ronald A. Marron Firm’s Qualifications and Experience Prosecuting
Consumer Class Action Lawsuits
17. My work experience and education began in 1984 when I enlisted in
the United States Marine Corps (Active Duty 1984-1988, Reserves 1988-1990) and
thereafter received my Bachelor of Science in Finance from the University of
Southern California (1991). While attending Southwestern University School of
Law (1992-1994), I also studied Biology and Chemistry at the University of
Southern California and interned at the California Department of Corporations
with emphasis in consumer complaints and fraud investigations. I was admitted to
the State Bar of California in January of 1995 and have been a member in good
standing since that time. In 1996, I started my own law firm with an emphasis in
consumer fraud. My firm currently employs six full-time attorneys, two law clerks,
three paralegals, and support staff. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and
correct copy of my firm’s current resume.
18. Over the years I have acquired extensive experience in class actions
and other complex litigation, and have obtained large settlements as lead counsel.
In recent years, I devoted almost all of my practice to the area of false and
misleading labeling of food, nutrition or over-the-counter products, cases involving
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and other privacy cases.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:2277
6 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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. Most recently, on November 29, 2018, the Honorable Gonzalo P.
Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and
appointed my law firm and the Law Office of David Elliot as class counsel in a
class action titled Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-
02335-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal.) (Dkt. No. 83). In the Hilsley case, the plaintiff
alleges that malic acid is used as an artificial flavoring ingredient in certain Ocean
Spray beverage products although the products are labeled as containing “No
artificial flavors.”
20. On September 20, 2017, the Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and appointed my law firm as class
counsel in a class action titled Reyes v. Educational Credit Management
Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-00628-BAS-AGS (USDC S.D. Cal.) that involves
violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code § 630
et seq.
21. On January 27, 2017, my firm obtained final approval of a TCPA
class action against RBS Citizens, N.A. In granting final approval, the Honorable
Cynthia Bashant found that “Class Counsel [had] fairly and adequately represented
the Class for purposes of entering into and implementing the Settlement, and, thus,
continues to appoint . . . Ronald A. Marron, Alexis M. Wood and Kas L. Gallucci
of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class.” Sanders v. RBS Citizens, N.A., No. 13-CV-3136-BAS-RBB, 2017 WL
406165, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2017).
22. On January 4, 2016, the Honorable Analisa Torres appointed the
Marron firm as Interim Lead Class Counsel over the opposition and challenge of
other plaintiffs’ counsel, noting that the Marron firm’s “detailed” complaint was
“more specifically pleaded, . . . assert[ing] a more comprehensive set of theories . .
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:2278
7 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
. [and was] more factually developed.” Potzner v. Tommie Copper Inc., No. 15
CIV. 3183 (AT), 2016 WL 304746, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2016). Judge Torres
also noted that Mr. Marron and his firm’s attorneys had “substantial experience
litigating complex consumer class actions, are familiar with the applicable law, and
have the resources necessary to represent the class.” Id.
23. In addition to the above cases and the present action, my firm has an
in-depth knowledge of other consumer cases including litigating over-the-counter
(“OTC”) product cases, including the FDCA’s history, principles, and regulations,
and Courts have recognized my firms’ ability to litigate complex class actions. For
example, in Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc., Case No. 3:11-CV-2039 JAH NLS (S. D.
Cal.), we drafted a Complaint with five potential causes of action, and claims
under the CLRA, UCL and FAL with respect to OTC homeopathic drugs which
“concern[ed] novel legal theories in a specialized area of law.” See Delarosa v.
Boiron, Inc., 275 F.R.D. 582, 590 n. 4 (C.D. Cal. 2011). This action involved
extensive motion practice and my firm’s opposition brief was so persuasive that
defendants decided to withdraw their motion. My firm’s well-drafted briefing,
knowledge and experience resulted in a $5 million common fund plus injunctive
relief settlement in favor of Gallucci against French homeopathic giant, Boiron,
Inc. On April 25, 2012, the Honorable John A. Houston granted preliminary
approval, noting that:
During the pendency of the Litigation, Class Counsel conducted a
extensive examination and evaluation of the relevant facts and law to
assess the merits of the named plaintiffs’ and class claims to
determine how best to serve the interests of Plaintiffs and the Class. . .
. Class Counsel conducted thorough review of the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, its numerous changes over the years, and the Act’s
implementing regulations. Class Counsel have carefully considered
the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, and the defenses raised by defendants.
Gallucci Dkt. No. 89 at i.
24. Accordingly, Judge Houston appointed my firm as Class Counsel,
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:2279
8 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
finding that Class Counsel “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
Class . . . [and] are experienced and competent to prosecute this matter on behalf of
the Class.” Id. at iii-iv. The Fairness Hearing was held on October 1, 2012 and on
October 31, 2012, the court granted final approval. See Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc.,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157039 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2012).
25. Further, on June 26, 2015, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted
preliminary approval to a class action settlement with injunctive relief for class
wide claims of false representations regarding the defendant’s weight loss teas. See
Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea Inc., Case No. 3:4-cv-01570 MMC (Dkt. No. 53)
(“Having considered the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedures, the Court appoints Plaintiff’s counsel, the Law offices of Ronald
A. Marron APLC, to serve as Class Counsel.”).
26. On October 31, 2013, the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California granted preliminary
approval to a class action settlement of $1 million and injunctive relief for class
wide claims of false and deceptive advertising of OTC drugs negotiated by my
firm in Mason v. Heel, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-3056 GPC (KSC) (Dkt. No. 27),
also finding there was “sufficient basis . . . under the factors set forth in Rule
23(g)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” to appoint my firm as Class
Counsel. Id. at p. 5.
27. On October 23, 2013, the Honorable Michael M. Anello of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California granted final approval
to a $1.2 million and injunctive relief class action settlement concerning false and
deceptive advertising of OTC drugs negotiated by my firm in Nigh v. Humphreys
Pharmacal, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-02714-MMA-DHB (Dkt. No. 30), finding that
“the Class was adequately represented by competent counsel.” Id. at p. 14.
28. On March 13, 2012, my firm settled a case against manufacturers of
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:2280
9 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
OTC dietary supplement products for $900,000 in a common fund plus injunctive
relief, styled Burton v. Ganeden Biotech, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01471 W
(NLS) (S.D. Cal.). Burton alleged that defendants falsely advertised their products
as containing “clinically proven” proprietary bacteria that improved and benefitted
the digestive and immune health of individuals when, in fact, no clinical proof
existed. Before this settlement was finalized, my firm rejected defendants’ coupon
settlement offer because we did not believe it constituted the best relief for the
class members. Instead, we continued extensive and lengthy rounds of negotiations
with the defendants to obtain the best result for the class. These months-long
negotiations included back and forth exchange of approximately twenty editions of
the Settlement Agreement, multiple conference calls (including on the weekends)
and e-mails. On March 14, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement, (Dkt. No. 38) which the court granted on April 16, 2012
(Id. at 42). After the Fairness Hearing in this case on August 21, 2012, Judge
Whelan granted final approval on October 5, 2012. Dkt. Nos. 48, 52.
29. On March 1, 2012, the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino appointed my
firm Interim Class Counsel in an action styled Margolis v. The Dial Corporation,
Case No. 3:12-cv-288 JLS (WVG) (Dkt. No. 14). This case involved an OTC
pheromone soap product that its manufacturer alleges enhances a man’s sexual
attraction to women.
30. When my firm was appointed Interim Lead Class Counsel for a class
of consumers in a deceptive food labeling case back in March of 2011, the
Honorable Marilyn Huff recognized Class Counsel “appears to be well qualified to
represent the interest of the purported class and to manage this litigation.”
Hohenberg v. Ferrero U.S.A., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38471, at *6 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 22, 2011). Subsequently, when my firm obtained certification of the proposed
class, the court reaffirmed its finding that my firm is adequate Class Counsel. See
In re Ferrero Litig., 278 F.R.D. 552, 559 (S.D. Cal. 2011). Judge Huff gave Final
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:2281
10 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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 of a settlement on July 9, 2012. (Ferrero Dkt. No. 127).
31. On November 14, 2011 my firm obtained the certification of a
nationwide class of consumers who purchased Qunol CoQ10, a dietary supplement
making misleading efficacy claims. See Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, 2011
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132323 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011). My firm then successfully
defeated the defendants’ motion to decertify the class following the Ninth Circuit’s
decision in Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012). See
Bruno v. Eckhart Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30873 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2012).
The case then settled on the eve of trial (originally scheduled for October 2, 2012).
32. On June 14, 2011, the Honorable Richard Seeborg appointed my firm
Interim Class Counsel, over a competing application from a former partner at the
New York law firm Milberg Weiss, regarding a deceptive food labeling case. See
Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65023, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal.
June 14, 2011) (since restyled as In re Quaker Oats Labeling Litig.) (“There is no
question here that both the Weston/Marron counsel…have ample experience
handling class actions and complex litigation. It is also clear that both have
particular familiarity with suits involving issues of mislabeling in the food
industry.”).
33. I was appointed class counsel in Peterman v. North American
Company for Life and Health Ins., et al., No. BC357194, (L.A. Co. Sup. Ct.),
which was litigated for over 4 years and achieved a settlement of approximately
$60 million for consumers. In granting preliminary approval of the settlement, the
Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl noted that “the excellent work that the plaintiffs’ side has
done in this case has absolutely followed through to the settlement…The thought
and detail that went into the preparation of every aspect was very impressive to
me.”
34. I also served as class counsel in Clark v. National Western Life
Insurance Company, No. BC321681 (L.A. Co. Sup. Ct.), a class action that, after
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:2282
11 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
litigating the case for well over 6 years, resulted in a settlement of approximately
$25 million for consumers.
35. In Iorio v. Asset Marketing, No. 05cv00633-IEG (CAB) (S.D. Cal.), I
was appointed class counsel on August 24, 2006, following class certification,
which was granted on July 25, 2006 by the Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez. Dkts.
Nos. 113 and 121. After nearly 6 years of intensive litigation, a settlement valued
at $110 million was reached in Iorio, supra, and approved on March 3, 2011, by
the Honorable Janis Sammartino. Dkt. No. 480. Co-counsel and I successfully
defended multiple motions brought by defendant in the Southern District of
California, including “challenges to the pleadings, class certification, class
decertification, summary judgment,…motion to modify the class definition, motion
to strike various remedies in the prayer for relief, and motion to decertify the
Class’ punitive damages claim,” plus three petitions to the Ninth Circuit attempting
to challenge the Rule 23(f) class certification. Iorio, Final Order Approving (1)
Class Action Settlement, (2) Awarding Class Counsel Fees and Expenses, (3)
Awarding Class Representatives Incentives, (4) Permanently Enjoining Parallel
Proceedings, and (5) Dismissing Action with Prejudice, entered on Mar. 3, 2011, at
6:9-15 (commenting that class counsel were “highly experienced trial lawyers with
specialized knowledge in insurance and annuity litigation, and complex class
action litigation generally” and “capable of properly assessing the risks, expenses,
and duration of continued litigation, including at trial and on appeal,” Id. at 7:18-
22). Judge Sammartino also noted “the complexity and subject matter of this
litigation, and the skill and diligence with which it has been prosecuted and
defended, and the quality of the result obtained for the Class.” Id. at 17:25-27.
36. Besides these cases, I have also represented plaintiffs victimized in
other complex cases such as Ponzi schemes, shareholder derivative suits, and
securities fraud cases. I have litigated hundreds of lawsuits and arbitrations against
major corporations; of these, approximately 30 cases against the likes of such
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:2283
12 Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF RONALD A. MARRON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
corporate titans as Shell Oil, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and Merrill
Lynch have gone through trial or arbitration. Many more have settled on the eve of
trial although I was fully prepared to proceed to trial.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 27th day of January, 2020 at San Diego, California.
/s/ Ronald A. Marron
Ronald A. Marron
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-2 Filed 01/27/20 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:2284
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:2285
1
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego ▪ CA ▪ 92103
Tel.: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Firm Resume
FIRM OVERVIEW
The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron is a recognized class action and complex litigation firm based
out of San Diego, California, representing clients across the nation. Founded in 1996 with an
emphasis in consumer and securities fraud, the firm has expanded its practice to include complex
cases such as electronic privacy, banking regulations, antitrust, automatic renewals, Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and Government Environmental Law Litigation. The firm has skillfully
litigated hundreds of lawsuits and arbitrations against investment advisors and stockbrokers, such as
Morgan Stanley, LPL Financial, Merrill Lynch, Banc of America Securities, and Citigroup, who
placed clients into unsuitable investments, failed to diversify, and who violated the Securities Act of
1933 and/or 1934. Aptly and competently prepared to represent its clients, the firm has taken on
cases against the likes of Shell Oil, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Union Bank of California, American
Express Advisors, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch. Since 2004, the firm has devoted most of its
practice to the area of false and misleading labeling of Consumer Products and food, drug and over-
the-counter products, as well as seeking to protect consumers from unauthorized and unsolicited
telephone calls, SMS or text messages to cellular phones from corporations under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. The firm employs five attorneys, whose qualifications are discussed in
brief below.
