Carter Pool v. Ameripark, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 22, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01103
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARTER POOL, Case No.: 19cv1103-LAB (WVG)

12 Plaintiff, FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 13 v. GRANTING:

14 AMERIPARK, LLC, 1) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ 15 Defendant. FEES AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE 16 AWARD [Dkt. 43]; 17 2) FINAL APPROVAL OF 18 CLASS ACTION 19 SETTLEMENT [Dkt. 44]; AND

20 3) DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION 21 WITH PREJUDICE

23 Plaintiff Carter Pool (“Plaintiff” or “Class Representative”) filed this putative 24 class action against Defendant Ameripark, LLC (collectively, the “Parties”), 25 alleging that Defendant engaged in a pattern of wage and hour violations against 26 all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked in the 27 State of California and who performed parking valet duties. Plaintiff brings claims 28 for violations of the California Labor Code, including for claims under the Private 1 Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”); 2 the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders; and California Business 3 & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. 4 After arm’s-length settlement discussions, the Parties entered into a 5 Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Representative Action Settlement and 6 Release (“Settlement Agreement”), which, if approved, would resolve this putative 7 class action. (See Dkt. 50, Ex. 1). Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s 8 Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Final Approval 9 Motion”), (Dkt. 44), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 10 and Class Representative Award (“Fee Motion”), (Dkt. 43). After consideration of 11 the moving papers, the Court hereby GRANTS Final Approval of the Settlement 12 and Plaintiff’s Fee Motion. 13 On March 22, 2021, the Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion 14 For: (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Provisional 15 Certification of the Settlement Class; (3) Approval of the Class Notice and Notice 16 Plan; (4) Appointment of Class Counsel and Class Representative; 17 (5) Appointment of Settlement Administrator; and (6) Setting a Final Approval 18 Hearing, in which the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement (“Preliminary 19 Approval Order”). (Dkt. 38). The Court also scheduled a hearing to determine 20 whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, in the best interest of the 21 Class, and free from collusion such that the Court should grant final approval of 22 the Settlement, and to consider Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, 23 costs, and an incentive award for the Class Representative (“Fairness Hearing”). 24 The Court has considered: 25 • the points and authorities submitted by Plaintiff in support of the Final 26 Approval Motion; 27 • the points and authorities submitted by Plaintiff in support of the Fee 28 Motion; 1 • the declarations and exhibits submitted in support of said motions; 2 • the Settlement Agreement; 3 • the entire record in this proceeding, including but not limited to, the points 4 and authorities, declarations, and exhibits submitted in support of 5 preliminary approval of the Settlement, filed February 10, 2021; 6 • the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (“Notice”), providing full 7 and fair notice to the Class Members; 8 • the absence of any objection to or exclusion from the Settlement; 9 • the absence of any objection or response by any official after the provision 10 of all notices required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 11 §1715; 12 • the oral presentations of Class Counsel and ounsel for Defendant at the 13 Fairness Hearing; 14 • this Court’s experiences and observations while presiding over this 15 matter, and the Court’s file herein; and 16 • the relevant law. 17 18 Based upon these considerations and the Court’s findings of fact and 19 conclusions of law as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and in this Final 20 Judgment and Order Granting: (1) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Class 21 Representative Award, (2) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; and 22 (3) Dismissal of the Action with Prejudice (“Final Approval Order”), and good cause 23 appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 24 1) Final Approval of the Settlement, the terms of which are set forth in the 25 Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 50, Ex. 1), is GRANTED; 26 2) The Settlement Class is CERTIFIED; 27 3) Plaintiff is appointed as Class Representative and the incentive award 28 requested in the Fee Motion is APPROVED; 1 4) The payments to Settlement Administrator ILYM Group, Inc. requested in 2 the Final Approval Motion are APPROVED; 3 5) GrahamHollis APC is appointed as Class Counsel and the attorneys’ fees 4 and costs requested in the Fee Motion and Supplemental Declaration of 5 Graham S.P. Hollis are APPROVED; 6 6) Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in accordance with 7 the terms of this Order. 8 DISCUSSION 9 1. Definitions. The capitalized terms used in this Final Approval Order 10 shall have the meanings and/or definitions given to them in the Settlement 11 Agreement or, if not defined therein, the meanings and/or definitions given to them 12 in this Final Approval Order. 13 2. Incorporation of Documents. The Court has personal jurisdiction 14 over the Parties, the Class Members, and Defendant. The Court has subject matter 15 jurisdiction over this action, including, without limitation, jurisdiction to approve the 16 Settlement, to settle and release all claims alleged in the action and all claims 17 released by the Settlement, including any Released Claims, to adjudicate any 18 objections submitted to the proposed Settlement, and to dismiss this action with 19 prejudice. All Class Members who did not exclude themselves according to the 20 Court’s prior orders and the terms of the Class Notice have consented to the 21 jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of this Action and the Settlement of this 22 Action. 23 3. Jurisdiction. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 24 Action, including jurisdiction over all claims alleged in the Action, settlement of 25 those claims on a class-wide basis, all claims released by the Settlement, and any 26 objections submitted to the Settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a) and (d). 27 The Court also has personal jurisdiction over the Parties. As discussed in greater 28 detail below and in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Members 1 received adequate notice, had the right to opt out, and were adequately 2 represented by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court can and does exercise jurisdiction 3 over those Class Members’ claims. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 4 797, 811–12 (1986) (adequate notice and opportunity to be heard permits courts 5 to exercise jurisdiction over claims of absent class members). 6 Findings and Conclusions 7 4. Definition of the Class and Class Members. As identified in the 8 Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the “Class” is comprised of the “Class 9 Members,” which is defined as follows: all current and former non-exempt 10 employees of Defendant who worked in the State of California and who performed 11 parking valet duties during the Class Period. The Class Period is defined as the 12 period beginning on May 6, 2015, through March 22, 2021. 13 5. Class Certifications (Rule 23). Before approving a settlement of 14 class claims, the Court must confirm that the class form is appropriate to the case. 15 Rule 23(a) requires a class to satisfy four prerequisites, generally referred to as 16 numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. If these are 17 satisfied, the Court must confirm that the action meets one of the class action types 18 enumerated in Rule 23(b)—as relevant here, subsection (3) of that Rule requires 19 that the common questions predominate over individual ones and that a class 20 action be superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating 21 the controversy. Because each of these requirements is met, as discussed below, 22 the Court grants final certification of the Class. All Class Members are subject to 23 this Final Approval Order and the Final Judgment to be entered by the Clerk of 24 Court in accordance herewith. 25 A. Numerosity. The proposed Class includes 1,024 Class 26 Members. This is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is 27 impracticable, so Rule 23’s numerosity requirement is satisfied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 23(a)(1). 1 B. Commonality. A properly certified class must also have 2 questions of law or fact common to the class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). 3 The proposed Class satisfies this requirement. The Class claims relate to 4 Defendant’s general applicable policies concerning overtime pay, wages, meal 5 and rest periods, gratuities owed, and suitable seating for employees. 6 C. Typicality. A class can be certified only if the class 7 representative’s claims are typical of the class’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). A 8 representative’s claims are typical “if they are reasonably co-extensive with those 9 of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon v. 10 Chrysler Co., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998) (overruled on other grounds by 11 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)). Plaintiff was allegedly 12 subject to the employment policies that form the basis of the Class claims, and the 13 Court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s claims are reasonably coextensive with those 14 of the Class. 15 D. Adequacy of Class Representative. Having considered the 16 factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1), the Court finds that Plaintiff is an adequate class 17 representative and Class Counsel are adequate to represent the Class. Class 18 Counsel has fully and competently prosecuted all causes of action, claims, theories 19 of liability, and remedies reasonably available to the Class Members. The Court 20 hereby affirms its appointment of GrahamHollis, APC as Class Counsel. The Court 21 also affirms its appointment of Carter Pool as the Class Representative, finding 22 that he possesses no interests adverse to the Class and is adequate to represent 23 the Class. 24 E. Rule 23(b) Has Been Satisfied. Having met Rule 23(a)’s 25 prerequisites for class certification, Plaintiff contends that the Class can be certified 26 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). (See Dkt. 44-2 ¶¶ 98–103). This requires the Court 27 to find that questions of law or fact common to Class Members predominate over 28 any questions affecting only individual members and that class treatment is the 1 superior means to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). These 2 requirements are satisfied. 