Baker v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California·Decided February 19, 2020·No. 3:14-cv-02129·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LOU BAKER, individually and on behalf Case No.: 14cv2129-MMA (AGS) 12 of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING CLASS 13 REPRESENTATIVES’ UNOPPOSED Plaintiff, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 14 v. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 15 SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AUTHORIZING DISSEMINATION et al., OF NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT 16 TO THE CLASS

17 Defendants. [Doc. No. 516]

18 19 20 On November 29, 2017, this Court certified the pending action, Baker v. SeaWorld 21 Entertainment, Inc., et al., (the “Action”), to proceed as a class action on behalf of all 22 persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common 23 stock of SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. (“SeaWorld”) between August 29, 2013 and 24 August 12, 2014, who did not sell such acquired securities before August 13, 2014, and 25 were damaged (the “Class”).1 See Doc. No. 259. 26

27 1 Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) present or former executive officers of 28 1 Pursuant to the Court’s December 6, 2018 Order, the Notice of Pendency of Class 2 Action (the “Class Notice”) was mailed to potential members of the Class to notify them 3 of, among other things: (i) the Action pending against the defendants SeaWorld, The 4 Blackstone Group L.P. (now known as The Blackstone Group Inc.), James Atchison, 5 James M. Heaney, and Marc Swanson (collectively, “Defendants”); (ii) the Court’s 6 certification of the Action to proceed as a class action on behalf of the Class; and (iii) 7 their right to request to be excluded from the Class, the effect of remaining in the Class or 8 requesting exclusion, and the requirements for requesting exclusion. See Doc. No. 336. 9 Court-appointed Class Representatives Arkansas Public Employees Retirement 10 System and Pensionskassen For Børne-Og Ungdomspædagoger (together, “Class 11 Representatives”), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the Court-certified 12 Class, and Defendants (together with Class Representatives, the “Parties”) have 13 determined to settle and dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted against Defendants in 14 the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of 15 Settlement dated February 10, 2020 (the “Stipulation”), subject to the approval of this 16 Court (the “Settlement”). See Doc. No. 516. 17 Class Representatives move, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure, for an order preliminarily approving the Settlement in accordance with 19 the Stipulation and authorizing notice of the Settlement to Class Members as more fully 20 described herein. See id. 21 Upon review and consideration of: (i) Class Representatives’ motion for 22 preliminary approval of the Settlement and authorization to disseminate notice of the 23 Settlement to the Class, and the papers filed and arguments made in connection 24 25 any of the foregoing persons’ legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (iv) any entity in 26 which Defendants have or had a controlling interest or any affiliate of SeaWorld. Also excluded from the Class are any persons and entities that submitted a request for exclusion in connection with Class Notice 27 as set forth on Appendix 1 to the Stipulation. 28 1 therewith; and (ii) the Stipulation2 and the exhibits attached thereto, the Court hereby 2 GRANTS Class Representatives’ motion and ORDERS as follows: 3 1. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement – The Court hereby preliminarily 4 APPROVES the Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation, and finds, pursuant to Rule 5 23(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it will likely be able to finally 6 approve the Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the 7 Class, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Fairness Hearing to be conducted 8 as described below. 9 2. Settlement Fairness Hearing – The Court will hold a settlement hearing 10 (the “Settlement Fairness Hearing”) on July 22, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3D at 11 the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, 12 San Diego, CA 92101, for the following purposes: (a) to determine whether the proposed 13 Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, 14 and adequate to the Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; 15 (b) to determine whether a Judgment substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B to 16 the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against 17 Defendants; (c) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of 18 the Settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (d) to determine whether 19 the motion by Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses should be 20 approved; and (e) to consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the 21 Court in connection with the Settlement. Notice of the Settlement and the Settlement 22 Fairness Hearing shall be given to Class Members as set forth in paragraph 4 of this 23 Order. 24 25 26

27 2 Unless otherwise defined in this Order, the capitalized terms herein shall have the same 28 1 3. The Court may adjourn the Settlement Fairness Hearing without further 2 notice to the Class and may approve the proposed Settlement with such modifications as 3 the Parties may agree to, if appropriate, without further notice to the Class. 4 4. Retention of Claims Administrator and Manner of Giving Notice – Class 5 Counsel are hereby authorized to retain Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. (the 6 “Claims Administrator” or “Epiq”), the administrator previously approved by the Court 7 to administer the dissemination of the Class Notice, to supervise and administer the 8 notice procedure in connection with the proposed Settlement as well as the processing of 9 Claims as more fully set forth below. Notice of the Settlement and the Settlement 10 Fairness Hearing shall be given by Class Counsel as follows: 11 (a) not later than twenty (20) business days after the date of entry 12 of this Order (the “Notice Date”), the Claims Administrator shall cause a copy of the 13 Postcard Notice, substantially in the form attached to Class Representatives’ motion as 14 Exhibit A-1 (Doc. No. 516-5), to be mailed by first-class mail, or emailed, to potential 15 Class Members who were previously mailed a copy of the Class Notice and any other 16 potential Class Member who otherwise may be identified through further reasonable 17 effort, and shall cause a copy of the Notice and Claim Form, substantially in the forms 18 attached to Class Representatives’ motion as Exhibits A-2 and A-4 (Doc. Nos. 516-6 and 19 516-8), respectively (the “Notice Packet”), to be mailed to the brokers and other 20 nominees (the “Nominees”) contained in the Claims Administrator’s broker database; 21 (b) contemporaneously with the mailing of the Postcard Notice, the 22 Claims Administrator shall cause copies of the Notice and the Claim Form to be posted 23 on the website previously developed for this Action, 24 www.SeaWorldSecuritiesLitigation.com, from which copies of the Notice and Claim 25 Form can be downloaded; 26 (c) not later than ten (10) calendar days after the Notice Date, the 27 Claims Administrator shall cause the Summary Notice, substantially in the form attached 28 1 to Class Representatives’ motion as Exhibit A-3 (Doc. No. 516-7), to be published once 2 in Investor’s Business Daily and to be transmitted once over PR Newswire; and 3 (d) not later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the Settlement 4 Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel shall serve on Defendants’ Counsel and file with the 5 Court proof, by affidavit or declaration, of such mailing, posting, and publication. 6 5.

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

Baker v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Baker v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. (Baker v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sherri B. Simpson v. Trump University, LLC
881 F.3d 1111 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG
443 F.3d 253 (Second Circuit, 2006)