THE MARRON FIRM’S ATTORNEYS:
Ronald A. Marron, Founder
As the founder of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Mr. Marron has been practicing law
for 25 years. He was a member of the United States Marine Corps from 1984 to 1990 (Active Duty
1984-1988, Reserves 1988-1990) and thereafter received a B.S. in Finance from the University of
Southern California (USC) in 1991. While attending Southwestern University School of Law (1992-
1994), he interned at the California Department of Corporations with emphasis in consumer
complaints and fraud investigations; and studied Bio-Chemistry at the University of Southern
California and was a member of the Trojan Chemistry Club. Mr. Marron has extensive experience
in class actions and other complex litigation and has obtained hundreds of millions of dollars on
behalf of consumers as lead counsel. Mr. Marron has represented plaintiffs victimized in TCPA
cases, Consumer Fraud, Antitrust, Broker-Dealer Liability, Ponzi schemes, shareholder derivative
suits, and securities fraud cases.
Mr. Marron has assisted two United States Senate Subcommittees and their staff in investigations of
financial fraud, plus the Senate Subcommittee on Aging relating to annuity sales practices by agents
using proceeds from reverse mortgages. Mr. Marron's clients have testified before the United States
Senate Subcommittee on Investigations relating to abusive sales practices alleged in a complaint he
filed against All-Tech Investment Group. The hearings resulted in federal legislation that: (a) raised
the minimum capital requirements, and (b) required written risk disclosure signed by consumer. The
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2286
2
civil action resulted in return of client funds and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the private attorney
general statute and/or Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Mr. Marron conducted the legal research
and co-wrote the brief that resulted in the largest punitive damages award (500%) in NASD history
for aggrieved investors against Dean Witter Reynolds in securities arbitration. Mr. Marron's opinion
on deferred annuity sales practices targeting the elderly has often been sought by major financial
news organizations and publications such as Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, the Kiplinger's
Retirement Report, CNN, and FOX News affiliates. In addition, he has devoted significant energy
and time educating seniors and senior citizen service providers, legislators, and various non-profits
(including Elder Law & Advocacy) about deferred annuity sales practices targeting the elderly. Mr.
Marron had numerous speaking engagements at FAST (Fiduciary Abuse Specialist Team), which is
an organization devoted to the detection of, prevention, and prosecution of elder financial abuse;
Adult Protective Services; and Elder Law & Advocacy, a non-profit dedicated to assisting seniors
who have been the victims of financial fraud. He has litigated hundreds of lawsuits and arbitrations
against major corporations, such as Shell Oil, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill
Lynch. In recent years, Mr. Marron has devoted almost all of his practice to the area of TCPA and
Privacy Violations, false and misleading labeling of food, dietary supplements, and over-the-counter
products. He is a member in good standing of the State Bar of California; the United States District
Courts for the Eastern, Southern and Northern Districts of New York; the United States District
Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of California; the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; the United States District Court for the Eastern
and Western Districts of Wisconsin; the United States District Court of Colorado; the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Alexis M. Wood, Senior Associate
Ms. Wood graduated cum laude from California Western School of Law in 2009, where she was the
recipient of the Dean’s Merit Scholarship for Ethnic & Cultural Diversity and also Creative Problem
Solving Scholarships. In addition, during law school, Ms. Wood was the President of the Elder,
Child, and Family Law Society, and participated in the study abroad program on international and
comparative human rights law in Galway, Ireland. Ms. Wood interned for the Alternate Public
Defender during law school, and also held a judicial externship with the San Diego Superior Court.
Upon graduation, Ms. Wood obtained her Nevada Bar license and worked at the law firm Alverson
Taylor Mortensen & Sanders in Las Vegas, Nevada where she specialized in medical malpractice.
Ms. Wood then obtained her license to practice law in California in 2010 and worked at the
bankruptcy firm Pite Duncan, LLP in San Diego, California, in which she represented financial
institutions in bankruptcy proceedings. She additionally worked for the national law firm Gordon &
Rees, LLP as an associate attorney in the professional liability defense and tort & product liability
practice groups. Ms. Wood was also selected to the 2015 and 2016 California Super Lawyers Rising
Star list (general category)—a research-driven, peer influenced rating service of outstanding lawyers
who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. No more than
2.5% of the lawyers in the state were selected for the Rising Stars list. Ms. Wood joined the Law
Office of Ronald Marron in September of 2012 and has dedicated her practice to consumer advocacy.
Ms. Wood is also a foster youth advocate with Voices for Children. She is a member in good standing
of the State Bar of California; the State Bar of Nevada; the United States District Courts for the
Central, Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of California; the United States District Court of
Nevada; the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin; the
United States District Court of Colorado; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:2287
3
Kas L. Gallucci, Senior Associate
Ms. Gallucci graduated cum laude from California Western School of Law in 2012, where she ranked
in the top 12% of her graduating class and was listed on the Dean’s Honor List for four terms. During
law school, Ms. Gallucci received the highest grade in her Legal Skills and Advanced Legal Research
classes. She also participated in the Capitals of Europe Summer Study Abroad Program, where the
Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr. was a Distinguished Guest Jurist. Ms. Gallucci has worked for the
firm since 2009 and has a number of years’ experience in consumer fraud cases and is currently
prosecuting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ms. Gallucci also regularly assists
with the firm’s food, drug, and cosmetic cases. She is a member in good standing of the State Bar of
California; the United States District Courts for the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of
California; the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; the United States
District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin; the United States District Court
for New Mexico; the United States District Court of Colorado; and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Michael Houchin, Associate
Mr. Houchin has been with the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron since 2011. Prior to passing the
California bar exam, Mr. Houchin worked as a law clerk for the firm while he attended law school
courses in the evenings at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. During law school, Mr. Houchin
received four Witkin Awards for the highest grade achieved in his Legal Writing, Constitutional
Law, American Indian Law, and California Civil Procedure courses. He also served as an editor on
the Thomas Jefferson Law Review and was a member of an editing team that prepared a student Note
for compliance with publishable quality standards. See I. Suruelo, Harmonizing Section 14(B) with
The Policy Goals of the NLRA on the Heels of Michigan's Enactment of Right-To-Work Laws, 36 T.
JEFFERSON L. REV. 427 (2014). Mr. Houchin graduated magna cum laude in May of 2015 and ranked
in the top 5% of his graduating class. Through his work at the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
APLC, Mr. Houchin has gained substantial familiarity with multi-district litigation proceedings,
solutions for e-discovery management, and false advertising investigations. He is a member in good
standing of the State Bar of California; and the United States District Courts for the Central, Eastern,
Northern, and Southern Districts of California; the Western District of Wisconsin; the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Lilach Halperin, Associate
Ms. Halperin graduated cum laude from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2018. During
law school, Ms. Halperin held a judicial externship with the San Diego Superior Court and
volunteered for numerous pro bono clinics, including the USD Entrepreneurship Clinic, the USD
State Sales and Use Tax Clinic, and the San Diego Clean Slate Clinic. In addition, Ms. Halperin was
the Chair of the USD Pro Bono Legal Advocates Consumer Affairs Clinic, where she worked with
the Legal Aid Society of San Diego to assist indigent clients with lawsuits in consumer protection
law. In her third year of law school, Ms. Halperin was hired as a law clerk for the Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron and assisted in consumer fraud cases for the firm, including the areas of false and
misleading labeling of consumer products. Ms. Halperin recently passed the California Bar and will
continue working for the Marron firm as an Associate Attorney. She is a member of good standing
of the State Bar of California; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Northern, Eastern
and Central Districts of California; and the Western District of Wisconsin.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:2288
4
Elisa Pineda, Associate
Ms. Pineda graduated magna cum laude from California Western School of Law in 2019, where she
was the recipient of the Dean’s Merit Scholarship for Ethnic & Cultural Diversity and ranked in the
top 3% of her graduating class. During law school, Ms. Pineda received an award for obtaining the
highest grade in the following classes: Property I, Torts I, Trusts & Estates, Professional Ethics, and
the Mediation Clinic. Ms. Pineda was listed on the Dean’s Honor List for three terms. In addition,
during law school, Ms. Pineda received an Outstanding Editor Award for her efforts as Senior Editor
for her law school’s International Law Journal. Ms. Pineda interned for both the San Diego District
Attorney’s Office and the San Diego Public Defender’s Office. She also held a judicial externship
with the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California. Ms. Pineda recently passed the California Bar and is now
working as an Associate Attorney at the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron. She is a member in good
standing of the State Bar of California and the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.
Support Staff
The Marron Firm also employs a number of knowledgeable and experienced support staff, including
paralegals and legal assistants.
EXAMPLES OF MARRON FIRM’S SUCCESSES ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS
Busch v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., No. 16-cv-0644(WMW/HB) (D. Minn.)
On October 11, 2019, the Honorable Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted final approval of a
nationwide TCPA class action settlement and appointed the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as
co-lead class counsel. The settlement created a $5.25 million common fund.
Esparza v. Smartpay Leasing, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03421-WHA (N.D. Cal.)
On September 12 2019, the Honorable William Alsup granted preliminary approval a nation-wide
certified class action settlement. The class included individuals who were texted on behalf of the
defendant, using its vendor Twilio, Inc.’s platform after texting the word “STOP”, between
September 29, 2015 to June 13, 2017. The Court also appointed Plaintiff Shawn Esparza as class
representative and Ronald A. Marron, Alexis M. Wood and Kas L. Gallucci of the Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron as class counsel.
Medina v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, No. 15-CV-14342-MARTINEZ-MAYNARD
(S.D. Fla.)
On September 12, 2019, the Honorable Judge Jose E. Martinez granted final approval of a
nationwide TCPA class action settlement and appointed the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as
co-lead class counsel. The settlement created a $1.45 million common fund.
Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, No. 18-cv-0658-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal.)
On June 17, 2019, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia granted final approval of a nationwide CLRA
class action settlement stating “Class Counsel has fully and competently prosecuted all causes of
action, claims, theories of liability, and remedies reasonably available to the Class Members.”
Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Co., No. 318CV00658AJBWVG, 2019 WL 2514720, at *3 (S.D. Cal.
June 17, 2019).
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:2289
5
Rwomwijhu v. SMX, LLC, No. BC634518 (L.A. Supr. Ct.)
On January 11, 2019, the Honorable Carolyn B. Kuhl granted final approval of case brought pursuant
to under California’s Private Attorneys General Act where the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron
served as co-lead class counsel.
Jackson v. Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc., No. 37-2017-00028196-CU-BC-CTL (S.D. Supr. Ct.)
On December 20, 2018, the Honorable Joel R. Wohlfeil of the California Superior Court granted
final approval to a nationwide labeling case settlement involving Co-q10 dietary supplements where
the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron served as class counsel. The settlement created a fund in the
amount of $1,306,000 for which class members could elect to obtain cash or product vouchers.
Simms v. ExactTarget, LLC, No. 1-14-cv-00737-WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind.)
On October 19, 2018, the Honorable William T. Lawrence granted final approval of a nationwide
TCPA class action settlement where the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron served as class counsel.
The settlement created a $6.25 million common fund.
Mancini v. The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, et al., No. 16-cv-2830-LAB
(WVG) (S.D. Cal)
On September 18, 2018, the Honorable Larry Alan Burns granted final approval of settlement in the
amount of $477,500 to resolve claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act.
Gonzales v. Starside Security & Investigation, No. 37-2015-00036423-CU-OE-CTL
(S.D. Supr. Ct.)
On September 7, 2018, the Honorable Gregory W. Pollack granted final approval of a wage and hour
class action settlement and where the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron served as class counsel.
Mollicone v. Universal Handicraft, No. 17-21464-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.)
On August 10, 2018, the Honorable Robert N. Scola, Jr. granted final approval of class action
settlement regarding false advertising claims of Adore cosmetics products marketed as containing a
plant stem cell formula where in which the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron served as class counsel.
In his Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Scola stated that the Marron Firm is “experienced and
competent in the prosecution of complex class action litigation.” (Dkt. No. 120).
Mason v. M3 Financial Services, Inc., No. 15-cv-4194 (N.D. Ill.)
On June 29, 2018, the Honorable Andrea R. Wood granted final approval of a nationwide TCPA
class action settlement in the amount of $600,000 in which the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron
served as co-lead class counsel.
Lucero v. Tommie Copper, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 3183 (AT) (S.D. N.Y.)
On May 4, 2018, the Honorable Analisa Torres granted final approval of a false advertising class
settlement in the amount $700,000. This case involves allegations of false and deceptive advertising
and endorser liability for copper fabric compression clothing. On January 4, 2016, the Honorable
Analisa Torres appointed the Marron firm as Interim Lead Class Counsel over the opposition and
challenge of other plaintiffs’ counsel, noting that the Marron firm’s “detailed” complaint was “more
specifically pleaded, . . . assert[ing] a more comprehensive set of theories . . . [and was] more
factually developed.” Potzner v. Tommie Copper Inc., No. 15 CIV. 3183 (AT), 2016 WL 304746,
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:2290
6
at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2016). Judge Torres also noted that Mr. Marron and his firm’s attorneys had
“substantial experience litigating complex consumer class actions, are familiar with the applicable
law, and have the resources necessary to represent the class.” Id.
Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. R.M. Galicia, Inc., No. 16-cv-00182-H-BLM (S.D. Cal.)
On March 26, 2018, the Honorable Marilyn Huff granted final approval of a nationwide TCPA class
action settlement which provided monetary relief in the amount of $1,500,000, in addition to
significant injunctive relief. (Dkt. 67.) The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron were appointed class
counsel. Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. R.M. Galicia, Inc., No. 16-CV-00182-H-BLM, 2018 WL 1470198,
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018).
Thornton v. NCO Financial Systems, No. 16-CH-5780 (Cook County, Ill)
On October 31, 2017, the Honorable Tomas R. Allen of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
granted final approval to a nationwide TCPA class which created a common fund in the amount of
$8,000,000 and also provided for injunctive relief. The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron served as
co-lead class counsel.
