The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 OAKLAND DIVISION
11
12 Lead Case No. 4:19-CV-00717-JST
IN RE CALIFORNIA BAIL BOND
13 || ANTITRUST LITIGATION }PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING
14 . FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
This Document Relates To: SETTLEMENTS WITH DEFENDANTS
15 LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY AND
ALL ACTIONS DANIELSON NATIONAL INSURANCE
16 COMPANY
17 Judge: The Honorable Jon S. Tigar
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS
] Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements with
2 || Defendants Lexon Insurance Company (“Lexon”) and Danielson National Insurance Company
3 || (DNIC”) (the “Motion”).
4 WHEREAS, a proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement has been reached between
5 || Plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed Settlement Class, and Defendant Lexon (the “Lexon Settlement”),
6 || that resolves certain claims against Lexon pertaining to its conduct in the California bail bonds
7 || market;
8 WHEREAS, a proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement has been reached between
9 || Plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed Settlement Class, and Defendant DNIC (the “DNIC Settlement”),
10 || that resolves certain claims against DNIC pertaining to its conduct in the California bail bonds
11 || market;
12 WHEREAS, the Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts all defined terms as set forth in
13 || the Lexon Settlement and DNIC Settlement (collectively, the “Settlements”);
14 WHEREAS, neither Defendant Lexon nor Defendant DNIC opposes the Court’s entry of
15 || the proposed Final Approval Order;
16 WHEREAS, the Court finds it has jurisdiction over the Action and each of the parties for
17 || purposes of Settlement and asserts jurisdiction over the Settlement Class Representatives for
18 || purposes of considering and effectuating the Settlements;
19 WHEREAS, the Court has presided over and managed this Action since February 8, 2019
20 || (ECF No. 1);
21 WHEREAS, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing on May 22, 2025; and
22 WHEREAS, the Court has considered all of the presentations and submissions related to
23 || the Motion, as well as the facts, contentions, claims, and defenses as they have developed in these
24 || proceedings, and is otherwise fully advised of all relevant facts in connection therewith;
25 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
26 | I. Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
27 1. The proposed Settlements appear to be the product of intensive, thorough, serious,
28 || informed, and non-collusive negotiations; have no obvious deficiencies; do not improperly grant
1. APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS
1 || preferential treatment to the Settlement Class Representatives or segments of the Settlement
2 || Class; and appear to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.
3 2. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.
4 | Il. Certification of Settlement Class
5 3. The Court is familiar with the standards applicable to certification of a Rule 23
6 || settlement class in the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d
7 || 539, 556-67 (9th Cir. 2019) (detailing the standard for certifying a settlement class); see also In re
8 || Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 14-cv-2058-JST, 2017 WL 565003, at *3 (N.D.
9 || Cal. Feb. 13, 2017) (Tigar, J.); Jn re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-cv-05944-
10 |) JST, 2020 WL 1873554, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2020) (Tigar, J.); In re Splunk Inc. Sec. Litig.,
11 || 20-cv-08600-JST, 2024 WL 923777 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2024) (Tigar, J).
12 4. Applying these standards, the Court approves, under Rule 23(e)(2), the proposed
13 || Settlement Class as defined below because the Settlement Class and its Representatives meet all
14 |] relevant requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
15 5. “Class” or “Settlement Class” is all persons who, between February 20, 2004 and
16 || April 25, 2024 (the “Settlement Class Period”), paid for part or all of a commercial bail bond
17 || premium in connection with a California state court criminal proceeding. Specifically excluded
18 || from this Class are Defendants in the Action; the officers, directors or employees of any
19 || Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal
20 || representative, heir or assign of any Defendant and any person acting on their behalf; any person
21 || who acted as a bail agent during the Settlement Class Period; any judicial officer presiding over
22 || this Action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff; and any juror
23 || assigned to this Action.
24 6. Plaintiffs Shonetta Crain and Kira Monterrey are hereby appointed Settlement
25 || Class Representatives.
26 7. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP is hereby appointed Settlement Class
27 || Counsel under Rule 23(g)(3). Settlement Class Counsel and Defendants Lexon and DNIC are
28
2. APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS
1 || authorized to take, without further Court approval, all necessary and appropriate steps to
2 || implement the Settlements.
3} I. Continuing Jurisdiction
4 8. The Court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over these proceedings for the
5 || benefit of the Settlement Class as defined in this Order.
6 || IV. — Dismissal
7 9. All claims brought in this Action against Lexon and DNIC are hereby dismissed
8 || with prejudice.
9
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
1]
12 | DATED: June 6, 2025 C ys ‘ dheg—
13 THE HON BLE JON S. TIGAR
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS