Carl Thieroff v. Marine Spill Response Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 23, 2024
Docket2:21-cv-06075
StatusUnknown

This text of Carl Thieroff v. Marine Spill Response Corporation (Carl Thieroff v. Marine Spill Response Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carl Thieroff v. Marine Spill Response Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 12 CARL THIEROFF, an individual; Case No.: CV 21-6075-GW-MRWx JOSHUA KAHANE, an individual; 13 CLASS AND PAGA REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIP WALTON, an individual; on ACTION 14 behalf of themselves and a Class of all other persons similarly situated, 15 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 16 Plaintiffs, OF CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL 17 vs. JUDGMENT

18 MARINE SPILL RESPONSE Date: April 22, 2024 19 CORPORATION, a Tennessee Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. George H. Wu 20 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, State Court Compl. Filed: 5/14/21 21 Removal Filed: 7/28/21 1st Amended Compl. Filed: 10/22/21 22 Defendants. 2nd Amended Compl. Filed: 6/27/22 3rd Amended Compl. Filed: 7/15/22 23 4th Amended Compl. Filed: 4/19/23 Trial Date: None 24 25 26 27 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 The Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement came before this Court 3 on April 22, 2204. 4 WHEREAS, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Joint Stipulation and 5 Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) on December 14, 2023. 6 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs CARL THIEROFF, JOSHUA KAHANE, and PHILLIP 7 WALTON have applied to the Court for an order granting final approval of the 8 Settlement Agreement. 9 WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of the 10 proposed Settlement and for entry of an order of final approval and entry of final 11 judgment thereon. The Court having read and considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final 12 Approval of Class and Representative Action Settlement; Motion for Approval of 13 Approval of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Class Representatives’ Incentive Payments; the 14 Declarations of David R. Markham, Michael Singer, Plaintiffs Carl Thieroff, Joshua 15 Kahane and Phillip Walton, and Makenna Snow of ILYM Group, Inc. and the supporting 16 documents annexed thereto, now finds: 17 NOW THEREFORE, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY 18 ORDERED: 19 1. All defined terms contained herein shall have the same meanings as set forth 20 in the Settlement Agreement filed with this Court on November 6, 2023 (Dkt. No. 66-2). 21 2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over all Settlement Class Members and 22 that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to approve the Settlement. 23 3. The terms of the Settlement are fair, just, reasonable, and adequate, to the 24 Settlement Class and to each Settlement Class Member. In reaching this conclusion the 25 Court has specifically considered the relevant factors, including “(1) the strength of the 26 plaintiff's case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; 27 (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered 1 1 in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) 2 the experience and view of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and 3 (8) the reaction of the class members of the proposed settlement.” See In re Online DVD- 4 Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 944 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Churchill Vill., L.L.C. 5 v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)). 6 4. The Settlement is ordered finally approved, and that all terms and 7 provisions of the Settlement should be and hereby are ordered to be consummated. 8 5. The Parties are hereby directed to perform the terms of the Settlement as 9 described in the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions. 10 6. The Settlement Agreement is binding on Plaintiffs and all other Settlement 11 Class Members, except those who timely and properly submitted Requests for 12 Exclusions, as well as their heirs, successors, and assigns. 13 7. There are zero valid requests for exclusion. 14 8. There are zero objections. 15 9. It is ordered that the Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes 16 only. The Court finds that with respect to the Settlement Class and for purposes of 17 approving this Settlement only that: (a) the members of the Settlement Class are 18 ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are 19 questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class with respect to the subject 20 matter of the Action; (c) the claims of Class Representative Plaintiffs Carl Thieroff, 21 Joshua Kahane and Phillip Walton are typical of the claims of the members of the 22 Settlement Class; (d) the Class Representatives have fairly and adequately protected the 23 interests of the members of the Settlement Class; (e) a class action is superior to other 24 available methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy; and (f) the Class 25 Counsel are qualified to serve as counsel for Plaintiffs in their individual and 26 representative capacities for the Class. 27 2 1 10. The Court finds that the Notice and notice methodology implemented 2 pursuant to this Settlement: (i) constituted the best notice practicable under the 3 circumstances; (ii) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, under the 4 circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Action, their 5 right to object to or exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement and their right to 6 appear at the Final Settlement Hearing; (iii) were reasonable and constituted due, 7 adequate and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (iv) satisfied 8 requirements of law and due process. The Court also finds that the Notice and notice 9 methodology implemented fully complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). 10 11. The Court finds that notice on the “appropriate federal official” and 11 “appropriate state officials” fully complied with 28 U.S.C § 1715. 12 12. The Settlement Class is hereby made final. The Settlement Class is defined 13 as: All persons currently or formerly employed by MSRC in the State of California as 14 non-exempt Responders, or as other non-exempt response-related employees in a position 15 with similar job duties and/or titles, at any time during the Class Period. 16 13. The Class Period is May 14, 2017 to December 31, 2023. 17 14. The Settlement Agreement is not an admission by Defendant, nor is this 18 Final Order a finding of the validity of any allegations or of any wrongdoing by 19 Defendant. Neither this Final Order, the Settlement, nor any document referred to herein, 20 nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement, shall be construed or deemed an 21 admission of liability, culpability, negligence, or wrongdoing on the part of Defendant. 22 15.

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

Related

Theodore H. Frank v. Netflix, Inc.
779 F.3d 934 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carl Thieroff v. Marine Spill Response Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-thieroff-v-marine-spill-response-corporation-cacd-2024.