Elkind v. Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, No. 14-cv-2484(JS)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y.)
On September 5, 2017, the Honorable A. Kathleen Tomlinson granted final approval of a nationwide
false advertising class action settlement which challenged Revlon’s advertising of its “Age Defying
with DNA Advantage” line of cosmetics in the amount of $900,000, and significant injunctive relief.
The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron served as co-lead class counsel.
Sanders v. R.B.S. Citizen, N.A., No. 13-CV-03136-BAS (RBB) (S.D. Cal.)
On January 27, 2017 the Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant granted final approval of a nationwide
TCPA class action settlement in the amount of $4,551,267.50. Sanders v. R.B.S. Citizen, N.A., No.
13-CV-03136-BAS (RBB), 2017 WL 363536 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2017). On July 1, 2016, the
Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant certified a nationwide class, for settlement purposes, of over one
million persons receiving cell phone calls from Citizens made with an alleged automatic telephone
dialing system. Dkt. 107. The Court appointed the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as class
counsel, noting they have “significant experience in handling class actions.” Id.
In re Leaf123 (Augustine v. Natrol), No. 14-114466 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware)
This action involved allegations of false and deceptive advertising of Senna Leaf tea products as
dietary aids. Plaintiff alleged Senna Leaf is nothing more than a stimulant laxative which does not
aid diets but hinders them. After a strong showing in the district court, and pursuant to other actions
against the defendant manufacturer, the defendant filed for bankruptcy. The Marron Firm followed
defendant to the federal bankruptcy court and retained bankruptcy counsel to assist. After a full day
mediation before a retired federal jurist, and months of follow up negotiations, a settlement was
reached. On August 7, 2015, in In re Leaf123 (adversary proceeding of Augustine v. Natrol), the
Honorable Brendan L. Shannon approved an injunctive relief-only settlement, finding it “fair,
reasonable and adequate.”
Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-01570-MMC (N.D. Cal.)
An injunctive relief class action settlement, requiring manufacturer of senna leaf diet teas to re-label
their products and remove ingredients based on alleged consumer confusion and harm, was filed in
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:2291
7
April 2014. The Marron firmed served as class counsel and the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney,
Senior U.S. District Court Judge granted final approval to a classwide settlement on November 16,
2015. Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea Inc., No. 3:14-CV-01570-MMC, 2015 WL 8943150, at *3, *5
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015) (“Class Counsel has fully and competently prosecuted all causes of action,
claims, theories of liability, and remedies reasonably available to the Class Members. The Court
hereby affirms its appointment of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC as Class Counsel . .
. . Class Counsel and Defendant's counsel are highly experienced civil litigation attorneys with
specialized knowledge in food and drug labeling issues, and complex class action litigation
generally.”).
Perry v. Truong Giang Corp., Case No. BC58568 (L.A. Supr. Ct.)
Plaintiff alleged defendant’s Senna Leaf teas, advertised as diet aids, were falsely or misleadingly
advertised to consumers. After an all-day mediation, a class wide settlement was reached. In
granting final approval to the settlement on August 5, 2015, the Honorable Kenneth Freeman noted
that class counsel’s hourly rates were “reasonable” and stated the Marron Firm’s lawyers used skill
in securing the positive results achieved on behalf of the class. The court also noted “this case
involved difficult legal issues because federal and state laws governing dietary supplements are a
gray area, . . . the attorneys displayed skill in researching and settling this case, which provides a
benefit not only to Class Members but to the public at large . . . .”
Carr v. Tadin, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-03040-JLS-JMA (S.D. Cal.)
An injunctive relief class action settlement, requiring manufacturer of diet teas and other health
supplements to re-label their products to avoid alleged consumer confusion, was filed in January 2014
before the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino. The Marron Firm was appointed as class counsel and the
classwide settlement was granted final approval on December 5, 2014.
Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-2039-JAH (S.D. Cal.)
The firm was class counsel for consumers of homeopathic drug products in an action against
Boiron, Inc., the largest foreign manufacturer of homeopathic products in the United States,
involving allegations that Boiron’s labeling and advertising were false and misleading. We obtained
a nationwide settlement for the class which provided injunctive relief and restitution from a common
fund of $5 million. The settlement was upheld by the Ninth Circuit on February 21, 2015. The case
also set an industry standard for homeopathic drug labeling. See
www.homeopathicpharmacy.org/pdf/press/AAHP_Advertising_ Guidelines.pdf.
Red v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. 2:10-1028-GW (C.D. Cal)
The firm represented consumers in a class action against one of the world’s largest food
companies and was appointed lead counsel in a consolidated putative class action. The action has
resulted in a permanent injunction barring the use of deceptive health claims on Nabisco packaged
foods containing artificial trans fat. The Court has also granted an interim award of attorneys’ fees.
Mason v. Heel, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-3056-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.)
Plaintiff alleged false and deceptive advertising of over-the-counter homeopathic drugs. On October
31, 2013, the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel granted preliminary approval to a nationwide class
settlement of $1 million in monetary relief for the class plus four significant forms of injunctive
relief. Final approval was granted on March 13, 2014. See Mason v. Heel, Inc., 3:12-CV-03056-
GPC, 2014 WL 1664271 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014).
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:2292
8
Clark v. National Western Life Insurance Co., No. BC321681 (L.A. Co. Super. Ct.)
Class action involving allegations of elder financial abuse and fraud. After litigating the case for
well over six years, including Mr. Marron being appointed co-lead class counsel, the case resulted
in a settlement of approximately $25 million for consumers.
In re Quaker Oats Labeling Litig., No. 5:10-cv-00502-RS (N.D. Cal.)
False and deceptive advertising case concerning Instant Oats, Chewy Granola Bars and Oatmeal To
Go products, including use of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil while also representing the
products as healthy snacks. An injunctive relief class action settlement was granted preliminary
approval on February 2, 2014, with my firm being appointed Class Counsel. On July 29, 2014, the
court granted the final approval of the settlement.
Nigh v. Humphreys Pharmacal, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-02714-MMA-DHB (S.D. Cal.)
Case involving allegations of false and deceptive advertising of homeopathic over-the-counter drugs
as effective when they allegedly were not. On October 23, 2013, a global settlement was granted
final approved by the Honorable Michael M. Anello, involving a common fund of $1.4 million plus
five significant forms of injunctive relief for consumers.
Burton v. Ganeden Biotech, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01471-W-NLS (S.D. Cal.)
Action alleging false and deceptive advertising of a dietary probiotic supplement. On March 13,
2012, the Marron Firm settled the case for $900,000 in a common fund plus injunctive relief in the
form of labeling changes. Final approval was granted on October 5, 2012.
Hohenberg v. Ferrero U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB (S.D. Cal.)
This case involved false and deceptive advertising of sugary food product as a healthy breakfast food
for children. After successfully defeating a motion to dismiss, Hohenberg, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
38471, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2011), the Honorable Marilyn Huff certified a class on November
15, 2011, resulting in a published decision, In re Ferrero Litig., 278 F.R.D. 552 (S.D. Cal. 2011). A
final settlement consisting of injunctive relief labeling and marketing changes, plus a $550,000
common fund for monetary relief to the class was finally approved on July 9, 2012.
In re Qunol CoQ10 Liquid Labeling Litigation, No. 8:11-cv-173-DOC (C.D. Cal.)
This case involved false and deceptive consumer advertising of a dietary supplement. The Marron
Firm was appointed class counsel and successfully defeated defendants’ motion to decertify the class
following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir.
2012). See Bruno v. Eckhart Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30873 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2012); see
also Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132323 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011).
The case settled on the eve of trial (originally scheduled for October 2, 2012) for cash payments to
the class and injunctive relief.
Iorio v. Asset Marketing Systems, Inc., No. 05cv00633-IEG-CAB (S.D. Cal.)
This action involved allegations of elder financial abuse and fraud. Mr. Marron was appointed class
counsel on August 24, 2006 and the Court certified a class on July 25, 2006. After nearly six years
of intensive litigation, including “challenges to the pleadings, class certification, class
decertification, summary judgment,…motion to modify the class definition, motion to strike various
remedies in the prayer for relief, and motion to decertify the Class’ punitive damages claim,” plus
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:2293
9
three petitions to the Ninth Circuit, attempting to challenge the Rule 23(f) class certification, a
settlement valued at $110 million was reached and approved on March 3, 2011. Iorio, Dkt. No. 480.
In granting final approval to the settlement, the Court noted that class counsel were “highly
experienced trial lawyers with specialized knowledge in insurance and annuity litigation, and
complex class action litigation generally” and “capable of properly assessing the risks, expenses,
and duration of continued litigation, including at trial and on appeal.” Id. at 7:18-22.
Martinez v. Toll Brothers, No. 09-cv-00937-CDJ (E.D. Penn.)
Shareholder derivative case alleging breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment
and insider trading, filed derivatively on behalf of Toll Brothers and against individual corporate
officers. Under a joint prosecution agreement, this action was litigated along with other consolidated
and related actions against Toll Brothers in a case styled Pfeiffer v. Toll Brothers, No. 4140-VCL
in the Delaware Chancery Court. After extensive litigation, the case settled in September 2012 for
$16.25 million in reimbursement to the corporation.
Peterman v. North American Co. for Life & Health Insurance, No. BC357194, (L.A. Co. Super.
Ct.), involved allegations of elder financial abuse. This case was litigated for over four years and
achieved a settlement of approximately $60 million for consumers.
Vaccarino v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-05858-CAS (MANx) (C.D. Cal.)
This action involved allegations of elder financial abuse and fraud. On June 17, 2013, the Honorable
Christina A. Snyder appointed the Marron Firm as Class Counsel, and on February 3, 2014, the
Court certified a class of annuities purchasers under various theories of relief, including breach of
contract and the UCL. On September 22, 2014, the court granted final approval to a class action
settlement that achieved a settlement of approximately $5.55 million for consumers, including cy
pres relief to the Congress of California Seniors.
CURRENT AND NOTABLE APPOINTMENTS AS CLASS COUNSEL
Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-02335(GPC) (S.D. Cal.)
A nationwide class of consumers brought this suit against Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. and Arnold
Worldwide LLC for violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff alleges that
certain Ocean Spray products falsely state “no artificial flavors” when they in fact contain the
artificial flavoring agent, malic acid. On November 29, 2018, the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel
granted class certification, appointing Ronald A. Marron and Michael Houchin of the Marron Firm
as class counsel. On July 3, 2019, Judge Curiel denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and on July10, 2019 denied Defendant’s Motion to Decertify the Class.
Romero v. Securus Technologies, Inc. No. 3:16-cv-01283 (JM) (S.D. Cal.)
Plaintiffs Juan Romero, Kenneth Elliot, and Frank Tiscareno allege that Securus Technologies
illegally recorded telephone conversations between inmates and their counsel. On November 21,
2018, the Honorable Jeffrey Miller granted class certification in part, appointing the Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron as co-lead class counsel.
O’Shea v. American Solar Solutions, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB (S.D. Cal.)
On March 3, 2017, the Honorable M. James Lorenz certified a TCPA class of all individuals in the
United States who were called on behalf of the defendant, using the ViciDial predictive dialers, on
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:2294
10
a cellular telephone number, between November 22, 2012 and August 22, 2015, and appointed
Ronald A. Marron, Alexis Wood and Kas Gallucci as class counsel.
Reyes v. Education Credit Management Corporation, No. 3:15-cv-00628-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.)
Plaintiff A.J. Reyes brought suit against Education Credit Management Corporation under
California’s Invasion of Privacy Act. Plaintiff alleges due to an error in the Defendant’s phone
system, inbound calls to ECMC were being recorded without their consent. On September 20, 2017,
the Honorable Cynthia Bashant certified a class of individuals who made inbound calls to lines with
the faulty setting, as well as granted certification of plaintiff’s demand for injunctive relief and
monetary damages. The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron was appointed as class counsel. Currently
remanded back from 9th Circuit after vacating Class Certification, this case is back at the District
Court for further proceedings.
Robbins v. Gencor Nutrients, Inc., No. 16AC-CC00366 (Circuit Court, Cole Cty. Mo.).
On May 14, 2018, the Honorable Jon E. Beetem granted preliminary approval of a nationwide false
advertising class action settlement concerning testosterone boosting supplements and appointed the
Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as co-lead class counsel.
Allen v. Hyland’s, Inc., No. 12-CV-1150 DMG (MANx) (C.D. Cal.)
Nationwide class of consumers certified for false and deceptive advertising against largest U.S.-
based manufacturer of homeopathic drugs, involving ten over-the-counter homeopathic drug
products. A nationwide class was certified after two years of vigorous litigation, including Marron
firm counsel surviving against two motions to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and
a motion to strike punitive damages. See 300 F.R.D. 643 (C.D. Cal. 2014). Following a thirteen-day
jury trial before the Honorable Judge Dolly M. Gee, a verdict was returned in favor of Hyland’s. The
Marron Firm timely appealed. On May 15, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment in part
holding that “the jury’s narrow findings as to deceptive advertising do not resolve [Plaintiffs’]
broader unfair practices theory” and that “the district court must engage in fact-finding to resolve
[the UCL claim], and erred in granting judgment to Hyland’s without doing so.” Allen v. Hylands,
Inc., No. 17-56184, 2018 WL 2142843, at *3 (9th Cir. May 15, 2019).
Allen v. Similasan Corp., No. 12-cv-376 BAS (JLB) (S.D. Cal.)
