# Mental Health & Wellness Coalition v. Stanford University

> District Court, N.D. California · October 29, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10062015

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** October 29, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10062015

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10
MENTAL HEALTH & WELLNESS Case No. 18-cv-02895-NC
11 COALITION, et al.,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
Re: Dkt. No. 70
14 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
15 UNIVERSITY,
16 Defendant.

17 The parties filed a joint stipulation indicating that they have resolved all outstanding
18 issues in this case and have executed a formal written agreement memorializing a
19 settlement. Dkt. No. 70. The court ordered additional briefing on the issue of possible
20 prejudice to the absent putative class members. Dkt. No. 71. Specifically, the Court asked
21 the parties to provide further information on: (1) “possible reliance on the filing of the
22 action if they are likely to know of it either because of publicity or other circumstances”;
23 (2) “lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a rapidly
24 approaching statute of limitations”; and (3) “any settlement or concession of class interests
25 made by the class representative or counsel in order to further their own interests.” Diaz v.
26 Trust Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.3d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989).
27 The parties filed this supplemental briefing. Dkt. Nos. 72, 73. The Court is
1 prejudice to absent putative class members. The parties have filed publicly the full
2 settlement agreement which the Court has reviewed (it is also available to the public on
3 Disability Rights Advocates’ website). Dkt. No. 73, Ex. 1.1 The parties additionally
4 disclosed the amount paid in attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Court finds this
5 amount reasonable for the services rendered. Id. at 7–8. The Court notes that the
6 settlement was facilitated by JAMS Mediator Cathy Yanni and that Ms. Yanni assisted the
7 parties through multiple in-person sessions as well as joint and separate phone calls. Dkt.
8 No. 70 at 1. The assistance of a mediator suggests that the settlement was not the product
9 of collusion. Lewis v. Vision Value, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01055-LJO, 2012 WL 2930867,
10 at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2012). Finally, the Court is satisfied that the publicity related to
11 this case was limited and accurately communicated to its audience the terms of the
12 settlement so as to minimize possible prejudice to absent putative class members. Dkt. No.
13 73, Ex. 3–7.
14 The Court APPROVES the settlement under the “lighter form” of Federal Rule of
15 Civil Procedure 23(e) approval warranted by class claims prior to certification in this
16 Circuit. Richards v. Safeway, Inc. 2015 WL 163393, Case No. 13-cv-4317-JD at *2 (N.D.
17 Cal. Jan. 12, 2015). The settlement agreement resolves all individual claims asserted by
18 the seven named Plaintiffs and resolves all issues relating to the payment of attorneys’ fees
19 and costs. The settlement agreement does not purport to release the claims of the unnamed
20 members of the putative class, and accordingly it does not contemplate certification of a
21 settlement class.
22 The action is hereby DISMISSED. This dismissal is with prejudice solely with
23 respect to the named plaintiffs: Mental Health & Wellness Coalition, Erik X., Tina Y.,
24 Jacob Z., Harrison Fowler, Rose A., and Sofia B. With respect to all unnamed members of
25 the putative class, dismissal is without prejudice. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction
26
1 One footnote of the settlement agreement was redacted to protect sensitive personal
27
information. The Court ordered the parties to file an administrative motion to seal this
1 || over the parties for purposes of enforcing the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement for
2 || two years. The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to terminate Case No. 18-cv-02895.
3
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 Dated: October 29, 2019 h-_————— _
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
7 United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12

13

14

15

16

© 17

1g
zZ
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10062015. Public record. Not legal advice.