Chase Whitehead v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01978
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Chase Whitehead, No. CV-22-01978-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Amica Mutual Insurance Company,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Chase Whitehead’s (“Plaintiff”) Unopposed 16 Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and 17 Certification of the Settlement Class. (Doc. 40). For the reasons stated below, the Court 18 will grant the Motion. 19 I. Background 20 Previously on March 20, 2025, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary 21 Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification was denied. (Doc. 39). The Court 22 found that Plaintiff failed to both satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)’s numerosity requirement and 23 establish superiority under Rule 23(b)(3). (Id.) Because the Court already gave a 24 background of how the case originated and the layout of insurance stacking cases in 25 Arizona, the Court will not do so again here. (See Doc. 39 at 1–2). The Court’s reasoning 26 for allowing the preliminary certification to go forward is enunciated below. 27 II. Legal Standard 28 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), one or more members of a class may 1 sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if all four of the 2 following prerequisites are met: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 3 impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or 4 defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and 5 (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). On top of satisfying the four prerequisites above, at least one of the 7 following must be true: (1) Risk of inconsistency: the prosecution of separate actions by 8 individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications or adjudications 9 that would be dispositive of non-party class member interests; (2) Appropriate Class-Wide 10 Injunctive Relief: injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a 11 whole because the conduct of the opposing party applies generally to the class; or (3) 12 Predominance and Superiority: questions of law or fact common to class members 13 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action 14 is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the 15 controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).1 When there is an underlying settlement in a class 16 action, that settlement needs the approval of the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e). At the 17 preliminary approval stage, the Court only needs to evaluate whether the proposed 18 settlement (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, 19 (2) has no obvious deficiency, (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class 20 representatives or segments of the class, and (4) falls within the range of possible approval. 21 See Alberto v. GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 665 (E.D. Cal. 2008). 22 III. Discussion 23 A. Class Certification 24 In the Court’s previous Order, the Court found that Plaintiff had satisfied all the 25 initial prerequisites under Rule 23(a), except 23(a)(1): numerosity. (Doc. 39 at 6). Because 26 that was the only prerequisite the Court found deficient, that is the only one the Court will 27 now address. If the Court did not make it clear previously, it will make clear now why the 28 1 Plaintiff only seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3). (See Doc. 36 at 23–26). 1 Court was not initially persuaded that Plaintiff had met 23(a)(1)’s numerosity requirement. 2 The Court’s prior Order observed the small class size, which the Court understands is not 3 a strict numerical requirement, but it was also concerned with Plaintiff’s lack of analysis 4 of other subfactors to support the Court’s finding of numerosity. See Gen. Tel. Co. of the 5 Nw. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980) (emphasizing that the numerosity requirement has 6 no absolute limitations, but instead turns on looking at the specific facts of the case). The 7 subfactors for numerosity that the Court would have been swayed by, and now is, are: (a) 8 geographic diversity of the class members; (b) their ability to institute separate suits; and 9 (c) the nature of the underlying action and the relief sought. Jordan v. Los Angeles Cty., 10 669 F.2d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, Cty. of Los Angeles v. 11 Jordan, 459 U.S. 810 (1982), modified, 726 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1984) (listing out the 12 subfactors to be analyzed within numerosity). 13 In his renewed Motion Plaintiff states that geographic diversity is satisfied because 14 the members of the class are spread across thirteen cities and five counties in Arizona. 15 (Doc. 40 at 6). One class member even resides in Washington state. (Id.) The Court finds 16 that this is adequate to show geographic diversity. 1 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on 17 Class Actions § 3:12 (5th ed. 2014) (“geographic dispersion of class members cuts in favor 18 of certification as joinder of all members of a dispersed class is likely less practicable than 19 joinder of all members of a similarly sized class residing in one neighborhood or working 20 in one workplace”). Class members are also unlikely or unable to initiate separate suits 21 because most would not be aware of their right to do so. Datta v. Asset Recovery Sols., 22 LLC, 2016 WL 1070666, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016) (attributing the unlikelihood of 23 filing separate lawsuits to a finding that certification is appropriate). And while the nature 24 of the underlying relief sought is for compensatory damages, the Court will err on the side 25 of granting preliminary approval, considering that Plaintiff has supplemented his Motion 26 with more persuasive authority. (Doc. 41) (citing to recent caselaw in which a class size as 27 small as 25 was certified). Considering the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has now 28 satisfied the numerosity requirement to meet preliminary certification of the class. 