Hunichen v. Atonomi LLC

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedMarch 22, 2023
Docket2:19-cv-00615
StatusUnknown

This text of Hunichen v. Atonomi LLC (Hunichen v. Atonomi LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hunichen v. Atonomi LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2 3 4

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 CHRIS HUNICHEN, individually and on 8 behalf of all others similarly situated,

9 Plaintiff,

10 v.

11 ATONOMI LLC, a Delaware LLC, CENTRI TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware 12 Corporation, VAUGHAN EMERY, DAVID FRAGALE, ROB STRICKLAND, DON 13 DELOACH, WAYNE WISEHART, WOODY BENSON, MICHAEL MACKEY, and JAMES 14 SALTER,

No. 2:19-cv-00615-RAJ-SKV 15 Defendants.

16 ATONOMI LLC, a Delaware LLC, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 17 Counterclaimant, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 18 v. SETTLEMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO SETTLING DEFENDANTS 19 CHRIS HUNICHEN,

20 Counter-Defendant. 21 ATONOMI LLC, a Delaware LLC,

22 Third Party Plaintiff,

23 v.

24 DAVID PATRICK PETERS, SEAN GETZWILLER, DAVID CUTLER, CHANCE 25 KORNUTH, and DENNIS SAMUEL BLIEDEN,

26 Counter-Defendants. 27 1 This matter came before the Court on March 22, 2023, upon Plaintiff’s motion for 2 final approval of the proposed Settlement set forth in the Agreement of Class Action 3 Settlement and Release (the “Agreement”) between Plaintiff and defendants Launch 4 Capital, LLC, Woody Benson, and David Fragale (the “Settling Defendants”) and Motion 5 for Award of Fees, Expenses and Incentive Payment (Dkt. No. 307). 6 The Court has considered the Motions and exhibits thereto, all papers filed and 7 proceedings related to the Settlement herein, and the record in the Action as a whole. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 9 1. This Order and Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in 10 the Agreement. All capitalized terms, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the same 11 meanings as set forth in the Agreement. 12 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, the Parties, 13 and all members of the Settlement Class. 14 3. The Court hereby certifies, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rules 15 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Settlement Class Members 16 defined as: All individuals who either (i) purchased ATMI tokens via a Series 1 or Series 17 2 Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT) from Atonomi in 2018; or (ii) purchased 18 ATMI tokens through a “public sale” by Atonomi on or about June 6, 2018. Excluded from 19 the class are persons who properly exclude themselves from the Settlement, any person, 20 firm, trust, corporation or other entity affiliated with Defendants, or any judge, justice, 21 judicial officer or judicial staff of the Court. 22 4. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that certification of the 23 Settlement Class Members satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24 23(a) and 23(b)(3), including that: (a) the Settlement Class Members are so numerous that 25 joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to 26 the Settlement Class Members; (c) the named Class Representative’s claim is typical of the 27 claims of the Settlement Class Members; (d) the named Class Representative and Class 1 Counsel adequately represent the Settlement Class Members; and (e) class-wide treatment 2 of the disputes raised in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed in the Action 3 is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy. 4 5. The Court finds that Notice was given to Class Members in accordance with 5 the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement entered on November 22, 2022 (Dkt. 305). 6 As described in the Declaration of Luiggy Segura, Notice has been successful and was (1) 7 the best notice practicable under the circumstances, (2) constituted notice that was 8 reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class of the 9 pendency of the Litigation and their rights to object to and/or exclude themselves from the 10 Settlement Agreement and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (3) was reasonable and 11 constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all individuals entitled to receive notice; 12 and (4) fulfilled all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 13 Due Process Clause, and the rules of the Court. 14 6. The Court finds that all notices and requirements of the Class Action Fairness 15 Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, have been satisfied. No written objections or responses to 16 the Settlement Agreement were filed by any federal or state official, and no such federal or 17 state official appeared or requested to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. 18 7. No member of the Settlement Class objected to any of the terms of the 19 Settlement Agreement. The following two members of the Settlement Class timely 20 requested exclusion from the Settlement: R. Heese of The Netherlands and J. Patel of India 21 (the “Opt Outs”). These individuals are hereby excluded from any and all terms of the 22 Settlement Agreement, and the applicability of this Final Order and Judgment. Pursuant to 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3), all members of the Settlement Class, other than 24 the Opt Outs, are bound by this Order and Final Judgment and by the terms of the 25 Settlement Agreement. This Court gives final approval to the Settlement and finds that the 26 Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the members 27 of the Settlement Class. The consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement 1 constitutes fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the 2 Released Parties. The Court finds that the consideration to be paid to the members of the 3 Settlement Class is reasonable, and in their best interests, considering the total value of 4 their claims compared to the disputed factual and legal circumstances of the litigation, and 5 the potential risks and likelihood of success of pursuing litigation on the merits. The 6 complex legal and factual posture of this case and the fact that the Settlement is the result 7 of arms’ length negotiations between the Parties support this finding. The Court finds that 8 these facts, combined with the lack of other indicators of collusion and the Court’s 9 observations throughout the litigation, demonstrate that there was no collusion present in 10 the reaching of the Settlement Agreement, implicit or otherwise. See In re Bluetooth 11 Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011). This finding is also 12 supported by, among other things, the fact that the Settlement provides monetary benefits 13 to the Settlement Class that are not disproportionate to the attorneys’ fees and expenses 14 awarded to Class Counsel or the Class Representative; and the benefits provided to the 15 Settlement Class are appropriate under the circumstances of this case.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hunichen v. Atonomi LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunichen-v-atonomi-llc-wawd-2023.