3 Predominance can be established by the existence of a company-wide policy 4 or practice. See, e.g., Duque v. Bank of America, Case No. SA CV 18-1298 PA 5 (MRWx), 2018 WL 10483813 at *3–4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018). Here, Plaintiff’s 6 claims arise from Defendant’s allegedly uniform and systematic employment 7 policies applicable to non-exempt employees who performed valet duties. The 8 common questions surrounding these policies predominate this case, and so the 9 predominance requirement is met. 10 The Court must also confirm that the class form is superior to other methods 11 of litigation before certifying a class under Rule 23(b)(3). This inquiry “requires 12 determination of whether the objectives of the particular class action procedure will 13 be achieved in the particular case.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1023. The “dominant[]” 14 objective of the class form is “vindication of the rights of groups of people who 15 individually would be without effective strength to bring their opponents into court 16 at all. . . . The policy at the very core of the class action mechanism is to overcome 17 the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to 18 bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 19 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (cleaned up). The Class is composed of 1,024 people, 20 and individualized treatment could result in over one thousand cases that involve 21 the same factual bases and seek to achieve a similar result. Individual cases would 22 likely consume a significant amount of time, effort, and resources, and would also 23 likely deter individual Class Members from pursuing individual claims. The Court 24 finds that class treatment here is superior to other methods of litigation. 25 With the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) satisfied, the Court grants 26 final certification of the Class for settlement purposes only. 27 6. The Settlement. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires 28 district courts to review proposed class action settlements for fairness, 1 reasonableness, and adequacy.” Roes, 1–2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 2 1048 (9th Cir. 2019). Because the named Plaintiff, Class Counsel, and Defendant’s 3 Counsel may have incentives inconsistent with the interests of absent class 4 members, the Court must take care to protect the due process rights of those 5 absent class members. And because this incongruity is most pronounced where 6 the settlement comes prior to class certification, “settlement approval requires a 7 higher standard of fairness and a more probing inquiry than may normally be 8 required under Rule 23(e).” Id. at 1048–49 (internal quotation marks and citation 9 omitted). The Court must look particularly for evidence of collusion or other 10 conflicts of interest to protect absent class members. Id. 11 Applying this standard, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, 12 and adequate to each Class, in light of the complexity, expense, and likely duration 13 of the litigation (including appellate proceedings), as well as the risks involved in 14 establishing liability, damages, and the appropriateness of class treatment through 15 trial and appeal. See Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 963 (9th Cir. 16 2009). The Settlement appears to be the result of arm’s-length negotiation and the 17 record doesn’t support a conclusion that the Settlement is the result of either: 18 1) collusion among Plaintiff, Class Counsel, and Defendant; or 2) conflicts of 19 interest between Plaintiff and Class Counsel, on the one hand, and the Class 20 Members, on the other. 21 A. Generally. The Parties reached the proposed Settlement after 22 a thorough investigation into the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. The Settlement was 23 the result of arm’s-length negotiations conducted by the Parties in good faith and 24 after consultation with competent legal counsel, and with the extensive assistance 25 of an independent mediator, The Honorable Carl J. West. The Action was filed in 26 good faith, was not frivolous, and was in compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal 27 Rules of Civil Procedure. Based on the negotiations between counsel for the 28 Parties, the Parties fully understood the nature, strength, and weaknesses of each 1 other’s claims and defenses. 2 Plaintiff and Class Counsel maintain that the Action and the claims asserted 3 therein are meritorious and that Plaintiff and the Class would have prevailed at 4 trial. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff and Class Counsel have agreed to settle the Action 5 pursuant to the provisions of the Settlement Agreement after considering, among 6 other things: (1) the strength of Plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, 7 and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining a class action 8 status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in Settlement; (5) the extent of 9 discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and 10 views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the 11 reaction of the class members to the proposed Settlement. Plaintiff and Class 12 Counsel agree that this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate 13 because it provides substantial benefit to the Class, is in the best interests of the 14 Class, and fairly resolves the claims alleged in this Action. 15 Defendant expressly denies any wrongdoing alleged in the pleadings in the 16 Action, and does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, 17 or liability in connection with any facts or claims which have been or could have 18 been alleged against it in the Action. Defendant nonetheless considers it desirable 19 for the Action to be settled and dismissed, because: (i) further litigation with respect 20 to Plaintiff’s claims would be protracted, expensive, and contrary to its best 21 interests; and (ii) absent settlement, substantial amounts of time, energy, and other 22 resources would continue to be devoted to Defendant’s defense against Plaintiff’s 23 claims. 24 Plaintiff and Defendant were fully informed of the legal bases for the claims 25 and defenses herein and are capable of balancing the risks of continued litigation 26 and the benefits of the Settlement. Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel are 27 experienced civil litigation lawyers with specialized knowledge in complex class 28 action litigation generally. Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel are capable of 1 properly assessing the risks, expenses, and duration of continued litigation. 2 B. The Settlement Affords Meaningful Relief. The Settlement 3 Class will receive the Settlement Amount of $1,750,000, minus Court-approved 4 attorneys’ fees and costs, administrative costs, PAGA penalties, Class 5 Representative Service Award, and Labor Code § 1102.5 Award. 6 On the other side of the ledger and as described in further detail infra, 7 Paragraph 10, participating class members will release the claims actually brought 8 and claims that could have been brought under federal or state law arising out of 9 the allegations of the operative complaint. By operation of the entry of this Final 10 Approval Order, and except as to such rights or claims as may be created by the 11 Settlement, each Class Member will release the following claims: 12 [A]ll causes of action and factual or legal theories that were 13 alleged in the Operative Complaint or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts and legal theories 14 contained in the Operative Complaint, including all of the 15 following claims for relief: (i) failure to provide rest periods; (ii) failure to provide meal periods; (iii) failure to pay 16 minimum and regular wages; (iv) failure to pay all overtime 17 wages; (v) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (vi) waiting time penalties; (vii) failure to indemnify 18 employees for necessary expenditures incurred in the 19 discharge of duties; (viii) failure to institute a lawful tip pooling policy; (ix) failure to provide suitable seating; 20 (x) unfair business practices that could have been 21 premised on the claims, causes of action or legal theories of relief described above or any of the claims, causes of 22 action or legal theories of relief pleaded in the Operative 23 Complaint; (xi) all claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 that could have 24 been premised on the claims, causes of action or legal 25 theories described above or any of the claims, causes of action or legal theories of relief pleaded in the Operative 26 Complaint; (xii) any other claims or penalties under the 27 wage and hour laws pleaded in the Operative Complaint; and (xiii) all damages, penalties, interest and other 28 1 or legal theories of relief. 2 (Dkt. 50, Ex. 1 ¶ 1.7). The Plaintiff himself “settle[s] fully and release[s] all of the 3 claims he now has against the Released Parties, whether known or unknown, 4 suspected or unsuspected.” (Id. ¶ 5.2(e)(iv)). 5 The Court finds the releases reasonable in scope and, in light of the risks, 6 costs, and duration of continued litigation, the amounts paid to Plaintiff and the 7 Class are fair, reasonable, and adequate consideration for those releases. The 8 Court has considered the realistic range of outcomes in this matter, including the 9 amount Plaintiff might receive if he prevailed at trial, the strength and weaknesses 10 of the case, the novelty and number of the complex legal issues involved, and the 11 risk that Plaintiff and the Class would receive less than the Settlement relief or take 12 nothing at trial. The relief offered by the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and 13 adequate in view of these factors. 14 C. No Collusion or Conflicts of Interest. The Court finds no 15 evidence to support a conclusion that Plaintiff and the Defendant colluded. To the 16 contrary, up to and through the Settlement, both Parties vigorously litigated and 17 negotiated this Action, as evidenced by the docket. 18 However, the Settlement Agreement’s “clear sailing” provision, under which 19 Defendant agreed not to challenge any request for fees up to the maximum of 20 $437,500 of the Settlement funds, can be a “subtle sign of collusion.” SFBSC 21 Mgm’t, 944 F.3d at 1049. The presence of such a provision requires the Court to 22 look closely at the reasonableness of the recovery and the reasonableness of fees 23 to confirm that Class Counsel haven’t negotiated a benefit for themselves using 24 the Class’s claims as leverage. Id. 25 That scrutiny doesn’t reveal evidence that Class Counsel bargained away a 26 Class benefit in exchange for clear sailing on an unreasonably large fee award. 27 The Settlement’s benefit to the Class is appropriate in relation to the likelihood of 28 success at trial and the magnitude of the Class claims. Class Counsel’s requested 1 fees withstand close scrutiny, too. They seek $437,500, or 25% of the total—equal 2 to the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark rate and the amount the clear sailing agreement 3 allows without objection. These fees are reasonable, and the amount isn’t so 4 extraordinary that the Court can infer that Class Counsel obtained the provision by 5 bargaining away a class benefit. 6 Because it’s unlikely that the clear sailing agreement provided a non- 7 negligible benefit to Class Counsel, and because the Class benefit from the 8 Settlement is adequate, the Settlement withstands close scrutiny and the Court 9 finds no apparent collusion. 10 D. Response of the Class. The Class’s responses after full, fair, 11 and effective notice (as discussed below) favor final approval of the Settlement. 