1 Now that Plaintiff has met the four prerequisite requirements of 23(a)(1)–(4), the 2 Court will focus on what it found deficient in the Plaintiff’s previous Motion under 3 23(b)(3). Rule 23(b)(3) requires two separate inquires. The following being the two: “[1] 4 the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions 5 affecting only individual members, and [2] that a class action is superior to other available 6 methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Rule 23(b)(3). Earlier, the 7 Court took no issue with the predominance part of Plaintiff’s Motion but found that 8 Plaintiff failed to show the Court that a class action was the superior way to resolve the 9 underlying cause of action. (Doc. 39 at 17). At that time, the Court found that the large 10 individual recovery a plaintiff would receive should they pursue the litigation as a 11 standalone without a class, although neutral, ultimately disfavored certification. (Id.) The 12 Court also found that the lack of individual litigation by members of the class, while 13 certainly favoring certification, was not an argument fully advanced by Plaintiff. (Doc. 39 14 at 20–21). Again, the Court’s finding that superiority was not established, was based on 15 Plaintiff’s cursory assertions to the contrary. Now that Plaintiff has supplemented his 16 Motion, the Court is convinced that superiority has been properly plead at this time. 17 First, individual class members have not shown the desire to control their own 18 litigation, as stated by Plaintiff in his renewed Motion. Because class members are likely 19 to be unaware of their claims, it is also unlikely that they would pursue said claims. Datta, 20 WL 1070666, at *8. Having said that, there is also nothing in the record that shows that 21 individual class members have tried to pursue their claims. Then, in the previous Motion 22 that the Court denied, there was also the issue of whether the individual claims were too 23 small to warrant individual action. The Court found Plaintiff’s singular assertion on this 24 matter lacking: “many of their claims are too small to individual litigation possible.” (Doc. 25 39 at 18). Without more, the Court could not find that the class warranted preliminary 26 certification. Now, however, Plaintiff has clarified that twelve of the class members have 27 potential damages recoveries under $75,000, with nine below $40,000, and with one class 28 member only receiving $2,300 potentially. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff admits that some of these 1 recoveries are large given the class size, but that if individual litigation were pursued, these 2 recoveries would be engulfed by the costs of the litigation. (Id.) Lastly, a class action is 3 appropriate in this forum because the Court has already made preliminary rulings in this 4 matter, the forum is geographically convenient for the parties, and other class actions 5 related to the same issues are already before the Court. (Doc. 40 at 14). Having found that 6 Plaintiff has satisfied superiority, the Court will move on to analyzing the fairness of the 7 settlement agreement. 8 B. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement 9 To determine whether settlement approval can go forward at this stage, the Court 10 needs to analyze if the settlement proposal is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. 11 P. 23(e); see also David F. Herr, Ann. Manual Complex Lit. § 21.632 (4th ed. 2023). 12 Although several factors are used to assess if the underlying settlement should be approved, 13 at the preliminary stage, the Court only looks at a limited number. These include: (1) 14 appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has no 15 obvious deficiency; (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to the class 16 representatives or segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of possible approval. 17 Horton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 266 F.R.D. 360, 363 (D. Ariz. 2009). Because “[s]ettlement 18 is the offspring of compromise; the question . . . is not whether the final product could be 19 [better], but whether it is fair, adequate and free from collusion.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 20 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998). 21 Here, the proposed settlement class includes: 22 All persons insured under an insurance policy issued by Defendant in Arizona that covered more than one vehicle for 23 uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle insurance, and who received the limit of liability for the uninsured or underinsured 24 benefits for only one unit of (or one vehicle’s) UM or UIM coverage during the Class Period, as reflected in the agreed- 25 upon list attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement. 26 (See Doc. 36-1 at ¶ 22, Ex. A, Settlement Agreement). The settlement agreement also 27 releases Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company of the breach of contract claim and 28 implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim in exchange for a common fund of 1 $2,875,000. (Id. at ¶¶ 34–36). According to class counsel, the settlement is fair, reasonable, 2 and adequate because there is a “strong relationship between the unpaid loss and the 3 available insurance funds.” (Doc. 36 at 14). Additionally, the projected value of the 4 insurance benefits owed to the class is $1,773,697.67. (Id. at 13). At this preliminary stage, 5 the Court finds that the settlement should be approved. See Vasquez v. Coast Valley 6 Roofing, Inc., 670 F.Supp.2d 1114, 1125 (E.D.Cal.2009) (“To evaluate the range of 7 possible approval criterion, which focuses on substantive fairness and adequacy, courts 8 primarily consider plaintiff's expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement 9 offer.”). 2 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of 12 Class Action Settlement and Certification of the Settlement Class. (Doc. 40) is granted. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows: 14 1. The Court preliminarily approves the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, and the 15 Settlement set forth therein as fair, adequate and reasonable, and in the best interest of the 16 putative class members, subject to further consideration at a final fairness hearing (the 17 “Final Fairness Hearing”). 18 2. The Court certifies the following Class for purposes of settlement (the 19 “Settlement Class”): All persons insured under an insurance policy issued by Defendant in 20 Arizona that covered more than one vehicle for uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle 21 insurance, and who received the limit of liability for the uninsured or underinsured benefits 22 for only one unit of (or one vehicle’s) UM or UIM coverage during the Class Period, as 23 reflected in the agreed-upon list attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement. 24 3. The Court designates Chase Whitehead as Class Representative for the 25 Settlement Class. 26 4. The Court appoints Robert Carey of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as

