McClintock v. Continuum Producer Services, L.L.C.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma
DecidedJune 4, 2020
Docket6:17-cv-00259
StatusUnknown

This text of McClintock v. Continuum Producer Services, L.L.C. (McClintock v. Continuum Producer Services, L.L.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McClintock v. Continuum Producer Services, L.L.C., (E.D. Okla. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA PAULA PARKS MCCLINTOCK, ) Plaintiff, V. Case No. 6:17-cv-00259-JAG CONTINUUM PRODUCER SERVICES, L.L.C., ) Defendant. ORDER AWARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES Before the Court is Class Counsel’s Motion for Approval of Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses [Doc. No. 49] (the “Motion”) and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof [Dk. No. 50] (the “Memorandum”), wherein Class Counsel seeks entry of an Order approving Class Counsel’s request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, which were incurred in successfully prosecuting and resolving this Litigation, in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00—the amount set forth in the Notice. On January 17, 2020, the Court issued an Order referring the Motion, and others, to the Honorable Kimberly E. West, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation and to preside over the Final Fairness Hearing (Dk. No. 55). On February 12, 2020, Judge West conducted a Final Fairness Hearing to determine, among other things, whether the Motion should be approved (Dk. No. 59), and on May 19, 2020, issued a Report and Recommendation (Dk. No. 60) wherein she recommended that the motions should be granted and the parties’ proposed orders accurately reflected the recommendation, id. at 6. Judge West advised that any objections to the R&R should be filed no later than June 2, 2020 and the failure to file an objection would waive appellate review of the findings and

conclusions made therein. /d. The time for objections has passed, and no objection has been filed. Accordingly, the Court, having considered the Motion and Memorandum, all matters and evidence submitted in connection therewith, and the proceedings on the Final Fairness Hearing, hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation and finds the Motion should be GRANTED as follows: 1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement and all terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Court, for purposes of this Order, incorporates herein its findings of fact and conclusions of law from its Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement as if fully set forth herein. 3. The Court has jurisdiction to enter this Order and over the subject matter of the Litigation and all parties to the Litigation, including all Settlement Class Members. 4. The Notice stated that Class Counsel would seek Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, which were incurred in successfully prosecuting and resolving this Litigation, in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00. The Notice also stated Class Counsel would request approval of Administration, Notice and Distribution Costs associated with effectuating the Settlement in an amount not to exceed $110,000.00 to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund. Notice of Class Counsel’s request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and approval of Administration, Notice and Distribution Costs was given to all Settlement Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and approval of Administration, Notice and Distribution Costs is hereby determined to have been the best notice practicable under the circumstances,

constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled to receive such notice, and fully satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and due process. 5. Class Counsel provided the Court with abundant evidence in support of their request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, including but not limited to: (1) the Motion and Memorandum; (2) the Declaration of Bradley E. Beckworth, Patrick M. Ryan and Robert N. Barnes on Behalf of Class Counsel (“Joint Class Counsel Decl.”); (3) the Declaration of Bradley E. Beckworth on Behalf of Nix Patterson, LLP (“NP Decl.”); (4) the Declaration of Patrick M. Ryan on behalf of Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters &7 Webber; (5) the Declaration of Robert N. Barnes, Patranell Britten Lewis, and Emily Nash Kitch on behalf of Barnes & Lewis LLP; (6) the Declaration of Michael Burrage; (7) the Declaration of Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr.; (8) the Declaration of Paula Parks McClintock; (9) the Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough on Behalf of Settlement Administrator JND Legal Administration LLC, Regarding Notice Mailing and Administration of Settlement (“JND Decl.”); and (10) the Affidavits of Absent Class Members Saydee Resources, LLP, and Little Land Co. This evidence was submitted to the Court well before the objection and opt-out deadline, and none of the evidence was objected to or otherwise refuted by any Settlement Class Member. 6. Class Counsel is hereby awarded Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00, to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund. In making this award, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (a) The Settlement has created a Gross Settlement Fund of $900,000.00 in cash. Class Members will benefit from the Settlement that occurred because of the substantial efforts of Class Representative and Class Counsel;

(b) On December 4, 2019, JND caused the Short Form Notice of Settlement to be mailed to 20,455 unique mailing records identified in the mailing data. See JND Decl. at § 10. The Short Form Notice expressly stated that Class Counsel would seek Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00. The Short Form Notice also directed class members to a website for further information, including the Long Form Notice, and also provided the option of requesting a Long Form Notice be sent via U.S. Mail. There were no objections to the requested reimbursement of expenses; (c) Class Counsel filed its Motion approximately fourteen (14) days prior to the deadline for Settlement Class Members to object. No objections were filed regarding Class Counsel’s Motion for Approval of Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; (d) The Parties here contractually agreed that the Settlement Agreement shall be governed solely by federal common law with respect to certain issues, including the reasonableness of requests for rermbursement of expenses: To promote certainty, predictability, the full enforceability of this Settlement Agreement as written, and its nationwide application, this Settlement Agreement hall be govemed solely by federal law, both substantive and procedural, as to due process, class certification, judgment, collateral estoppel, res judicata, release, settlement approval, allocation, Case Contribution Award, the right to and reasonableness of Plaintiff's Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses, and all other matters for which there is federal procedural or common law, including federal law regarding federal equitable common fund class actions. Settlement Agreement at §11.8 (emphasis added) (Dkt. No. 39-1); (e) This choice of law provision should be and is hereby enforced. See Boyd Rosene & Assocs., Inc. v. Kansas Mun. Gas Agency, 174 F.3d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing Restatement 2d of Conflict of Laws § 187, cmt. e (Am. Law Inst. 1988)); Yavuz v. 61 MM, Ltd., 465 F.3d 418, 428 (10th Cir. 2006); see also Williams v. Shearson Lehman

Bros., 1995 OK CIV APP 154, § 17, 917 P.2d 998, 1002 (concluding that parties’ contractual choice of law should be given effect because it does not violate Oklahoma’s constitution or public policy); Barnes Group, Inc. v.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McClintock v. Continuum Producer Services, L.L.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclintock-v-continuum-producer-services-llc-oked-2020.