A California class of consumers alleging false and deceptive advertising of six homeopathic drugs
was certified by the Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant on March 30, 2015, with the Court noting that
the firm was experienced and competent to prosecute the matter on behalf of the Class. Judge
Bashant denied summary judgment on the class’ claims that the drug products were not effective, as
advertised, and certified claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, breach of express and implied warranty, and violation of
the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
OTHER NOTABLE CASES
In re Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., No. 1:16-md-
02695-JB-LF (D.N.M.)
On May 24, 2016, Ronald A. Marron was appointed to the Executive Committee in a multidistrict
litigation labeling case. (Dkt. 24.)
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:2295
11
Henderson v. The J.M. Smucker Company, No. 2:10-cv-4524-GHK (C.D. Cal.)
This action was the catalyst forcing the defendant to reformulate a children’s frozen food production
to remove trans-fat. On June 19, 2013, the Honorable George H. King held the firm’s client was a
prevailing Private Attorney General and entitled to her costs and attorneys’ fees.
NINTH CIRCUIT CASES
Shyriaa Henderson v. United States Aid Funds, Inc., Case No. 17-55373 (9th Cir.)
On March 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant, and remanded for further proceedings in a class action where debt
collectors acting on behalf of defendant were in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The Ninth Circuit found that a reasonable jury could hold Defendant vicariously liable for
the alleged TCPA violations by debt collectors.
John Sandoval v. Pharmacare US, Inc., Case No. 16-56301 (9th Cir.)
On April 5, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed, in part, the District Court’s order granting summary
judgment in a false advertising class action concerning an aphrodisiac dietary supplement called
“IntenseX” The Marron Firm successfully argued that statements on the intensex.com website
showed that the defendant failed to obtain approval of IntenseX as an OTC aphrodisiac drug, thus
creating a basis for liability under California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 12-56726 (9th Cir.)
On March 13, 2015, the Ninth Circuit reversed, in part, the District Court’s order granting the
defendant’s motion to dismiss in a false advertising class action concerning Benecol spread that was
allegedly falsely advertised as containing “No Trans Fat.” The Marron Firm successfully argued
that the plaintiff’s claims are not preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. Reid v.
Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 964 (9th Cir. 2015).
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:2296
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Co., No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE BY NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR GAJAN RETNASABA
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
29
30
31
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A.
MARRON, APLC
RONALD A. MARRON (SBN 175650)
MICHAEL T. HOUCHIN (SBN 305541)
LILACH HALPERIN (SBN 323202)
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL GRAVES, KEITH GREN, and MICHAEL WHEALEN, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE BY
NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR GAJAN
RETNASABA
Date: February 24, 2020 Time: 10:00 AM Ctrm: 8D Judge: Hon. Christina A. Snyder
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:2297
1
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Co., No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE BY NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR GAJAN RETNASABA
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
29
30
31
I, Gajan Retnasaba, declare:
1. I am a Partner at Classaura LLC (“Classaura”), a class action
administration firm, located at 1718 Peachtree St #1080, Atlanta, Georgia. I am over
21 years of age and am not a party to this action. I have personal knowledge of the
facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently
thereto.
2. Classaura was retained by the parties, and appointed by this Court, to
serve as the Claims Administrator to, among other tasks, publish notice of the
proposed class action settlement; receive and process Claim Forms; respond to Class
Member inquiries; establish and maintain the settlement website
(makesuptosettlement.com) (hereinafter, “the Settlement Website”) and perform
other duties as specified in the Settlement Agreement preliminarily approved by this
Court on September 18, 2019.
PUBLICATION NOTICE
3. A notice was published in USA Today, a national magazine with a
circulation of approximately 600,000 and a reach of approximately 1,600,000
readers. The notice was published on Friday, November 1, 2019. A true and correct
copy of the notice and an affidavit of publication from the publisher is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
ONLINE NOTICE PUBLICATION
4. On November 1, 2019, Classaura began an online advertising campaign
on the social media website Facebook.com. The advertising targeted adults residing
in the United States who were identified as having an interest in gardening,
landscaping, or lawn care. A true and correct copy of the advertisement is attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:2298
2
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Co., No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE BY NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR GAJAN RETNASABA
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
29
30
31
5. The Facebook advertising campaign generated 13,069,323 impressions.
An “impression” (in the context of online advertising) is the number of times an
advertisement was displayed to an individual. The impression is displayed and gives
an individual the opportunity to click on the advertisement and be directed to the
Settlement Website for more information. Each time an ad is displayed to a visitor, it
is counted as one impression.
6. The Facebook advertising campaign had a reach of 11,360,237 unique
users. “Reach” is defined as the number of different people that the advertisement
was exposed to. Each time an ad is displayed to a user that has not previously been
exposed to the advertisement through that medium, it is counted as adding one to the
reach.
7. The online advertising campaign also made submissions to Consumer
Class Action Websites, which are websites used by consumers to stay informed of
class action settlements that may apply to them. Consumer class action websites that
displayed a summary of the settlement included ClassActionRebates.com and
TopClassActions.com.
PRESS RELEASE
8. Classaura crafted a neutral informational press release, providing a
summary of the settlement. On November 1, 2019, the press release was released
using the PR Newswire’s US1 National Newsline. US1 National Newsline provides
the press release to thousands of media outlets across the country, including national
and local newspapers, websites, and television and radio stations. The press release
was picked up and republished by 121 media outlets. A true and correct copy of the
press release along with a summary report of outlets that picked up the release is
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:2299
3
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Co., No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE BY NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR GAJAN RETNASABA
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
29
30
31
CLRA NOTICE
9. California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1781)
requires published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county of the
transaction, once a week for four consecutive weeks. Accordingly, we published
notice in the Daily Commerce on November 8, 2019, November 15, 2019, November
22, 2019, and November 29, 2019. A true and correct copy of the advertisements
and an affidavit of publication from the publisher are attached hereto as Exhibit D.
PHONE LINE
10. A dedicated toll-free number (888-978-8269) was set up on October 20,
2019, providing pre-recorded information and allowing class members to leave a
voicemail requesting further information. To date we have received 85 calls and
answered 14 voicemails calls.
WEBSITE & EMAIL
11. The Settlement Website (www.makesuptosettlement.com) was set up on
November 1, 2019, providing information on the lawsuit and access to case
documents. The website includes a summary of the case, a list of important dates,
answers to frequently asked questions, key case filings (complaint, amended
complaints, motion for preliminary approval, order denying in part motion for
preliminary approval, renewed motion for preliminary approval, preliminary
approval order, long and short form notice of class action settlement, Plaintiffs’ Fee
Motion as well as the settlement agreement), and contact information. Plaintiffs’ Fee
Motion was uploaded to the settlement website on January 7, 2020. The Settlement
Website also displayed the claim filing deadline; the deadline to opt-out of the class
settlement; the deadline to submit an objection; and the date of the Fairness Hearing.
The website address was set forth in all of the public notices described above, as well
as on the Claim Form. To date the website has been visited 117,852 times.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:2300
4
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Co., No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE BY NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR GAJAN RETNASABA
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
29
30
31
12. A dedicated email address ([email protected]) was set
up on October 10, 2019 to answer questions from potential class members. To date
we have received and answered 173 emails.
CAFA NOTICE
13. In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C.
§ 1715, Classaura compiled a CD-ROM containing the following documents:
a. The complaint, amended complaints, and associated exhibits;
b. The Court's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. The Court's Order
Denying Plaintiff Gregory Arthur's Motion for Class Certification. And
the Court's Order denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
c. The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and the Renewed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement;
d. The Longform and Shortform notifications that are being provided to
class members to inform them of the proposed settlement and their right
to be excluded from the class;
e. The parties’ proposed class action Settlement Agreement and exhibits.
14. The CD-ROM was accompanied by a cover letter (collectively, the
“CAFA Notice Packet”). A true and correct copy of the cover letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit E.
15. On August 29, 2019, CAFA Notice was mailed via United States Postal
Service (USPS), Priority Mail Service, to the U.S. Attorney General, the Attorneys
General of each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and the Attorneys
General of the 5 recognized U.S. Territories.
16. We have retained copies of the CD. Copies of the CD will be made
available to the court on request.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:2301
5
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Co., No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE BY NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR GAJAN RETNASABA
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
29
30
31
CLAIMS
17. To date we have received 84,572 claim forms from prospective class
members. Of these claims, 83,831 forms were submitted electronically, and 741
claim forms were submitted via mail.
18. Based on an initial review of claims submitted, we found 16,605 claim
forms to be invalid due to being duplicative or not meeting the settlement criteria. A
claim was judged duplicative if multiple identical or near identical claims were filed.
A claim was judged as not meeting the settlement criteria if the place of purchase or
product purchased stated on the claim form was not a place related to defendants or
where the defendants sold products. Thus, we estimate that there will be there
approximately 67,967 valid claim forms.
19. Claimants were eligible to request payment for up to 4 purchases per
household on their claim forms. The average valid claim form reported 3.6
purchases. Thus, the total number of valid claims that will be paid is approximately
248,042.
REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION
20. The deadline for Class Members to request to be excluded from the class
was a postmarked deadline of January 20, 2020. We have received no requests to
opt-out of the settlement to date.
COSTS
21. The costs incurred to provide notice of the settlement via publication,
Settlement Website, Press Release, Online Notice, and CAFA is $70,000. The costs
to administer the settlement, and process claims is $8,457 (given 84,572 claims). The
cost to distribute payment to class members is $50,975 (assuming 67,967 approved
claims). This brings the total cost to $129,432.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:2302
6
Graves, et al. v. United Industries Co., No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE BY NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR GAJAN RETNASABA
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
29
30
31
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 27th day of January, 2020 in Atlanta,
Georgia.
__________________
Gajan Retnasaba
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:2303
Exhibit A
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-5 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2304
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-5 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2305
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-5 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2306
Exhibit B
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-6 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2307
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-6 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:2308
Exhibit C
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:2309
Classaura Announces Spectracide®Concentrate Class Action Settlement
NEWS PROVIDED BYClassaura
Nov 01, 2019, 09:00 ET
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 1, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- A proposed settlement has been reached in a
class action lawsuit involving United Industries Corporation ("UIC"), manufacturer of
Spectracide® Concentrate herbicide products. The proposed class action settlement
establishes a $2,500,000 settlement fund. Class members may be eligible for cash payments
of up to $25 per household.
On September 18 , 2019, United States District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge Christina A. Snyder, preliminarily approved a settlement of a lawsuit between UIC and
purchasers of Spectracide Concentrate products.
The lawsuit alleges that UIC labeled its Spectracide® Concentrate herbicide products in a
manner that was misleading regarding the application rates of the products. UIC denies the
allegations and any wrongdoing. To avoid the expense and distraction of litigation, the
parties have reached a settlement that will provide monetary recovery as detailed below.
Class members who purchased any herbicide product sold under the "Spectracide®"
tradename in a "concentrate" product form (in other words, designed to be manually mixed
by consumers with water prior to use on targeted vegetation) on or after September 21, 2013
until November 1, 2019, purchased in any state, for personal or household use and not for
resale or distribution, may be eligible for a cash payment of up to $6.25 in cash from the
settlement fund for each valid claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four (4) claims
per household.
th
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:2310
Claims can be submitted online at the class website
www.MakesUpToSettlement.com. Claims must be submitted by January 20, 2020. Class
members may request to be excluded from the class ("opt out" of the settlement),
comment on the settlement, or object to the settlement, but also must do so by January 20,
2020. Class members who do nothing will not receive any payment and will bound by the
Court's decision.
Your rights and options – and the deadlines to exercise them – are only summarized in this
press release. A Long Form Notice describes, in full, how to file a claim, object, or exclude
yourself, and provides other important information. For more information and to obtain a
Long Form Notice, claim form or other documents, visit www.MakesUpToSettlement.com.
You may also contact the Settlement Administrator by emailing
[email protected], or by writing to: Spectracide® Class Action
Settlement, 1718 Peachtree St NW #1080, Atlanta, GA 30309, or by calling 1-888-978-8269.
SOURCE Classaura
Related Links
http://www.MakesUpToSettlement.com
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:2311
Classaura Announces Spectracide® Concentrate Class ActionSettlement
English PR Newswire ID: 2616209-1 Clear Time Nov 01, 2019 9:00 AM ET
Overview
Total Pickup Over TimeTotal pickup since your content was distributed
TOTAL PICKUP 121
Exact Match 121 postings
TOTAL POTENTIAL AUDIENCE 67M
Exact Match 67M visitors
Tota
l Pic
kup
Coun
t
121.0
2019-11-010
25
50
75
100
125
150
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:2312
Total Pickup by Source Type
Broadcast Media (41/33.9%)Newspaper (38/31.4%)Online News Sites & Other Influencers (28/23.1%)Financial News Service (7/5.8%)News & Information Service (3/2.5%)Other (4/3.3%)
Total Pickup by Industry
Media & Information (96/79.3%)Financial (17/14.0%)Business Services (2/1.7%)Multicultural & Demographic (2/1.7%)Environment (1/0.8%)Other (3/2.5%)
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:2313
Classaura Announces Spectracide® Concentrate Class ActionSettlement
Exact Match PickupExact matches are full text postings of your content which we have found in the online andsocial media that we monitor. Understand how it is calculated. Your release has generated121 exact matches with a total potential audience of 67,075,556.
