In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 12 Lead Case No. 4:19-CV-00717-JST IN RE CALIFORNIA BAIL BOND 13 || ANTITRUST LITIGATION }PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING 14 . FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: SETTLEMENTS WITH DEFENDANTS 15 LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALL ACTIONS DANIELSON NATIONAL INSURANCE 16 COMPANY 17 Judge: The Honorable Jon S. Tigar 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 {PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS

] Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements with 2 || Defendants Lexon Insurance Company (“Lexon”) and Danielson National Insurance Company 3 || (DNIC”) (the “Motion”). 4 WHEREAS, a proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement has been reached between 5 || Plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed Settlement Class, and Defendant Lexon (the “Lexon Settlement”), 6 || that resolves certain claims against Lexon pertaining to its conduct in the California bail bonds 7 || market; 8 WHEREAS, a proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement has been reached between 9 || Plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed Settlement Class, and Defendant DNIC (the “DNIC Settlement”), 10 || that resolves certain claims against DNIC pertaining to its conduct in the California bail bonds 11 || market; 12 WHEREAS, the Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts all defined terms as set forth in 13 || the Lexon Settlement and DNIC Settlement (collectively, the “Settlements”); 14 WHEREAS, neither Defendant Lexon nor Defendant DNIC opposes the Court’s entry of 15 || the proposed Final Approval Order; 16 WHEREAS, the Court finds it has jurisdiction over the Action and each of the parties for 17 || purposes of Settlement and asserts jurisdiction over the Settlement Class Representatives for 18 || purposes of considering and effectuating the Settlements; 19 WHEREAS, the Court has presided over and managed this Action since February 8, 2019 20 || (ECF No. 1); 21 WHEREAS, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing on May 22, 2025; and 22 WHEREAS, the Court has considered all of the presentations and submissions related to 23 || the Motion, as well as the facts, contentions, claims, and defenses as they have developed in these 24 || proceedings, and is otherwise fully advised of all relevant facts in connection therewith; 25 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 26 | I. Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 27 1. The proposed Settlements appear to be the product of intensive, thorough, serious, 28 || informed, and non-collusive negotiations; have no obvious deficiencies; do not improperly grant 1. APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS

1 || preferential treatment to the Settlement Class Representatives or segments of the Settlement 2 || Class; and appear to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. 3 2. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. 4 | Il. Certification of Settlement Class 5 3. The Court is familiar with the standards applicable to certification of a Rule 23 6 || settlement class in the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 7 || 539, 556-67 (9th Cir. 2019) (detailing the standard for certifying a settlement class); see also In re 8 || Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 14-cv-2058-JST, 2017 WL 565003, at *3 (N.D. 9 || Cal. Feb. 13, 2017) (Tigar, J.); Jn re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-cv-05944- 10 |) JST, 2020 WL 1873554, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2020) (Tigar, J.); In re Splunk Inc. Sec. Litig., 11 || 20-cv-08600-JST, 2024 WL 923777 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2024) (Tigar, J). 12 4. Applying these standards, the Court approves, under Rule 23(e)(2), the proposed 13 || Settlement Class as defined below because the Settlement Class and its Representatives meet all 14 |] relevant requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). 15 5. “Class” or “Settlement Class” is all persons who, between February 20, 2004 and 16 || April 25, 2024 (the “Settlement Class Period”), paid for part or all of a commercial bail bond 17 || premium in connection with a California state court criminal proceeding. Specifically excluded 18 || from this Class are Defendants in the Action; the officers, directors or employees of any 19 || Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal 20 || representative, heir or assign of any Defendant and any person acting on their behalf; any person 21 || who acted as a bail agent during the Settlement Class Period; any judicial officer presiding over 22 || this Action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff; and any juror 23 || assigned to this Action. 24 6. Plaintiffs Shonetta Crain and Kira Monterrey are hereby appointed Settlement 25 || Class Representatives. 26 7. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP is hereby appointed Settlement Class 27 || Counsel under Rule 23(g)(3). Settlement Class Counsel and Defendants Lexon and DNIC are 28 2. APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS

1 || authorized to take, without further Court approval, all necessary and appropriate steps to 2 || implement the Settlements. 3} I. Continuing Jurisdiction 4 8. The Court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over these proceedings for the 5 || benefit of the Settlement Class as defined in this Order. 6 || IV. — Dismissal 7 9. All claims brought in this Action against Lexon and DNIC are hereby dismissed 8 || with prejudice. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] 12 | DATED: June 6, 2025 C ys ‘ dheg— 13 THE HON BLE JON S. TIGAR 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS