Azar v. Yelp, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJuly 25, 2022
Docket3:18-cv-00400
StatusUnknown

This text of Azar v. Yelp, Inc. (Azar v. Yelp, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Azar v. Yelp, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JONATHAN DAVIS, et al., Case No. 18-cv-00400-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER PRELIMINARILY 9 v. APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 10 YELP, INC., et al., Docket No. 188 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 WHEREAS, a consolidated class action is pending in this Court entitled Azar v. Yelp, Inc. 15 et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00400-EMC (the “Action”); 16 WHEREAS, by Order dated October 22, 2019, the Court granted the Parties’ Stipulation 17 for Class Certification (ECF No. 71); 18 WHEREAS, on June 12, 2020, the Court issued an Order approving the notice program, 19 which included publication of the Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action (“Certified Class 20 Summary Notice”) in the national edition of Investor’s Business Daily and dissemination over PR 21 Newswire, and mailing of (a) Notice of Pendency of Class Action, and (b) Request for Exclusion 22 From the Class (collectively, “Certified Class Notice”) (ECF No. 88); 23 WHEREAS, the Certified Class Notice defined the Class as “All individuals and entities 24 who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Yelp Inc. (“Yelp”) common stock between 25 February 10, 2017 and May 9, 2017, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby” (ECF 26 No. 100-1, Exs. A and B); 27 WHEREAS, the Certified Class Notice explained Class Members’ right to request 1 discretion whether to permit a second opportunity to request exclusion if there is a settlement, and 2 provided a deadline of August 25, 2020 for the submission of requests for exclusion (ECF No. 3 100-1, ¶17); 4 WHEREAS, the Certified Class Notice further stated that Class Members who choose to 5 remain a member of the Class “will be bound by all past, present and future orders and judgments 6 in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable” (ECF No. 87-6); 7 WHEREAS, the Certified Class Notice was sent to putative Class Members beginning on 8 June 26, 2020 (ECF No. 100-1, ¶6), and the Certified Class Summary Notice was published in the 9 national edition of Investor’s Business Daily and transmitted once over PR Newswire on July 6, 10 2020 (ECF No. 100-1, ¶13); 11 WHEREAS, certain Persons exercised their right to request exclusion from the Class in 12 response to the Certified Class Notice; 13 WHEREAS, (a) Lead Plaintiff Jonathan Davis, on behalf of himself and the Class, and (b) 14 defendant Yelp and defendants Jeremy Stoppelman, Lanny Baker, and Jed Nachman (collectively, 15 the “Individual Defendants”; and, together with Yelp, the “Defendants”; and together with Lead 16 Plaintiff, the “Parties”) have determined to settle all claims asserted against Defendants in this 17 Action with prejudice on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of 18 Settlement dated April 14, 2022 (the “Stipulation”) subject to approval of this Court (the 19 “Settlement”); 20 WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff has made an application, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal 21 Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order preliminarily approving the Settlement in accordance with 22 the Stipulation and allowing notice to Class Members as more fully described herein; 23 WHEREAS, the Court has read and considered: (a) Lead Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 24 approval of the Settlement, and the papers filed and arguments made in connection therewith; and 25 (b) the Stipulation and the exhibits attached thereto; and 26 WHEREAS, unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized words contained herein shall 27 have the same meanings as they have in the Stipulation; 1 1. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement – For the reasons stated on the record at the July 15, 2 2022 hearing and those that follow, the Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement, as 3 embodied in the Stipulation, as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class, subject to further 4 consideration at the Settlement Hearing to be conducted as described below. 5 Adequacy of Representation 6 In appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and certifying this class and appointing 7 Lead Plaintiff as class representative, the Court previously determined that the Lead Plaintiff and 8 their counsel would adequately represent the interests of the class. See Docket Nos. 23,71. In so 9 holding, the Court recognized that Lead Plaintiff’s claims are typical of and coextensive with the 10 claims of the Class, and he has no antagonistic interests; rather, Lead Plaintiff’s interest in 11 obtaining the largest possible recovery in this Action is aligned with the other Class Members. 12 Additionally, here, the certified claims appear to be coextensive with the claims to be 13 released by the Settlement Class; the Settlement Release does not appear to be overbroad. ). In 14 the Ninth Circuit, “[a] settlement agreement may preclude a party from bringing a related claim in 15 the future ‘even though the claim was not presented and might not have been presentable in the 16 class action,’ but only where the released claim is ‘based on the identical factual predicate as that 17 underlying the claims in the settled class action.’” Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th 18 Cir. 2010) (quoting Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120, 1133 (9th Cir. 2008)). The Ninth 19 Circuit has “held that federal district courts properly released claims not alleged in the underlying 20 complaint where those claims depended on the same set of facts as the claims that gave rise to the 21 settlement.” Id. (collecting authority). 22 Here, the Settlement Release is tethered to the “allegations, acts, transactions, facts, events, 23 matters, occurrences, representations or omissions alleged in the Action, or which could have been 24 alleged in the Action” and limits the scope of the release to those relevant facts which “arise out 25 of, are based on or relate to the purchase, acquisition, sale, holding or disposition of Yelp common 26 stock during the Class Period.” Stipulation ¶ 1(rr). In limiting the scope of the of released claims 27 as such, the agreement focuses on the factual predicates relevant to the securities claims certified 1 Settlement Amount 2 “To evaluate the adequacy of the settlement amount, ‘courts primarily consider Lead 3 Plaintiffs’ expected recovery against the value of the settlement offer.’” Hefler v. Wells Fargo & 4 Co., 2018 WL 6619983, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018). “[A]t this preliminary approval stage, 5 the court need only determine whether the proposed settlement is within the range of possible 6 approval.” West, 2006 WL 1652598, at *11. 7 Lead Plaintiff’s damages expert estimates that if the Class had fully prevailed on its 8 Exchange Act claims after a jury trial, if the Court and jury accepted Lead Plaintiff’s damages 9 theory, and the jury verdict survived the inevitable appeals, the total maximum aggregate 10 damages would be approximately $180 million. Holzer Decl. ¶ 22. 11 The Court requested supplemental briefing on how this maximum verdict value was 12 calculated. Docket No. 193. Lead Plaintiff responded that its “expert conducted an event study to 13 determine what amount of the decline was attributable to the fraud rather than to general market 14 conditions.” Docket No. 194 (under seal) at 2. “Based on this event study, Lead Plaintiff’s expert 15 estimated recoverable per share damages to be approximately $6.56 per share, which reflects the 16 artificial inflation being removed from the share price in a one-day event window. Defendants’ 17 expert opined that the maximum damage per share was $5.26 per share calculated over a two-day 18 event window, which included an off-setting stock price increase on May 11, 2017.” Id. Using 19 this per share damage estimation, Lead Plaintiff

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
417 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court, 1974)
In Re: Cendant Corporation Litigation
264 F.3d 201 (Third Circuit, 1992)
Hesse v. Sprint Corp.
598 F.3d 581 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Williams v. Boeing Co.
517 F.3d 1120 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
In Re Immune Response Securities Litigation
497 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (S.D. California, 2007)
Luzerne County Retirement System v. Kacprowski
708 F. App'x 894 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Knapp v. Art.com, Inc.
283 F. Supp. 3d 823 (N.D. California, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Azar v. Yelp, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/azar-v-yelp-inc-cand-2022.