English PR Newswire ID: 2616209-1 Clear Time Nov 01, 2019 9:00 AM ET
Search:
Logo Outlet Name Location Language Source Type IndustryPotentialAudience
MarketWatch View Release
UnitedStates
English Financial NewsService
Financial 16,341,607visitors/month
Morningstar View Release
UnitedStates
English Financial Data,Research &Analytics
Financial 9,442,294visitors/month
PR Newswire View Release
UnitedStates
English PR Newswire Media & Information 9,372,666visitors/month
AP NEWS [The Associated Press] View Release
UnitedStates
English News & InformationService
Media & Information 8,453,616visitors/month
Tulsa World [Tulsa, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 3,846,247visitors/month
KOTV-TV CBS-6 [Tulsa, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 2,056,942visitors/month
Daily Herald [Chicago, IL] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 1,555,913visitors/month
Buffalo News [Buffalo, NY] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 1,537,817visitors/month
Benzinga View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Financial 1,537,078visitors/month
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:2314
Logo Outlet Name Location Language Source Type IndustryPotentialAudience
The Roanoke Times [Roanoke, VA] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 1,530,649visitors/month
WDRB-TV FOX [Louisville, KY] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 1,177,366visitors/month
WBBH-TV NBC-2 [Fort Myers, FL] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 870,274visitors/month
KWTV-TV CBS-9 [Oklahoma City,OK]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 854,368visitors/month
KAKE-TV ABC [Wichita, KS] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 848,576visitors/month
VB Profiles View Release
UnitedStates
English News & InformationService
Business Services 610,488visitors/month
Minyanville View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Financial 455,400visitors/month
WBOC-TV CBS-16 [Salisbury, MD] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 433,550visitors/month
One News Page Global Edition View Release
Global English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information 433,131visitors/month
WRCB-TV NBC-3 [Chattanooga, TN] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 430,946visitors/month
WVIR-TV NBC-29 [Charlottesville,VA]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 316,720visitors/month
NewsBlaze US View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information 189,533visitors/month
Dothan Eagle [Dothan, AL] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 186,183visitors/month
WZVN-TV ABC-7 [Fort Myers, FL] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 183,723visitors/month
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:2315
Logo Outlet Name Location Language Source Type IndustryPotentialAudience
myMotherLode.com [Sonora, CA] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 181,414visitors/month
KTVN-TV CBS-2 [Reno, NV] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 157,502visitors/month
WFMJ-TV NBC-21 [Youngstown,OH]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 157,337visitors/month
WRAL-TV CBS-5 [Raleigh, NC] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 156,085visitors/month
Townhall Finance View Release
UnitedStates
English Financial NewsService
Media & Information 156,085visitors/month
Tamar Securities View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Financial 156,085visitors/month
FinancialContent - PR Newswire View Release
UnitedStates
English Financial NewsService
Media & Information 156,085visitors/month
IBTimes View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 156,085visitors/month
Rockford Register Star [Rockford, IL] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 156,085visitors/month
Great American Financial Resources View Release
UnitedStates
English News & InformationService
Financial 156,085visitors/month
Franklin Credit Management View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Financial 156,085visitors/month
Value Investing News View Release
UnitedStates
English Financial NewsService
Financial 156,085visitors/month
Dow Theory Letters View Release
UnitedStates
English Banking & FinancialInstitutions
Financial 156,085visitors/month
Daily Penny Alerts View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Financial 156,085visitors/month
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:2316
Logo Outlet Name Location Language Source Type IndustryPotentialAudience
KVOR 740-AM [Colorado Springs,CO]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 156,085visitors/month
Benefit Plans AdministrativeServices
View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Financial 156,085visitors/month
Ascensus View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Financial 156,085visitors/month
1st Discount Brokerage View Release
UnitedStates
English Financial NewsService
Financial 156,085visitors/month
WLNE-TV ABC-6 [Providence, RI] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 151,699visitors/month
Daily Journal [Tupelo, MS] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 150,670visitors/month
KLKN-TV ABC-8 [Lincoln, NE] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 150,562visitors/month
WICU-TV NBC-12 / WSEE-TV CBS-35 [Erie, PA]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 146,051visitors/month
The Chronicle Journal [Thunder Bay,ON]
View Release
Canada English Newspaper Media & Information 132,751visitors/month
Ticker Technologies View Release
UnitedStates
English Financial NewsService
Financial 95,258visitors/month
RFD-TV [Nashville, TN] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 75,301visitors/month
The Record [Troy, NY] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 64,233visitors/month
WENY-TV [Horseheads, NY] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 58,862visitors/month
My Silly Little Gang View Release
UnitedStates
English Blog-ParentalInfluencers
Retail & Consumer 52,674visitors/month
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:2317
Logo Outlet Name Location Language Source Type IndustryPotentialAudience
WICZ-TV FOX-40 [Binghamton, NY] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 45,701visitors/month
Daily Times Leader [West Point, MS] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 36,386visitors/month
The Pilot News [Plymouth, IN] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 34,197visitors/month
Starkville Daily News [Starkville, MS] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 32,336visitors/month
Suncoast News Network [Sarasota,FL]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 26,660visitors/month
Seed Daily View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Environment 15,934visitors/month
The Saline Courier [Benton, AR] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 15,041visitors/month
Decatur Daily Democrat [Decatur, IN] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 13,983visitors/month
The Observer News Enterprise[Newton, NC]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 13,763visitors/month
Axcess News View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information 13,491visitors/month
The Punxsutawney Spirit[Punxsutawney, PA]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 13,490visitors/month
Mammoth Times [Mammoth Lakes,CA]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 13,060visitors/month
Inyo Register [Bishop, CA] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 12,530visitors/month
KFAQ-AM 1170 [Tulsa, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 12,484visitors/month
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:2318
Logo Outlet Name Location Language Source Type IndustryPotentialAudience
Malvern Daily Record [Malvern, AR] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 12,331visitors/month
Borger News Herald [Borger, TX] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 12,090visitors/month
Ridgway Record [Ridgway, PA] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 11,964visitors/month
ProfitQuotes View Release
UnitedStates
English Financial NewsService
Financial 10,356visitors/month
100.7-FM The Score [Lubbock, TX] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 10,156visitors/month
KTTU-FM 97.3 Double T [Lubbock,TX]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 9,802visitors/month
The Evening Leader [St. Marys, OH] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 9,060visitors/month
Poteau Daily News [Poteau, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 8,430visitors/month
Ask.com View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information 8,120visitors/month
KQCW-TV CW-12/19 [Tulsa, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 7,815visitors/month
AngelaCARES View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Medical/Healthcare 7,749visitors/month
Telemundo Lubbock [Lubbock, TX] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 6,981visitors/month
KXTQ-FM 106.5 Magic [Lubbock,TX]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 6,565visitors/month
Latin Business Today View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Multicultural &Demographic
6,493visitors/month
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:2319
Logo Outlet Name Location Language Source Type IndustryPotentialAudience
KJTV-TV FOX-34 [Lubbock, TX] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 6,310visitors/month
WBOC-TV FOX-21 [Salisbury, MD] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 6,182visitors/month
KLCW-TV Lubbock CW [Lubbock,TX]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 5,892visitors/month
Sweetwater Reporter [Sweetwater,TX]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 5,097visitors/month
KVOO-FM 98.5 [Tulsa, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 4,388visitors/month
Warren and Hunterdon CountiesCityRoom [Warren County, NJ]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information 3,768visitors/month
Los Angeles CityRoom [LosAngeles, CA]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information 3,768visitors/month
El Paso CityRoom [El Paso, TX] View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information 3,768visitors/month
Valley City Times-Record [ValleyCity, ND]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 3,320visitors/month
The Morning News [Blackfoot, ID] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 2,703visitors/month
WBCB-TV CW-21 (Youngstown, OH) View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 2,652visitors/month
KLZK-FM 107.7 YES FM [Lubbock,TX]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 2,476visitors/month
The Antlers American [Antlers, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 2,353visitors/month
Fat Pitch Financials View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Financial 2,251visitors/month
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:2320
Logo Outlet Name Location Language Source Type IndustryPotentialAudience
The Kane Republican [Kane, PA] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 2,177visitors/month
KMYL-TV MyLubbock-TV [Lubbock,TX]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 1,781visitors/month
Oldies 97.7 FM [Lubbock, TX] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 1,716visitors/month
KLBB-FM 93.7 The Eagle [Lubbock,TX]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 1,680visitors/month
Minster Community Post [Minster,OH]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 1,592visitors/month
Wapakoneta Daily News[Wapakoneta, OH]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 1,097visitors/month
Manhattanweek View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information 931visitors/month
The Deer Park Tribune [Deer Park,WA]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 895visitors/month
The Post and Mail [Columbia City,IN]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 626visitors/month
Oklahoman [Oklahoma City, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 227visitors/month
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [Pittsburgh,PA]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information 193visitors/month
Marketplace View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information 69visitors/month
Jotup View Release
Global English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Business Services Not Available
Invertir USA View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information Not Available
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:2321
Logo Outlet Name Location Language Source Type IndustryPotentialAudience
Green Kontractor View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Multicultural &Demographic
Not Available
Folsom Local News [Folsom, CA] View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information Not Available
1stCounsel View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Policy & PublicInterest
Not Available
One News Page Unites StatesEdition
View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information Not Available
96.9-FM The Bull [Lubbock, TX] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information Not Available
KHTT-FM 106.9 [Tulsa, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information Not Available
KJUN-TV / KFOL-TV HTV10[Houma, LA]
View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information Not Available
DatelineCarolina View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information Not Available
KXBL-FM 99.5 [Tulsa, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information Not Available
KBEZ-FM 92.9 [Tulsa, OK] View Release
UnitedStates
English Broadcast Media Media & Information Not Available
IBTN9 US View Release
Global English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Media & Information Not Available
Winslow, Evans & Crocker View Release
UnitedStates
English Online News Sites &Other Influencers
Financial Not Available
The Daily Press [St. Marys, PA] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information Not Available
Big Spring Herald [Big Spring, TX] View Release
UnitedStates
English Newspaper Media & Information Not Available
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:2322
Exhibit D
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2323
This space for filing stamp only
DC#:
(When required) RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
D A I L Y C O M M E R C E ~ SINCE 1917 ~
915 E. First Street, Los Angeles, California 90012
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 54026, Los Angeles, California 90054-0026 Telephone (213) 229-5300 / Fax (213) 680-3682
PROOF OF PUBLICATIONPROOF OF PUBLICATIONPROOF OF PUBLICATIONPROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss
Notice Type:
Ad Description:
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the DAILY COMMERCE, a daily newspaper published in the English language in the City of Los Angeles, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under date of June 17, 1952, Case No. 599,760. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Executed on: 10/15/2004 At Los Angeles, California
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature
D A I L Y C O M M E R C E~ SINCE 1917 ~
915 E FIRST ST, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
(213) 229-5300 (213) 229-5481
DC 3312624
CLASSURA LLC1718 PEACHTREE ST #1080ATLANTA, GA - 30309
CIV4 - CIVIL PUBLICATION
2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK GRAVES, ET AL. V. UNITED INDUSTRIESCORPORATION
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I amover the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the aboveentitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the DAILYCOMMERCE, a newspaper published in the English language in the city ofLOS ANGELES, county of LOS ANGELES, and adjudged a newspaper ofgeneral circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by theSuperior Court of the County of LOS ANGELES, State of California, under date10/30/1981, Case No. 599760. That the notice, of which the annexed is aprinted copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of saidnewspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
11/08/2019, 11/15/2019, 11/22/2019, 11/29/2019
12/02/2019
!A000005295511!Email
LEGAL NOTICE
If You Purchased Certain Spectracide®Concentrate Products, You May
Benefit From a Proposed Class ActionSettlement
GRAVES, ET AL. V. UNITEDINDUSTRIES CORPORATION
U.S. District Court for the Central Districtof California
Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
A proposed settlement has been reachedin the above-referenced class actionlawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that UnitedIndustries Corporation ("UIC") labeled itsSpectracide® Concentrate herbicideproducts in a manner that was misleadingregarding the application rates of theproducts. UIC denies the allegations andany wrongdoing. To avoid the expenseand distraction of litigation, the partieshave reached a settlement.
AM I A MEMBER OF THE CLASS?You may be a class member if you are aUnited States resident who on or afterSeptember 21, 2013 until November 1,2019, purchased in any state, for personalor household use and not for resale ordistribution, any herbicide product soldunder the "Spectracide®" tradename in a"concentrate" product form.
BENEFIT TO CLASS:Class Members who file a valid ClaimForm will receive up to $6.25 in cash fromthe Settlement Fund for each valid claimsubmitted by a household, with a limit offour (4) claims per household (up to $25).
YOUR OPTIONS:File a ClaimIf you wish to receive benefits under thesettlement, you MUST submit a ClaimForm by no later than January 20, 2020.You can obtain and/or submit a ClaimForm: (1) online atwww.MakesUpToSettlement.com; or (2)by calling the Claims Administrator at888-978-8269; or (3) by mailing a writtenrequest for a Claim Form to the addressbelow.
Object or CommentWrite to the Court about why you do or donot like the settlement. If you want toobject, you must file a written statementwith the Court by January 20, 2020.
Exclude YourselfIf you do not object to the settlement butsimply do not want to participate in it ("optout" of the settlement), you must submit awritten request to be excluded by January20, 2020. You will not receive anybenefits under the settlement, but you willpreserve your right to bring your ownlawsuit.
Do NothingIf you do nothing, you will receive noreimbursement. You also give up yourright to sue on your own regarding anyclaims that are part of the settlement.
Your rights and options are onlysummarized in this notice. For moreinformation seewww.MakesUpToSettlement.com, call toll-
free 888-978-8269, or write toSpectracide® Class Action Settlement,1718 Peachtree St NW #1080, Atlanta,GA 30309.
www.MakesUpToSettlement.com11/8, 11/15, 11/22, 11/29/19
DC-3312624#
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:2324
Exhibit E
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-9 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2325
1718 Peachtree St #1080 214.502.9376 Atlanta, GA 30309 [email protected]
By Priority Mail
The United States Attorney General, State Attorneys General, and Territory Attorneys General
August 29, 2019
Re: CAFA Notice of Renewed Proposed Settlement: Graves vs. United Industries Corp., United States District Court for the Central District of California,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
Dear Sir or Madam:
Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1711 et seq. (“CAFA”), and on behalf of the Defendant in the above-referenced action, this letter provides notice of the proposed settlement of the above-captioned matter. Toward that end, and in accordance with CAFA, please find enclosed a CD containing the following documents:
1. The complaint, amended complaints, and associated exhibits in the litigation;
2. The Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. The Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff Gregory Arthur's Motion for Class Certification. And the Court’s Order denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
3. The Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement;
4. The long-form and short-form notifications that will be provided to class members informing them of the proposed settlement and their right to be excluded from the class;
5. The parties’ Proposed Settlement Agreement and exhibits;
The proposed definition for the Settlement Class extends to “[a]ll persons in the United States who during the Class Period purchased in any state, for personal or household use and not for resale or distribution, any of the Products,” which encompass United Industries Corporation’s herbicide products that are (a) sold under the “Spectracide®” tradename and (b) are sold in a “concentrate” product form (in other words, designed to be manually mixed by consumers with water prior to use on the targeted vegetation).
The vast majority of sales of the subject products were made through independently operated retail stores and, thus, are not in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. Accordingly, there is no precise tally of
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-9 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2326
the number of class members in each state, nor is there available a list of class members in each state, nor is it feasible to provide an estimate of the number of class members residing in each state.
We hereby advise you that no agreements of any kind were made contemporaneously between class counsel and counsel for defendants.
A fairness hearing for the case has been scheduled for September 16, 2019 at 10:00am, at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Courtroom 8D, 350 W. First Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012.
If you have questions about this notice, the lawsuit, or the enclosed materials, please contact me at the address below.
Sincerely,
Gajan Retnasaba
Graves v. United Industries Settlement Class Action Administrator
Classaura LLC 1718 Peachtree St #1080 Atlanta, GA 30309
214.502.9376 [email protected]
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-9 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2327
-1- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL GRAVES, KEITH GREN, and MICHAEL WHEALEN, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION,
Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
CLASS ACTION
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND
ORDER (1.) GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT, (2.) AWARDING
CLASS COUNSEL FEES AND
EXPENSES, (3.) AWARDING
CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
INCENTIVE AWARDS, AND (4.)
DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:2328
-1- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Plaintiffs Michael Graves, Keith Gren, and Michael Whealen (“Plaintiffs”),
individually and on behalf of the Class defined below, move this Court for final
approval of the proposed settlement in the above-captioned action. This Court has
reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and supporting materials along with Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards (“Fee Motion”) and supporting
materials. Now, having fully considered the record and the requirements of law, this
Court orders that the Motion for Final Approval and Fee Motion is GRANTED as
set forth below.
IT IS THIS ____ DAY OF ____________, 2020 ORDERED that the
settlement (including all terms of the Settlement Agreement and exhibits thereto) is
hereby GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL. The Court further finds and orders as
follows:
I. BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2017, original plaintiff Gregory Arthur (“Arthur”) filed this
putative class action alleging violations of consumer protection laws against
Defendant and on November 27, 2017, Arthur filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint. (ECF Nos. 1, 16). The First Amended Complaint alleged that the “Makes
Up To __ Gallons” representation on the Spectracide® Concentrate Products is
deceptive because UIC fails to disclose that “the Spectracide Concentrates were in
fact only capable of making a fraction of the number of gallons represented when
diluted to the same strength as ‘Ready-to-use’ Spectracide according to UIC’s own
instructions.” (Id. at ¶ 16).
On January 12, 2018, UIC moved to dismiss Arthur’s First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 22). Then, on January 15, 2018, Arthur filed a Motion for Class
Certification and to appoint class counsel. (ECF No. 23). On March 23, 2018, the
Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part UIC’s Motion to Dismiss
Arthur’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 34). The Court dismissed Arthur’s
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:2329
-2- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
request for injunctive relief, but granted him leave to amend to file a Second
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 34). On April 16, 2018, Arthur filed his Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39), which UIC answered on April 30, 2018 (ECF
No. 40). On May 17, 2018, the Court entered an Order denying Arthur’s Motion for
Class Certification without prejudice, holding that Arthur could not adequately
represent the putative class. (ECF No. 47).
On June 25, 2018, Arthur and UIC filed a Joint Stipulation to dismiss Arthur
from the Litigation, for leave to substitute Michael Graves and Keith Gren as
plaintiffs and putative class representatives, and for leave for Graves and Gren to
file a Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 53). On June 26, 2018, the Court entered
an Order substituting Graves and Gren as named plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives, dismissing Arthur from the Litigation, and granting Graves and
Gren leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 54). On June 28, 2018,
Graves and Gren filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint against UIC
(ECF No. 55), which UIC answered on July 19, 2018. (ECF No. 59).
On July 12, 2018, the Court entered an Order staying the Litigation pursuant
to a Joint Stipulation filed by Graves, Gren, and UIC seeking time to allow them to
engage in settlement discussions (ECF No. 58). On September 7, 2018, Michael
Whealen sent UIC a consumer notice and demand letter on behalf of himself and a
proposed nationwide class concerning the Products. On May 15, Class Counsel filed
a Fourth Amended Complaint adding Whealen as a named Plaintiff in addition to
Graves and Gren. (ECF No. 63). The Fourth Amended Complaint also adds a cause
of action under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat.
§§ 407.010, et seq. in addition to causes of action under California’s consumer
protection laws. (ECF No. 63 at ¶¶ 52-58).
Plaintiffs and UIC have engaged in substantial discovery. On October 26,
2017, Arthur served a first set of Interrogatories and a first set of Request for
Production of Documents on UIC. In exchange for Arthur’s agreement to extend
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:2330
-3- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
UIC’s time to serve written responses and objections, UIC produced several
documents that were crucial to Arthur’s claims in the litigation including the
suggested retail prices for the Products, annual sales of the Products, and Product
labels that were in use during the class period. On February 16, 2018, UIC served
objections and responses to Arthur’s discovery requests. UIC also produced a second
batch of documents relating to Plaintiffs’ claims, including communications with the
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) relating to the labels of the Products.
Class Counsel sent a meet and confer letter to UIC on March 23, 2018 regarding
remaining deficiencies with its written discovery responses. Following extensive
meet and confer efforts, the Parties reached an agreement on the scope of Plaintiff’s
discovery requests.
On January 26, 2018, UIC served a deposition notice on Gregory Arthur that
included several document requests. On January 31, 2018, Arthur served objections
and responses to UIC’s document requests. On February 2, 2018, UIC then took the
deposition of Gregory Arthur. In support of Arthur’s Motion for Class Certification,
Class Counsel submitted an expert report from Charlene L. Podlipna, CPA detailing
a proposed class wide damages model. On January 26, 2018, UIC served a Notice
of Deposition Duces Tecum on Ms. Podlipna that contained several document
requests. On February 14, 2018, Class Counsel served objections and responses to
the document requests that were served on Ms. Podlipna. On February 16, 2018,
UIC took the deposition of Ms. Podlipna on topics relating to her expert opinion and
report. After Plaintiffs Graves and Gren filed their Third Amended Complaint, UIC
promptly began pursuing discovery from the new named Plaintiffs. Marron Decl., ¶
9. On June 29, 2018, UIC served a Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum on Plaintiff
Gren that contained several document requests. UIC then took the deposition of
Plaintiff Keith Gren on July 12, 2018. Plaintiff Gren’s deposition lasted more than
five hours.
Following Plaintiff Gren’s deposition, the Parties began engaging in
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:2331
-4- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
preliminary settlement discussions. During the course of several months the Parties
engaged in hard-fought settlement negotiations that resulted in the Settlement
Agreement. The several months that it took to work out significant details and
vigorous disagreements between the parties demonstrate that this proposed
resolution was the product of heavily disputed and arm’s length negotiation.
On June 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the class action settlement with Defendant. (ECF No. 64-1). On June
27, 2019, the Court entered an Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Approval Without Prejudice, and ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended motion to
address the requirements of Rule 23(e)(3). (ECF No. 65). On August 19, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the class action
settlement, which the Court granted on September 18, 2019. (ECF Nos. 71, 77). In
its preliminary approval order, the Court conditionally certified the nationwide
settlement class noting that the requirement of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3) had been satisfied. (ECF No. 77 at 12-18). The Court also
preliminarily approved the settlement noting that the relevant factors weighed in
favor of approval. (ECF No. 77 at 4-12).
II. SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT
Plaintiffs now move for final approval of a Settlement Class defined as
follows:
All persons residing in the United States who during the Class Period1
purchased in any state, for personal or household use and not for resale
or distribution, any of the Products.2, 3
1 The term “Class Period” means September 21, 2013 to the date on which the Notice is disseminated to the Settlement Class. Agreement at § 2.7. 2 The term “Products” means UIC’s herbicide products that are (a) sold under the “Spectracide®” tradename and (b) are sold in a “concentrate” product form (in other words, designed to be manually mixed by consumers with water prior to use on targeted vegetation). Agreement at § 2.20. 3 The Settlement Class specifically excludes (1) any judicial officer presiding over the Litigation, (2) UIC and Released Parties, and each of their current or former officers, directors, and employees, (3) legal representatives, successors, or assigns
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:2332
-5- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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 Settlement Agreement provides that UIC will pay $2,500,000.00 into a
settlement fund. Agreement at § 7.4. This fund will be used, among other things, to
pay authorized claims to the Settlement Class Members, to pay the costs of
settlement administration and notice to the Class Members, to pay Class Counsel’s
fees and expenses, and to pay incentive awards to the named Plaintiffs. Agreement
at § 7.6. For Authorized Claimants, UIC will provide $6.25 in cash from the
Settlement Fund for each Claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four (4)
Claims per household (total payable per household in no event to exceed $25, unless
distribution is increased pro rata). Agreement at § 7.2.1. The settlement provides for
a pro rata reduction if the claims exceed the amount in the settlement fund
(Agreement at § 7.2.3) or a pro rata increase if the settlement fund is not exhausted.
Agreement at § 7.2.3. If after all accepted Claims (plus other authorized fees, costs
and expenses) are paid and money remains in the Settlement Fund after pro rata
distribution to Authorized Claimants, any remaining settlement funds thereafter will
be awarded cy pres to the National Advertising Division of the Better Business
Bureau.
In addition to monetary relief, UIC agrees to the following injunctive relief:
If, with respect to any Product manufactured by UIC after June 1, 2020, UIC elects
to state on its Product label that such Product "Makes Up to __ Gallons" of end-use
herbicide, Defendant shall include on such labeling, mixing directions that are
acceptable to EPA-equivalent agencies of the State(s) in which the Product is
registered for sale (such acceptability being deemed by virtue of such agency(ies)
registration of such Product). The ultimate timing and content of any label changes
shall be at the sole discretion of UIC. Agreement at § 7.3.
III. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS
The Court finds that the Class has received the best notice practicable and that
the notice complies with due process requirements. The Parties’ selection and
of any such excluded person, and (4) any person who properly executes and files a timely Request for Exclusion. Ageement at § 2.26.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:2333
-6- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
retention of Classaura LLC as the Notice Administrator was reasonable and
appropriate. Based on the Declaration of Gajan Retnasaba, the Court hereby finds
that the Settlement Notices were published to the Class Members substantially in the
form and manner approved by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order. The
Settlement Notices provided fair, effective and the best practicable notice to the
Class of the Settlement and the terms thereof. The Notices also informed the Class
of Plaintiff’s intent to seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive payments, and set
forth the date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing and Class Members’ rights to
object to the Settlement or Fee Motion and to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The
Court further finds that the Settlement afforded Class members a reasonable period
of time to exercise such rights. See Weeks v. Kellogg Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
155472, at *82 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (class members’ deadline to object or opt
out must arise after class counsel’s fee motion is filed); In re Mercury Interactive
Corp. Secs. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 2010) (same). The Settlement Notices
fully satisfied all notice requirements under the law, including the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the requirements of the California Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code § 1781, and all due process rights under the U.S. Constitution and California
Constitutions. The Court also finds that Defendant has satisfied all notice
requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715,
as attested to by the Retnasaba Declaration. The Court has received no objection or
response to the Settlement agreement by any federal or state official, including any
recipient of the foregoing notices.
To date, Classaura has received 84,572 claim forms from prospective class
members. Out of the total claim forms received, Classaura has found 16,605 claim
forms to be invalid due to being duplicative or not meeting the settlement criteria.
Classaura estimates that there will be approximately 67,967 valid claim forms.
Settlement Class members are eligible to request payment for up to four purchases
per household on their claim forms. The average claim form reported 3.6 purchases.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:2334
-7- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Thus, Classaura estimates that the total number of valid claims that will be paid is
248,042. In addition, there have been no requests for exclusion from the settlement
and no class members have objected to the settlement.
