Baker v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc.

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

Opinion

LOU BAKER, individually and on behalf Case No.: 14cv2129-MMA (AGS) of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ UNOPPOSED Plaintiff, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY v. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AUTHORIZING DISSEMINATION et al., OF NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT

Defendants. [Doc. No. 516]

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

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

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)