MADISON LAIRD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

District Court, N.D. California·Decided July 16, 2026·No. 3:23-cv-04237·Unknown

Opinion

111 Kane Moon (SBN 249834) Allen Feghali (SBN 301080) 222 Jacquelyne VanEmmerik (SBN 339338) 725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor 444 Los Angeles, CA 90017 555 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 666 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com 777 Email: afeghali@moonlawgroup.com Email: jvanemmerik@moonlawgroup.com 888 999 Attorneys for Plaintiff MADISON LAIRD 111000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 111111 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 111222 111333 MADISON LAIRD, individually, and Case No.: 3:23-cv-04237-CRB 111444 on behalf of all others similarly situated, [Assigned to Hon. Charles R. Breyer, 111555 Courtroom 6] Plaintiff, 111666 vs. [PROPOSED] ORDER: 111777 AVANADE INC, a Washington 1. CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT 111888 corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, CLASS; inclusive, 2. FINALLY APPROVING 111999 Defendants. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; 222000 3. AWARDING FEES AND COSTS TO CLASS COUNSEL; 222111 4. AWARDING SERVICE PAYMENT 222222 TO PLAINTIFF; AND 5. DIRECTING ENTRY OF 222333 JUDGMENT 222444 Date: July 10, 2026 222555 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 6 222666 222777 Complaint filed: June 28, 2023 Trial date: Not set 222888 111 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 222 Plaintiff MADISON LAIRD (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Avanade Inc. 333 (“Defendant”) (Plaintiff and Defendant together, “the Parties”) have reached a class action 444 settlement involving claims asserted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and related state 555 law statutes. 666 Plaintiff has filed a motion for final approval of a class action settlement of the 777 claims asserted against Defendant in this action, memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of 888 Class Action Settlement (the “Settlement”) (see, Declaration of Kane Moon in Support of 999 Plaintiff’s Motions for (1) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and (2) Award for 111000 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Service Payment to Plaintiff [“Moon Decl.”], Ex. 1) with 111111 attached Exhibits. In addition, Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion for an award of fees, 111222 costs, and class representative service payment, which was considered in conjunction with 111333 the motion for final approval. 111444 The Settlement between the Parties provides that the Parties stipulate to certification 111555 of a Class for settlement purposes only. The Settlement is conditioned upon, among other 111666 things, the Court’s approval. Capitalized terms in this Order shall have the same meaning 111777 as in the Settlement unless indicated otherwise. A summary of the terms of the Settlement 111888 is as follows: 111999 • The Parties stipulate to Class certification for purposes of settling the Action 222000 only. (Settlement, ¶ 12.2.) 222111 • The Class is: All current and former employees of Defendant who were hired in 222222 the United States at any time during the period from June 18, 2018, through 222333 April 27, 2025 (the “Class Period”). (Id. at ¶¶ 1.4, 1.12.) Excluded from the 222444 Settlement Class are all persons who properly and timely elect to opt out. (Id. at 222555 ¶ 1.25.) 222666 • Defendant will pay $300,000.00 as the Gross Settlement Amount. (Id. at ¶ 222777 3.0.) 222888 111 • The Settlement is a non-reversionary settlement. (Id. at ¶ 3.0.) 222 • Each Participating Class Member will receive an equal share of the Net 333 Settlement Amount. (Id. at ¶ 1.23.) 444 • For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check is uncashed 555 and cancelled after 180 days from date of mailing (the “void date”), or for any 666 Class Member whose envelope is returned and no forwarding address can be 777 located for the Class member after reasonable efforts have been made, the 888 Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to the 999 California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class 111000 Member, thereby leaving no unpaid residue. (Id. at ¶¶ 4.1.1-4.13.) 111111 After reviewing the Settlement and other related documents, and having heard the 111222 argument of Counsel for respective Parties, if any, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS 111333 FOLLOWS: 111444 1. The Court finds that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of a 111555 settlement class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For purposes of 111666 settlement, the requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied because the proposed Class is so 111777 numerous that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable, there are questions of law 111888 or fact common to the Class, the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the 111999 Class; and Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The 222000 requirements of Rule 23(b) are satisfied because questions of law or fact common to 222111 Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class 222222 Members. 222333 2. The Parties’ settlement appears to have been made and entered into in 222444 good faith and is hereby finally approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable, subject to 222555 the limitations on the requested fees and payments as set forth below. 222666 3. The following persons are certified as Class Members solely for the 222777 purpose of entering a settlement in this matter: 222888 All current and former employees of Defendant who were hired in the 111 United States at any time during the period from June 18, 2018, through 222 April 27, 2025. 333 Participating Class Members are those who did not submit a valid and timely Request for 444 Exclusion. Based on the Declaration of Nathalie Hernandez on behalf of ILYM Group, 555 Inc. (“ILYM”), 7 Class Members submitted a valid and timely Request for Exclusion 666 pursuant to the Settlement. Accordingly, these 7 individuals are excluded from the Class, 777 and there remains 4,716 Participating Class Members. 888 4. The distribution of the Class Notice directed to the Class Members as set 999 forth in the Settlement and the Court’s directions has been completed in conformity 111000 with the Preliminary Approval Order. The Class Notice provided due and adequate 111111 notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed 111222 settlement terms as set forth in the Settlement, to all persons entitled to such Notice. 111333 The Class Notice fully satisfied the requirements of due process, having been sent to all 111444 Class Members who could be identified through reasonable effort, and was the best 111555 notice practicable under the circumstances. The Class Notice fully and accurately 111666 informed Class Members of all material elements of the proposed settlement and their 111777 opportunity to exclude themselves from, or object to, the Settlement. 111888 5. By filing the motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and service 111999 payment award, and by also permitting Class Members to object to those amounts 222000 through the hearing of the motion for final approval, Plaintiff has satisfied the notice 222111 and opportunity to respond requirements of In re Mercury Interactive, 816 F.3d 988 222222 (9th Cir. 2010). 222333 6. Plaintiff is confirmed as the Class Representative for settlement purposes. 222444 Moon Law Group, PC is confirmed as Class Counsel. 222555 7. ILYM is confirmed as the Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms 222666 set forth in the Settlement. The Court hereby directs payment to the Administrator for 222777 fees and expenses, in the amount of $20,550.00 to be paid pursuant to the Settlement’s 222888 terms for such distribution. The Court finds that the Settlement Administrator has thus 111 far fully discharged its obligations as Settlement Administrator under the terms of the 222 Settlement, and the Settlement Administrator is directed to complete the administration 333 as set forth in the Settlement. 444 8. Th

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

MADISON LAIRD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, (N.D. Cal. 2026).

MADISON LAIRD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (MADISON LAIRD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Buck Otto White
816 F.3d 976 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)