27 2 Final approval of the settlement, on the other hand, requires a more extensive analysis by the Court. See Nat'l Rural Telecommunications Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 28 525 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (highlighting requirements of final approval). 1 Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 2 5. The Final Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court on June 17, 2026 3 at 3:00 p.m. (a date no sooner than 90 days following completion of the notice being issued 4 under 28 U.S.C. § 1711 et seq.), before District Judge Diane J. Humetewa in Courtroom 5 605, Sadra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, 6 Arizona 85003, to determine whether to approve certification of the class for settlement 7 purposes; whether the proposed settlement of the Lawsuit on the terms and conditions 8 provided from in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the 9 Settlement Class and should be approved by the Court; whether a final judgment should be 10 entered heroin; whether the proposed plan of distribution should be approved; to determine 11 the amount of fees and expenses that should be awarded to Class Counsel; and to determine 12 the amount of the service award that should be provided to the Class Representative. The 13 Court may adjourn the Final Fairness Hearing without further notice to the members of the 14 Settlement Class. 15 6. The Court approves the proposed Notice, Exhibit C, to the original Motion 16 for Preliminary Approval (Doc. 36). The Court further finds that the proposed plan of 17 notice and the proposed content of the notice, meet the requirements of Rule 23 and due 18 process, and are the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute 19 due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. 20 7. The Court appoints the firm of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., 21 as the Settlement Administrator. Plaintiff and his designees, including the Settlement 22 Administrator, are authorized to expend funds from the escrow accounts to pay taxes, tax 23 expenses, notice, and administration costs as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The 24 Court appoints the Settlement Administrator to supervise and administer the notice 25 procedure, as more fully set forth below. 26 8. Beginning no later than 30 days following the Settlement Administrator’s 27 receipt of final and approved Settlement Class member contact data (the “Notice Date”), 28 the Settlement Administrator shall begin issuing direct notice by first class U.S. mail to all 1 Settlement Class members for whom there is a valid mailing address, whose mailing 2 addresses can be identified with reasonable effort, or alternatively by email, if mailing 3 addresses are not available, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 3 to the Motion 4 for Preliminary Approval. 5 9. All members of the Settlement Class shall be bound by all determinations 6 and judgments in the Lawsuit concerning the settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable 7 to the Settlement Class. 8 10. Class Counsel shall file their motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and service 9 award for Class Representative, and all supporting documentation and papers, by 30 days 10 before the deadline for exclusions and objections. In filing their motion, Class Counsel 11 need not comply with the procedures set forth in LRCiv 54.2(e) and (j). 12 11. Any person who desires to request exclusion from the Settlement Class shall 13 do so within 60 days of the Notice Date. To be excluded from the settlement, the exclusion 14 request must be received by the Settlement Administrator no later than 60 days after the 15 Notice Date. All persons who submit valid and timely requests for exclusion shall have no 16 rights under the Settlement Agreement, shall not share in the distribution of the settlement 17 funds, and shall not be bound by the final judgment relating to the Defendants entered in 18 the litigation. 19 12. Any member of the Settlement Class who has not requested to be excluded 20 may enter an appearance in the litigation, at his or her own expense, individually or through 21 counsel of his or her own choice. If the member does not enter an appearance, he or she 22 will be represented by Class Counsel. 23 13. Any member of the Settlement Class who has not requested to be excluded 24 may appear, object, and show cause, if he or she has any reason, why the proposed 25 settlement should or should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; why a 26 judgment should or should not be entered thereon; why the plan of distribution should or 27 should not be approved; why attorneys’ fees and expenses should or should not be awarded 28 to Class Counsel; or why the service award should or should not be awarded to Class 1 Representatives. All such written objections and supporting papers must be mailed or filed 2 with the Court within 60 days of the Notice Date, with a copy to the Class Counsel, and 3 include: 4 (a) The full name, address, telephone number, and email address of (1) the 5 person objecting (the “Objector”) and (2) any counsel for an objector; 6 (b) The name and number of the case: Chase Whitehead v. Amica Mutual 7 Insurance Company, et al., Case No. CV-22-01978-PHX-DJH; 8 (c) Whether the objection applies only the Objector, to a specific subset of the 9 Settlement Class, or to the entire Settlement Class; and 10 (d) The specific grounds for each objection the Objector is asserting, including 11 a description of the legal authorities and factual basis that support the 12 objection. 13 14. All papers in support of the settlement and responses by Class Counsel 14 regarding objections and exclusions shall be filed by May 26, 2026. 15 15. All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying members of 16 the Settlement Class, as well as administering the Settlement Fund, shall be paid for as set 17 forth in the Settlement Agreement. 18 16. Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may extend any of the deadlines 19 set forth in this Order without further notice to the Settlement Class. 20 17. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested to be excluded 21 are temporarily barred and enjoined from instituting or continuing the prosecution of any 22 action asserting the claims released in the proposed settlement, until the Court enters final 23 judgment with respect to the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 18. Except for proceedings in furtherance of the Settlement Agreement, this || Action is stayed pending further order of the Court. 3 Dated this 17th day of February, 2026. 4

6 norable'Diang4. Hunfetewa 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-10-