12 Out of the 1,024 who received notice, none filed an objection to the Settlement and 13 none have requested an exclusion from the Settlement. 14 7. Notice. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Notice of 15 Proposed Class Action Settlement (“Notice”) was sent to 1,024 Class Members by 16 mail. Of these, 120 Notices were returned as undeliverable, 70 of which were re- 17 mailed thanks to forwarding addresses that were provided or ILYM Group’s skip 18 tracing efforts. Presently, 50 Notices are deemed undeliverable. 19 The Notices provided fair, effective, and the best practicable notice to the 20 Class of the Settlement and the terms thereof. The Notices also informed the Class 21 of Plaintiff’s intent to seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive payments, and set 22 forth the date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing and Class Members’ rights 23 to object to the Settlement or Fee Motion and to appear at the Fairness Hearing. 24 The Court further finds that the Settlement afforded Class members a reasonable 25 period of time to exercise such rights. See Weeks v. Kellogg Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. 26 LEXIS 155472, at *82 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (class members’ deadline to object 27 or opt out must arise after class counsel’s fee motion is filed); In re Mercury 28 Interactive Corp. Secs. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 2010) (same). The 1 Settlement Notices fully satisfied the requirements of law and due process. 2 8. PAGA Payment. The PAGA payment of $87,500, with $65,625 3 (or 75%) allocated to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency 4 (“LWDA”) and $21,875 (or 25%) to be distributed to the Class, is approved. That 5 payment must be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 6 9. Costs and Fees. The fees and expenses of ILYM Group, Inc. in 7 administrating the settlement in the amount of $14,500, are fair and reasonable. 8 The Court hereby grants final approval to and orders that the payment of that 9 amount be paid out of the Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the 10 Settlement Agreement. 11 The requested Class Representative Service Award, Labor Code § 1102.5 12 Award, and the attorneys’ fees and costs are fair and reasonable. The Court 13 hereby grants final approval to and orders that the payment of the amounts of 14 $5,000 to Plaintiff for his Service Award, $5,000 to Plaintiff for his Labor Code 15 § 1102.5 Award, $437,500 to Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees, and $12,564.82 16 for reimbursement of costs be paid out of the Maximum Settlement Amount in 17 accordance with the Settlement Agreement. 18 10. Release. The Release set forth in the Settlement Agreement is 19 expressly incorporated herein in all respects, is effective as of the date of the entry 20 of this Final Approval Order, and forever discharges the Released Parties from any 21 claims or liabilities released by the Settlement, including the Released Claims, and 22 including without limitation a waiver of all rights under Section 1542 of the 23 California Civil Code. This Release covers, without limitation, any and all causes 24 of action and factual or legal theories that were alleged in the operative complaint 25 or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts and legal theories 26 contained in the operative complaint. 27 Nothing in this order shall preclude any action to enforce the Parties’ 28 obligations under the Settlement or under this order, including the requirement that 1 Defendant make payment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. 2 If, for any reason, the Effective Date (as defined by the Settlement 3 Agreement) does not occur, this Order will be vacated; the Parties will return to 4 their respective positions in this action as those positions existed immediately 5 before the Parties executed the Agreement; and nothing stated in the Settlement 6 Agreement or any other papers filed with this Court in connection with the 7 Settlement will be deemed an admission of any kind by any of the Parties or used 8 as evidence against, or over the objection of, any of the Parties for any purpose in 9 this action or in any other action. 10 The Parties represent that they entered into the Settlement solely for the 11 purpose of compromising and settling disputed claims. Defendant expressly 12 denies any violation of law or any liability whatsoever to Plaintiff and/or the Class, 13 individually or collectively. 14 CONCLUSION 15 The Settlement is ORDERED finally approved, and all terms and provisions 16 of the Settlement are ordered to be consummated. Participating Class Members 17 will be bound by the Settlement. The Parties are hereby ordered to comply with 18 the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The action is DISMISSED WITH 19 PREJUDICE, and final judgment is entered. Each side will bear its own costs and 20 attorneys’ fees except as provided by the Settlement and this Final Approval Order. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 The parties have consented to the continued jurisdiction of United States 2 ||Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo or any Magistrate Judge who may later be 3 ||assigned over all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, 4 |limplementation, effectuation, and enforcement of this Final Approval Order and 5 Settlement. 6 The Clerk is directed to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: March 22, 2022 lau A. (Buywy 9 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 40 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28