Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided February 20, 2024·No. 2:22-cv-01558·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 LEO GUY, et al., CASE NO. C22-1558 MJP 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 12 v. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 13 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., 14 Defendant. 15

16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Unopposed Motion for 18 Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. (Dkt. No. 61.) Having reviewed the Motion 19 and all supporting materials, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 20 BACKGROUND 21 In considering Plaintiffs’ initial motion for preliminary approval, the Court granted 22 Plaintiffs’ request for certification of a settlement class. (Order on Motion for Preliminary 23 Approval of Class Action Settlement at 3-8 (Dkt. No. 58).) The Court found the named plaintiffs 24 1 adequate class representatives, appointed Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel, and certified the 2 following settlement class: 3 All persons residing in the United States to whom Defendant Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. sent notification that their personal information may have been compromised by 4 unauthorized third parties as a result of the data security incident discovered by Convergent on or about June 17, 2022. 5 (Id. at 8.) But the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary approval without prejudice for 6 two reasons: (1) the scope of the release was overbroad; and (2) the proposed notice lacked any 7 information about the attorneys’ fees and costs that counsel might seek from the settlement fund. 8 (Id. at 10-12.) 9 The Parties have now revised the settlement agreement, which narrows the scope of the 10 release. Initially, the release applied to: 11 any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action with respect to the Data Incident, 12 whether known or unknown, that have been asserted in the Litigation, or that could have been asserted, that arise out of or relate to the causes of action, allegations, practices, or 13 conduct at issue in the Litigation related to Convergent or the Data Incident.

14 (Dkt. No. 56-2 at 10.) The Court found particularly problematic the following portion of the 15 release: “. . . that arise out of or relate to the causes of action, allegations, practices, or conduct at 16 issue in the Litigation related to Convergent or the Data Incident.” (Order at 11.) The release has 17 now been modified to apply to: 18 any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action with respect to the Data Incident, whether known or unknown, that have been asserted in the Litigation, or that could have 19 been asserted, that arise out of or relate to the causes of action, allegations, practices, or conduct at issue in the Litigation. 20 (Dkt. No. 62-1 at 10.) 21 The Court also notes that Plaintiffs’ counsel has now revealed that its request for 22 attorneys’ fees and costs will not exceed 27% of the $2.45 million settlement fund—that is, 23 24 1 $661,500. (Renewed Mot. at 7 (Dkt. No. 61).) Counsel has also provided notice Plaintiffs wish to 2 apply for $1,500 service fee awards to the named plaintiffs. (Id.) 3 The Court notes that the revised settlement agreement still provides for the same relief 4 that the initial settlement agreement provided to the approximately 640,906 individuals in the

5 settlement class. The revised settlement allows for settlement class members to file one of three 6 different types claims for payment out of the settlement fund. (Revised Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 7 4.2.) A class member may seek up to $1,500 for “ordinary” out-of-pocket expenses related to the data 8 breach or up to $10,000 for “extraordinary” out-of-pocket expenses. (Revised Settlement Agreement 9 ¶¶ 4.21, 4.2.3.) As a third option, class members may elect to file a claim for an alternative pro rata 10 share of the settlement fund. (Revised Settlement Agreement ¶ 4.2.4.) If the total dollar value of the claims exceeds the amount remaining in the settlement fund necessary to cover the attorneys’ fees 11 and costs, class representative’s service award, and administrative costs, then the payment amount 12 for claims “shall be reduced pro rata” among those who submit claims for ordinary or extraordinary 13 losses, and those who seek the alternative pro rata share will receive nothing. (Revised Settlement 14 Agreement ¶ 4.4.) 15 Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have provided draft long, short, and summary notice 16 forms that are intended to provide notice to members of the settlement class. (See Exs. B and C to the 17 Declaration of Gary Klinger (Dkt. No. 62-1 at 36-54).) 18 ANALYSIS 19 A. Legal Standard 20 A proposed class action may not be settled on a classwide basis without court approval. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Before approving a settlement, the Court must determine whether to order 22 notice of the proposed settlement to the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). This requires the parties 23 to “provide the Court with information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice 24 1 of the proposal to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(A). Notice must be given if the parties 2 show that “the court will likely be able to: (i) approve the proposal under Rule 23(e)(2); and (ii) 3 certify the class for purposes of judgment on the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B). 4 Under Rule 23(e)(2), the Court must determine whether the proposed settlement taken as

5 a whole is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 6 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. 7 Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). “[S]ettlements that occur before class certification are subject to a 8 high procedural standard.” Kim v. Allison, 8 F.4th 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2021) (quotation 9 omitted). “The district court must act as a fiduciary, protecting the interests of absent class 10 members by scrutinizing the settlement's fairness in light of well-established factors.” Id. To 11 assess whether a proposed settlement comports with Rule 23(e)(2), the Court considers: “(1) the 12 strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further 13 litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount 14 offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6)

15 the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the 16 reaction of the class members of the proposed settlement.” Kim, 8 F.4th at 1178 (quotation and 17 citation omitted). And when settlement happens before class certification, approval is contingent 18 not only on a thorough assessment of these eight factors, but also a finding that the settlement “is 19 not[ ] the product of collusion among the negotiating parties.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. 20 Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946-47 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation and citation omitted). 21 B. Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notice 22 The Court finds that notice of the revised settlement should be given to the settlement 23 class, given that the proposed settlement appears likely to be found fair, reasonable, and

24 1 adequate. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc (Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court, 2011)
In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability
654 F.3d 935 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)