IV. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Approval of a proposed class action settlement is governed by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e). “[T]he 2018 amendment to Rule 23(e) establishes core
factors district courts must consider when evaluating a request to approve a proposed
settlement.” Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-0175-TOR,
2019 WL 1966112, at *2 (E.D. Wash. May 2, 2019).
Rule 23(e) now provides that the Court may approve a class action settlement
“only after a hearing and only on a 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;
(iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including
timing of payment; and
(iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and
(D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).
“Under Rule 23(e), both its prior version and as amended, fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy are the touchstones for approval of a class-action
settlement.” Zamora, 2019 WL 1966112, at *2. “The purpose of the amendment to
Rule 23(e)(2) is establish [sic] a consistent set of approval factors to be applied
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:2335
-8- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
uniformly in every circuit, without displacing the various lists of additional approval
factors the circuit courts have created over the past several decades.” Id. Factors that
the Ninth Circuit have typically considered include (1) the strength of plaintiffs’
case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3)
the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered
in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;
and (6) the experience and views of counsel. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d
1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998); Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575
(9th Cir. 2004).
“While the Ninth Circuit has yet to address the amendment to Rule 23(e)(2) .
. . the factors in amended Rule 23(e)(2) generally encompass the list of relevant
factors previously identified by the Ninth Circuit.” Zamora, 2019 WL 1966112, at
*2 (alteration in original). Indeed, “[t]he goal of this amendment is not to displace
any factor, but rather to focus the court and the lawyers on the core concerns of
procedure and substance that should guide the decision whether to approve the
proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) advisory committee's note to 2018 amendment.
“Accordingly, the Court applies the framework set forth in Rule 23 with guidance
from the Ninth Circuit’s precedent, bearing in mind the Advisory Committee’s
instruction not to let ‘[t]he sheer number of factors’ distract the Court and parties
from the ‘central concerns’ underlying Rule 23(e)(2).” In re Extreme Networks, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 15-CV-04883-BLF, 2019 WL 3290770, at *6 (N.D. Cal.
July 22, 2019); see also Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 16-CV-05479-JST, 2018
WL 6619983, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018).
ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION
A determination of adequacy of representation requires that “two questions be
addressed: (a) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest
with other class members and (b) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel
prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:2336
-9- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended (June 19, 2000) (citing Hanlon,
150 F.3d at 1020); see also Hefler, 2018 WL 6619983, at *6.
The Court finds that Class Counsel and the Class Representatives have
adequately represented the Class. The proposed class representatives in this action
have no conflicts of interest with other class members and each have prosecuted this
action vigorously on behalf of the Class. Each of the named Plaintiffs have suffered
the same injuries as the absent class members because each purchased a
Spectracide® Concentrate product, for personal and household use, in reliance on
the “Makes Up To ___” gallons statement on the front of the label which they took
to mean would, in fact, make up to the advertised amount of gallons when used as
directed for general weed control. (See Fourth Amended Complaint, ECF No. 63 at
¶¶ 30-32). Each of the named Plaintiffs have been dedicated to vigorously pursuing
this action on behalf of the class and each have kept themselves informed about the
status of the proceedings.
Class Counsel have also vigorously represented the Class and have no
conflicts of interest. The Settlement was negotiated by counsel with extensive
experience in consumer class action litigation. Through the discovery process, Class
Counsel obtained sufficient information and documents to evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of the case. The information reviewed by class counsel includes sales
information for the Spectracide® Concentrate products during the class period, the
labels for the Spectracide® Concentrate products in use during the class period, and
Defendant’s communications with the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
relating to the labels of the Products. Class Counsel have concluded that the
Settlement provides exceptional results for the class while sparing the class from the
uncertainties of continued and protracted litigation. See, e.g., In re Omnivision
Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“The recommendations
of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness.”); Rodriguez
v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 976 (9th Cir. 2009) (Deference to Class Counsel’s
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:2337
-10- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
evaluation of the Settlement is appropriate because “[p]arties represented by
competent counsel are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that
fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome in litigation.”).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Class Counsel and the Class Representatives
have been diligent in their representation of the class.
ARM’S LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS
Regarding the negotiation process, the Court finds that the Settlement
Agreement is the result of an adversarial, non-collusive, and arms-length
negotiation. The Parties did not begin settlement discussions until after the Court
had ruled on Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 34) and Plaintiff Arthur’s
motion for class certification (ECF No. 46). Settlement discussions also did not
begin until after the Parties had exchanged written discovery and documents, which
speaks to the fundamental fairness of the process. See Nat'l Rural
Telecommunications Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (C.D. Cal. 2004)
(“A settlement following sufficient discovery and genuine arms-length negotiation
is presumed fair.”). The several months that it took to work out significant details
and vigorous disagreements between the parties demonstrate that this proposed
resolution was the product of heavily disputed and arm’s length negotiation. The
settlement negotiations were hard-fought, with both Parties and their counsel
thoroughly familiar with the applicable facts, legal theories, and defenses on both
sides.
Accordingly, the Court finds no signs of conflicts of interest, collusion, or bad
faith in the parties' settlement negotiation process.
ADEQUATE RELIEF
The Court concludes that the relief provided for the Class is adequate. UIC
has agreed to settle this matter for a non-reversionary total of $2,500,000. Agreement
at § 7.4. As explained in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order (ECF No. 77), the
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:2338
-11- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
$2,500,000 nationwide settlement amount is reasonable considering that damages
would be limited to a fraction of total sales if Plaintiffs were to prevail at trial.
As previously explained by Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Charlene L. Podlipna,
CPA, the Spectracide® Concentrate products allegedly are underfilled by 36% to
38% based on Plaintiffs’ claims that reasonable consumers’ intend purpose for the
Products is “general weed control.” (ECF No. 23-14 [Podlipna Decl., ¶ 13]).
Damages for the nationwide class would be based on the Benefit of the Bargain
method, which is based on the difference between the amount Plaintiffs reasonably
expected to receive and the actual amount received. (ECF No. 23-14 [Podlipna Decl.,
¶ 15]). Accordingly, the projected maximum for nationwide class damages would
be approximately if Plaintiffs were to prevail at trial. (
nationwide sales x .38 underfill percentage = ). The $2,500,000
settlement fund accounts for % of total damages that would be available at
trial, which is well within the range of reason. See, e.g., Stovall-Gusman v. W.W.
Granger, Inc., No. 13-cv-02540-HSG, 2015 WL 3776765, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 17,
2015) (granting final approval of a net settlement amount representing 7.3% of the
plaintiffs’ potential recovery at trial); Balderas v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC,
No. 12-cv-06327NC, 2014 WL 3610945, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2014) (granting
preliminary approval of a net settlement amount representing 5% of the projected
maximum recovery at trial); Ma v. Covidien Holding, Inc., No. SACV 12-02161-
DOC (RNBx), 2014 WL 360196, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) (finding a
settlement worth 9.1% of the total value of the action “within the range of
reasonableness”); Downey Surgical Clinic, Inc. v. Optuminsight, Inc., No. CV09-
5457PSG (JCx), 2016 WL 5938722 at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2016) (granting final
approval where recovery was as low as 3.21% of potential recovery at trial).
The amount of recovery per class member is also adequate considering that
Settlement Class Members can claim $6.25 in cash from the Settlement Fund for
each Claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four (4) claims per household
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:2339
-12- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
(total payable per household in no event to exceed $25, unless distribution is
increased pro rata). Agreement at § 7.2.1. This recovery is significant considering
that a 64-ounce bottle of Spectracide® Concentrate, the most expensive bottle size,
sells for approximately $30.00 at retail stores like Home Depot. The $6.25 recovery
per purchase (up to four purchases per household) for each Settlement Class member
is an excellent result considering it represents a large fraction of total damages that
would be recoverable at trial. Indeed, $6.25 represents approximately 57.8% of the
total potential recovery for purchasers of the 64-ounce bottle size ($30.00 x .36
underfill amount for 64-ounce bottle size = $10.80). Moreover, the settlement
agreement provides for injunctive relief, which further supports the adequacy of
relief to the class. Agreement at § 7.3.
The amount of recovery per claimant is also adequate considering that
Settlement Class Members can claim $6.25 in cash from the Settlement Fund for
each Claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four (4) claims per household
(total payable per household in no event to exceed $25, unless distribution is
increased pro rata). Agreement at § 7.2.1. Here, approximately 67,967 valid claim
forms were submitted by settlement class members and 248,042 valid claims will be
paid by the settlement administrator. Once notice and administration costs along
with Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards are deducted
from the $2,500,000 Settlement Fund, there will be approximately $1,602,477.37
available for distribution to the Settlement Class. This means that there will be a
slight pro rata increase and $6.46 will be paid for each valid and timely claim
submitted. ($1,602,477.37 in available funds for distribution / 248,042 valid claims
= $6.46 per claim). Because the average valid claim form reported 3.6 purchases,
average settlement class members will receive approximately $23.26. This recovery
is significant considering that a 64-ounce bottle of Spectracide® Concentrate, the
most expensive bottle size, sells for approximately $30.00 at retail stores.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount offered in the settlement is adequate.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:2340
-13- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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. Costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal
The Court concludes that the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal further
support final approval. Proceeding in this litigation in the absence of settlement
poses various risks such as failing to certify a class, having summary judgment
granted against Plaintiffs, or losing at trial. Such considerations have been found to
weigh heavily in favor of settlement. See Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 966; Curtis-Bauer
v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. C 06-3903 TEH, 2008 WL 4667090, at *4 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 22, 2008) (“Settlement avoids the complexity, delay, risk and expense of
continuing with the litigation and will produce a prompt, certain, and substantial
recovery for the Plaintiff class.”). Even if Plaintiffs are able to certify a class, there
is also a risk that the Court could later decertify the class action. See In re Netflix
Privacy Litig., No. 5:11-cv-00379 EJD, 2013 WL 1120801, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
18, 2013) (“The notion that a district court could decertify a class at any time is one
that weighs in favor of settlement.”) (internal citations omitted). The Settlement
eliminates these risks by ensuring Class Members a recovery that is “certain and
immediate, eliminating the risk that class members would be left without any
recovery . . . at all.” Fulford v. Logitech, Inc., No. 08-cv-02041 MNC, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 29042, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010).
2. Effectiveness of proposed method of distributing relief to the Class
The Court finds that the claims process was straightforward and allows
Settlement Class members to make a claim by submitting a valid and timely Claim
Form to the Settlement Administrator without complication. See In re Toyota Motor
Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., No.
8:10ML 02151 JVS, 2013 WL 3224585, at *18 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) (“The
requirement that class members download a claim form or request in writing a claim
form, complete the form, and mail it back to the settlement administrator is not
onerous.”).
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:2341
-14- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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 Settlement Agreement here provides for pro rata distribution to class,
which will ensure that class members receive as much as the settlement fund as
possible. Agreement at § 7.2.3. As discussed above, there will be a slight pro rata
increase and approximately $6.46 will be paid out for each of the estimated 248,042
valid claims submitted. If any amounts remain in the settlement fund following a pro
rata distribution to class members, then the remaining funds will thereafter be
awarded cy pres to the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau
(“NAD”). Agreement at § 7.2.3. The proposed cy pres recipient will only receive
funds that are no longer economically feasible to distribute to the class after a pro
rata distribution. Courts have previously approved NAD as a suitable cy pres
recipient. See Rawa v. Monsanto Co., No. 4:17CV01252 AGF, 2018 WL 2389040,
at *11 (E.D. Mo. May 25, 2018) (approving NAD as a cy pres recipient and noting
that it “monitors national advertising in all media for goods and services, enforce[es]
high standards of truth and accuracy, and accepts complaints from consumers”).
Accordingly, the Court appoints NAD as the cy pres recipient and approves the
proposed method of distribution.
3. The Requested Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards Are Fair
and Reasonable
Class Counsel has fully addressed the reasonableness of the fee request in
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards that was filed
on January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 78-1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(h), the Court orders that Class Counsel is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
incurred in connection with the action in the amount of $725,000.00, to be paid at
the time and in the matter provided in the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 71-3).
The fee award sought in the present case is reasonable when judged by the standards
of this circuit. See, e.g., In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935,
941 (9th Cir. 2011). The $725,000.00 fee award accounts for 29% of the
$2,500,000.00 Settlement Fund and is well within the percentage range that courts
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:2342
-15- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
have allowed in the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 942; see also Vasquez v. Coast Valley
Roofing, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 482, 491 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“typical range of acceptable
attorneys’ fees in the Ninth Circuit is 20% to 33 1/3 % of total settlement value”);
Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp., No. 11-2786, 2013 WL 2013 WL 496358, at *1
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013) (acknowledging same and awarding 30%); In re Activision
Sec. Litig., 723 F. Supp. 1373, 1377 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (“[a] review of recent reported
cases discloses that nearly all common fund awards range around 30%”); Pokorny
v. Quixtar, Inc., No. 07-00201 SC, 2013 WL 3790896, *1 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2013)
(acknowledging same, stating 30% award is “the norm absent extraordinary
circumstances that suggest reasons to lower or increase the percentage” and granting
fee request of 27.3%); see also In re Pacific Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379
(9th Cir. 1995) (award of 33% of settlement fund as fees affirmed).
