The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
CANDIDO ZAYAS, et al.,
7 Case No. 18-cv-06155-JCS
Plaintiffs, Related Case Nos. 18-cv-04857-JCS
8 (“Taylor”) and 18-cv-04890-JCS
v.
(“Johnson”)
9
SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S ORDER GRANTING FINAL
10 DEPARTMENT, et al., APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT AND AWARDING
11 Defendants.
ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
12 Dkt. No. 106
13
14 I. INTRODUCTION
15 The Court has considered the parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
16 Settlement (“Motion for Final Approval”), Dkt. 106, the objections of class members who have
17 appeared in this action, and the supplemental materials submitted in response to the Court’s Order
18 for Supplemental Materials, Dkt. 127, along with the entire record in this case and the related
19 cases. The Court also conducted a Final Fairness Hearing on September 3, 2021. As set forth
20 below, the Motion for Final Approval is GRANTED.
21 II. FINDINGS
22 1. The parties litigated this case for more than one-and-a-half years before reaching the
23 proposed class action settlement currently before the Court. During the course of the litigation, the
24 Court became very familiar with the claims, defenses, competing facts and legal theories presented
25 by the parties, as well as the work of counsel in presenting them. The Settlement and Settlement
26 Agreement, see dkt. 98-1, was reached after significant investigation, discovery, and motion
27 practice, including Plaintiffs’ successful motion for class certification. The negotiations were at
1 settlement sessions.
2 2. With this history, the Court has now considered Plaintiffs’ motion for
3 approval of the proposed class action settlement by weighing the strength of the case; the risk,
4 expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action
5 status throughout the trial; and the extent of discovery completed, among other factors. See Torrisi
6 v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375-1376 (9th Cir. 1993); Class Plaintiffs v. City of
7 Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1291 (9th Cir. 1992)). The Court concludes based on these factors, as well
8 as the terms of the Settlement Agreement itself and the history of the lengthy arms-length
9 negotiations that resulted in an agreement of these terms, that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and
10 reasonable.” See Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003).
11 3. The Court also finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
12 Procedure are satisfied for the Settlement Class: (1) the Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder
13 of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the Class; (3) the
14 claims or defenses of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses of the Class Members; and (4)
15 Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class Members.
16 Numerosity: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
17 Procedure because there are approximately 2,591 class members, making joinder impractical.
18 Additionally, these class members are ascertainable through Defendants’ records.
19 Common Questions: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(2) because the Class
20 claims of the class representatives of their conditions of confinement turn upon answers to
21 overarching common questions regarding Defendants’ policies and procedures that are capable of
22 class wide resolution for settlement purposes. The Court finds that for settlement purposes, the
23 common questions raised by the class representatives include: the timing, location, and cause of the
24 sewage events and the jail’s policies and procedures in response to the sewage events, among others.
25 Typicality: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(3) for settlement purposes
26 because the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Class in that their
27 claims are based on the same sewage events and legal theories, and Plaintiffs were subject to and
1 Adequacy: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(4) because the named Plaintiffs
2 are adequate class representatives in that they do not have any conflicts with the class, are committed
3 to representing the interests of the members of the class, and are represented by counsel with
4 experience in mass actions and/or class actions.
5 4. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement, that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)
6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met because there are common questions of fact and law
7 regarding Defendants’ policies and procedures, including those identified above, that in the context
8 of a settlement, predominate over any individual issues. Moreover, a class action settlement is
9 superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy because
10 the injury suffered by each member of the Class, while meaningful on an individual basis, is not of
11 such magnitude as to make the prosecution of individual actions against Defendants economically
12 feasible, and the class action settlement device provides the benefits of single adjudication,
13 economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
14 5. In light of the foregoing, the Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a)
15 and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a class action on behalf of the Class, and the
16 Court appoints Plaintiffs Candido Zayas, Ruben Soto, Alfredo Ruiz, Jose Poot, Milton Leclaire,
17 Ralph Dominguez, Matthew Brugman, Michael Brown, and Kishawn Norbert as class
18 representatives for purposes of settlement.1 The Court appoints Yolanda Huang, Fulvio Cajina and
19 Stanley Goff as class counsel, with Yolanda Huang as lead counsel for purposes of settlement.
20 6. The Court finds that due and proper notice of the Settlement was provided to all Class
21 Members, including notice of the right to object to the proposed Settlement, the right to object to
22 Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs, the right to appear in person or by counsel
23 at the Fairness Hearing and be heard, and the right to Opt Out. The Court finds that the notice
24 provided was the best means of providing notice to the Class Members under the circumstances.
25
1 The Court inadvertently approved the appointment of Nigel Henry as a class representative in its
26
order granting preliminary approval. Dkt. 104. Mr. Henry is deceased and was dismissed from
the case on that basis on August 13, 2020. See dkt. 79. Therefore, he is not listed here as a class
27
representative. James Clark and Mark Edward Hill are Plaintiffs in this case but the parties did not
1 The Court further finds that it was due and sufficient notice of the Settlement and the Fairness
2 Hearing to all persons affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement or the Fairness
3 Hearing, in full compliance with the requirements of due process and Federal Rule of Civil
4 Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), (e)(1), and (h)(1).
5 7. The Court finds that the following individuals have objected to the Settlement: a)
6 Edward Blanche; b) Federico Freeman; c) the individual described by the claims administrator as
7 B.G.; d) Alfonzo Williams; e) Adrian Gordon; f) the individual described by the claims
8 administrator as N.A.; g) Matthew Vidor; h) Barry Gilton; and i) the individual described as “C.S.”
9 by the claims administrator. The Court is satisfied that the parties have addressed the objections
10 raised by the above individuals and that none of the objections warrants denying approval of the
11 Settlement Agreement.
12 8. The Court finds that Novell Taylor has requested to opt out of the Settlement Class
13 and that the parties have agreed that he may do so regardless of whether his request was timely
14 under the schedule established by the Court. Mr. Taylor’s request to opt out of the Settlement Class
15 is therefore approved. Further, the parties have represented to the Court that Defendants and Mr.
16 Taylor have entered into a separate settlement agreement in principal and Defendants have stipulated
17 that they waive the requirement under paragraph 31 of the Settlement Agreement in this case making
18 final approval of the class settlement contingent on the dismissal of the Taylor case. Dkt. 138. The
19 share of the class action settlement previously assigned to Mr. Taylor in the sum of $5,713.04 shall
20 be included with Unclaimed Funds and distributed as part of the second-round distribution.
21 9. The Court approves payment to the Settlement Administrator, Greenfire Law, PC, of
22 not to exceed $145,000 out of the Gross Settlement Amount. If the Claims Administrator’s costs
23 do not exceed $145,000, all unexpended balance (credit) shall be included with Unclaimed Funds
24 and distributed as part of the second-round distribution.
25 10. The Court finds that the amount of fees and costs requested by class counsel is fair,
26 reasonable and adequate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig.,
27 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, class counsel shall receive $660,000 in attorney’s
1 attorneys’ fees jointly going to attorneys Stanley Goff and Fulvio Cajina. The Court approves the
2 additional award of $35,000 in litigation costs to the Law Office of Yolanda Huang.
3 11. The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and
4 adequate and are hereby approved on a final basis pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
5 The Parties shall comply with and implement the Settlement Agreement according to its terms.
6 12. As set forth in the Stipulation of Dismissal in Johnson, the Claims of the Johnson
7 || plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. All Johnson plaintiffs are included as members of the
8 Class and subclasses as defined in Paragraph 2 of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
9 Action Settlement, Dkt. 104.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 Dated: October 4, 2021
aq 12
JQSEPH C. SPERO
13 ief Magistrate Judge
(«4
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28