Moreover, “in cases under $10 million, the awards more frequently will
exceed the 25% benchmark.” Lopez v. Youngblood, No. 07-474, 2011 WL
10483569, *13 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2011). Class Counsel’s fee request is also
reasonable under the lodestar method. Class Counsel’s total lodestar in this action
equals $545,052.50. Accordingly, the $725,000.00 fee award results in a positive
multiplier of 1.33. See Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, 255
(2001) (“Multipliers can range from 2 to 4, even higher.”); Van Vranken v. Atlantic
Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 298 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (3-4 are in the “range [of]
common” multipliers for sophisticated class actions). Moreover, the fee award is
justified based on the excellent results obtained, the experience and skill of Counsel,
the complexity of issues, the risk of non-payment, and the preclusion of other work.
Based on the declaration submitted by Class Counsel in support of the Fee
Motion, the Court finds that Class Counsel have incurred out-of-pocket litigation
expenses (paid and un-reimbursed) in the amount of $32,090.63. Accordingly, the
Court further awards Class Counsel $32,090.63 in litigation costs, to be paid at the
time and manner provided in the Settlement Agreement.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:2343
-16- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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 Court finds that the Class Representatives in this action have actively
participated in and assisted Class Counsel with this litigation for the substantial
benefit of the Class. Each of the Class Representatives have reviewed material
filings; have had continuous communications with Class Counsel throughout the
litigation; have reviewed and approved the Settlement Agreement; and were
committed to securing substantive relief on behalf of the Class. The Court further
finds that the requested incentive awards are presumptively reasonable are in line
with Ninth Circuit authority. See Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, No. C-06-
05778 JCS, 2011 WL 1230826, at *36 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011) (“there is ample case
law finding $5,000 to be a reasonable amount for an incentive payment.”).
Accordingly, the Court awards incentive payments as follows: (a.) $3,000 incentive
payment to Plaintiff Michael Graves; (b.) $3,000 incentive payment to Plaintiff
Michael Whealen; and (c.) $5,000 incentive payment to Plaintiff Keith Gren. The
Court finds that the incentive payment to Plaintiff Keith Gren is reasonable in light
of the fact he sat for a deposition on July 12, 2018 and that he incurred additional
time and expense for appearing at the deposition.
4. Agreements required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3)
The Court has not been advised of any side agreements made in connection
with the proposed settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e)(3). Thus, there is nothing for
the Court to consider.
The Settlement Agreement Treats Class Members Equitably
The Court finds that the apportionment of relief among Class Members treats
class members equitably. As discussed above, each valid claim submitted will be
paid approximately $6.46 following a slight pro rata increase. Because each class
member is treated equally, the Court approves the settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
The Absence of Governmental Participation Supports Final
Approval
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:2344
-17- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Although CAFA does not create an affirmative duty for either state or federal
officials to take any action in response to a class-action settlement, CAFA presumes
that—once put on notice—state or federal officials will “raise any concerns that they
may have during the normal course of the class action settlement procedures.”
Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CV 08-1365, 2010 WL 1687832, at
*14 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010); see also LaGarde v. Support.com, Inc., No. C 12-
0609, 2013 WL 1283325, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) (same); In re Netflix
Privacy Litig., No. 5:11-cv-00379, 2013 WL 1120801 at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18,
2013) (same). To date, no state or federal official has raised any objection to the
settlement.
The Reaction of the Class Has Been Favorable
It is well established that “the absence of a large number of objections to a
proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a
proposed class settlement action are favorable to the class members.” Nat’l Rural
Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 529 (collecting cases). Here, the Court finds that
the response from Class members has been overwhelmingly positive. There have
been no requests for exclusion and no objections have been filed. This positive
reaction to the Settlement indicates that this Court “‘may appropriately infer that
[the] class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable when few class
members object to it.’” Garner, 2010 WL 1687832, at *14.
V. CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
When presented with a proposed settlement, a court must first determine
whether the proposed settlement class satisfies the requirements for class
certification under Rule 23. In assessing those class certification requirements, a
court may properly consider that there will be no trial. Amchem Prods., Inc. v.
Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (“Confronted with a request for settlement-only
class certification, a district court need not inquire whether the case, if tried, would
present intractable management problems . . . for the proposal is that there be no
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:2345
-18- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
trial.”). For the reasons below, the Court finds that the Settlement Class meets the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b).
Rule 23(a)
1. Numerosity
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable.” See Rule 23(a)(1). “As a general matter, courts have
found that numerosity is satisfied when class size exceeds 40 members, but not
satisfied when membership dips below 21.” Slaven v. BP Am., Inc., 190 F.R.D. 649,
654 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Here, the proposed class is comprised of tens of thousands of
consumers who purchased the Class Products. To date, the settlement administrator
has received 67,967 valid claim forms. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
numerosity requirement is satisfied.
2. Commonality
Rule 23(a)(2) requires the existence of “questions of law or fact common to
the class.” See Rule 23(a)(2). Commonality is established if plaintiffs and class
members’ claims “depend on a common contention,” “capable of class-wide
resolution . . . [meaning] that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue
that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Because the commonality
requirement may be satisfied by a single common issue, it is easily met.
The Court finds that there are ample issues of both law and fact here that are
common to the members of the Class. All of the Class Members’ claims arise from
a common nucleus of facts and are based on the same legal theories. Plaintiffs allege
that UIC’s “Makes Up To __” gallons statement on the Spectracide® Concentrate
Product labels is false and misleading because the Products yield only a fraction of
the advertised “Makes Up To” amount when mixed for “general weed control”
purposes. These alleged misrepresentations were made in a uniform manner to each
of the Class Members. Accordingly, commonality is satisfied by the existence of
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:2346
-19- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
these common factual issues. See Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158
F.R.D. 439, 448 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (commonality requirement met by “the alleged
existence of common discriminatory practices”).
Second, Plaintiffs’ claims are brought under legal theories common to the
Class as a whole. Alleging a common legal theory alone is enough to establish
commonality. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019 (“All questions of fact and law need not
be common to satisfy the rule. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent
factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with
disparate legal remedies within the class.”). Here, all of the legal theories asserted
by Plaintiffs are common to all Class Members. Given that there are virtually no
issues of law which affect only individual members of the Class, the Court finds that
commonality is satisfied.
3. Typicality
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims of the representative plaintiffs be
“typical of the claims . . . of the class.” See Rule 23(a)(3). “Under the rule’s
permissive standards, representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably
coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially
identical.” See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. In short, to meet the typicality requirement,
the representative plaintiffs simply must demonstrate that the members of the
settlement class have the same or similar grievances. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v.
Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982).
The Court finds that the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of
the Class. Like those of the Class, their claims arise out of the purchase of
Spectracide® Concentrate products for personal or household use after relying on
UIC’s allegedly misleading “Makes Up To __” gallons representations. The named
Plaintiffs have precisely the same claims as the Class and must satisfy the same
elements of each of their claims, as must other Class Members. Supported by the
same legal theories, the named Plaintiffs and all Class Members share claims based
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:2347
-20- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
on the same alleged course of conduct. The named Plaintiffs and all Class Members
have been injured in the same manner by this conduct. Therefore, the typicality
requirement is satisfied.
4. Adequacy
The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is set forth in subsection (a)(4) which
requires that the representative parties “fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class.” See Rule 23(a)(4). As discussed above, the Court finds that Class Counsel
and the Class Representatives have adequately represented the Class. Accordingly,
the Court hereby appoints Plaintiffs Michael Graves, Keith Gren, and Michael
Whealen as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court also appoints
the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC as Settlement Class Counsel to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
Rule 23(b)(2)
In addition to meeting the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs must also
meet one of the three requirements of Rule 23(b) to certify the proposed class. See
Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). Under
Rule 23(b)(3), a class action may be maintained if “the court finds that the questions
of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” See Rule
23(b)(3). Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate and encouraged “whenever
the actual interests of the parties can be served best by settling their differences in a
single action.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022.
1. Predominance
The Court finds that the proposed Class is well-suited for certification under
Rule 23(b)(3) because questions common to the Class Members predominate over
questions affecting only individual Class Members. Predominance exists “[w]hen
common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:2348
-21- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
for all members of the class in a single adjudication.” Id. As the U.S. Supreme Court
has explained, when addressing the propriety of certification of a settlement class,
courts take into account the fact that a trial will be unnecessary and that
manageability, therefore, is not an issue. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-62. In this case,
common questions of law and fact exist and predominate over any individual
questions, including, in addition to whether this settlement is reasonable (see
Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026-27), inter alia: (1) whether UIC’s representations
regarding its “Makes up to ___” gallons claim were false and misleading or
reasonably likely to deceive consumers; (2) whether UIC violated the CLRA, UCL,
FAL and the MMPA; (3) whether UIC had defrauded Plaintiff and the Class
Members; and (4) whether the Class has been injured by the wrongs complained of,
and if so, whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to damages, injunctive and/or
other equitable relief, including restitution, and if so, the nature and amount of such
relief.
There are also no concerns here about certifying a nationwide settlement class
under Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2012). In Mazza,
the Ninth Circuit held that, when certifying a nationwide class, the burden is on the
defendant to show “‘that foreign law, rather than California law, should apply to
class claims.’” See also In re MDC Holdings Securities Litigation, 754 F. Supp. 785,
803–04, 808 (S.D. Cal. 1990) (the “court presumes that California law controls
unless and until defendants show that choice of law problems render the common
law claims inappropriate for class treatment.”); In re Seagate Technologies Sec.
Litigation, 115 F.R.D. 264, 269, 274 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (applying California law to
nationwide class because “[a]bsent the defendant carrying [its] burden, California
law would govern the foreign state plaintiffs' claims” and noting several other
decisions reaching this conclusion).
The Ninth Circuit recently held that differences in state law do not defeat
predominance in the settlement class context. See In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:2349
-22- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 561 (9th Cir. 2019). This is especially relevant here because
UIC is not opposing the certification of a nationwide class involving California and
Missouri law. Consequently, UIC is voluntarily subjecting itself to California and
Missouri law, including California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Missouri’s
Merchandising Practices Act, which provide greater protections to consumers than
other jurisdictions. Where, as here, UIC’s products were widely distributed and there
are significant contacts with California residents, and where UIC does not oppose
California law applying to the nationwide class, the Mazza choice of law analysis is
easily satisfied because the interests of other states will not be impaired. In re
Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d at 561. Missouri’s MMPA can also be
applied to the nationwide Settlement Class because UIC maintains its principal place
of business in Missouri and Missouri has significant contacts with the claims of each
class member.
Moreover, the considerations driving the rest of the Mazza analysis are
inapplicable here. In the settlement context, other states’ interests would not be
undermined by the application of California and Missouri law because UIC is opting
into a regime that protects consumers more vigorously than other states. In Hanlon,
the Ninth Circuit also held that “the idiosyncratic differences between state
consumer protection laws are not sufficiently substantive to predominate over the
shared claims.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022–23; In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ.
Litig., 926 F.3d at 561 (“no party argued that California’s choice-of-law rules should
not apply to this class settlement”); Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273,
301 (3d Cir. 2011) (“variations in the rights and remedies available to injured class
members under the various laws of the fifty states [do] not defeat commonality and
predominance.”); In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 315 (N.D.
Cal. 2018) (finding that differences between state consumer protection laws do not
defeat predominance and certifying nationwide settlement class). Accordingly, the
Court finds that common issues predominate.
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:2350
-23- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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. Superiority
The Court finds that the class mechanism is superior to other available means
for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class Members. Each
individual Class Member may lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense
of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation necessary to
establish Defendant’s liability. Individualized litigation increases the delay and
expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system. Individualized
litigation also presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In
contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and
provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive
supervision by a single court. Accordingly, the Court finds that common questions
predominate and a class action is the superior method of adjudicating this
controversy and that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied.
Accordingly, the Court hereby CERTIFIES the Settlement Class.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
Implementation of Settlement. The Parties are hereby directed to implement
the Settlement according to its terms and conditions.
Enforcement of Settlement. Nothing in this Final Approval Order shall
preclude any action to enforce or interpret the terms of the Settlement. Any action
to enforce or interpret the terms of the Settlement shall be brought solely in this
Court.
Retention of Jurisdiction. The Court expressly retains continuing
jurisdiction as to all matters relating to the Settlement, and this Final Order, and for
any other necessary and appropriate purpose. Without limiting the foregoing, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over all aspects of this case including but not
limited to any modification, interpretation, administration, implementation,
effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement, the administration of the Settlement
and Settlement relief, including notices, payments, and benefits thereunder, the
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:2351
-24- Graves, et al. v. United Industries Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRATING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
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
Settlement Notice and sufficiency thereof, any objection to the Settlement, any
request for exclusion from the certified Class, the adequacy of representation by
Class Counsel and/or the Class Representative, the amount of attorneys’ fees and
litigation expenses to be awarded Class Counsel, the amount of any incentive awards
to be paid to the Class Representatives, any claim by any person or entity relating to
the representation of the Class by Class Counsel, to enforce the release and
injunction provisions of the Settlement and of this Order, any remand after appeal
or denial of any appellate challenge, any collateral challenge made regarding any
matter related to this litigation or this Settlement or the conduct of any party or
counsel relating to this litigation or this Settlement, and all other issues related to
this action and Settlement. Further, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction to enter
any other necessary or appropriate orders to protect and effectuate the Court’s
retention of continuing jurisdiction provided that nothing in this paragraph is
intended to restrict the ability of the Parties to exercise their rights under the
Settlement Agreement.
Dismissal of Action With Prejudice. The claims against Defendant in this
action, including all individual and Class claims resolved in it, shall be dismissed on
the merits and with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED_______, 2020 ___________________________
HON. CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
United States District Judge
Case 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SK Document 82-10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:2352