Miranda v. Golden Entertainment (NV), Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMay 12, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-00534
StatusUnknown

This text of Miranda v. Golden Entertainment (NV), Inc. (Miranda v. Golden Entertainment (NV), Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miranda v. Golden Entertainment (NV), Inc., (D. Nev. 2021).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JENNIFER MIRANDA and PATRICIA Case No.: 2:20-cv-00534-APG-DJA 4 TERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, ORDER APPROVING CLASS 5 ACTION SETTLEMENT Plaintiffs, 6 v. 7 GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT (NV), INC., 8 Defendant. 9 10 WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the Stipulation of Class Action Settlement, with 11 its attached exhibits (collectively, the “Agreement”), signed and filed with this Court on October 12 12, 2020, to settle Miranda, et al. Golden Entertainment (NV), Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00534- 13 APG-DJA pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the “Action”). 14 WHEREAS, by Order dated December 17, 2020 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), this 15 Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement between the parties in 16 the Action, ordering the dissemination of Class Notice to potential Class Members, providing 17 potential Class Members with an opportunity either to exclude themselves from the Class or to 18 object to the proposed settlement, and issuing related Orders. 19 WHEREAS, the Court also preliminarily certified a Class, for settlement purposes only, 20 approved the procedure for giving notice and forms of notice, and set a Fairness Hearing to take 21 place on May 12, 2021. On that date, the Court held a duly noticed Fairness Hearing to consider: 22 (1) whether the terms and conditions of the Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) 23 whether a judgment should be entered dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint on the merits and with 24 prejudice in favor of Defendant and the Released Parties and against all persons who are Class 25 Members pursuant and subject to the terms of the Agreement; (3) whether and in what amount to 26 award Incentive Awards to Plaintiffs; and (4) whether and in what amount to award Attorneys’ 27 Fees and Expenses to Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 28 WHEREAS, the Court, having considered the papers submitted by the Parties and by all 1 other persons who timely submitted papers in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, 2 and having heard oral presentations by the Parties and all persons who complied with the 3 Preliminary Approval Order, and based on all of the foregoing, together with this Court’s 4 familiarity with the Action, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as 5 follows: 6 1. Use of Capitalized Terms. Except where otherwise noted, all capitalized terms 7 used in this Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement shall have the meanings attributed to 8 them in the Agreement. 9 2. Incorporation of Other Documents. This Final Order Approving Class Action 10 Settlement incorporates and makes a part hereof: (a) the Agreement, including all amendments 11 and exhibits thereto, and definitions included therein, which was signed and filed with this Court 12 on October 12, 2020; (b) the briefs, affidavits, declarations, and other materials filed in support of 13 the Settlement and Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s request for an award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses; 14 (c) the record at the Fairness Hearing; (d) the documents listed on the docket sheet or otherwise 15 submitted to the Court; and (e) all prior proceedings in the Action. 16 3. Jurisdiction. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties, and because due, 17 adequate, and practicable notice has been disseminated and all potential Class Members have 18 been given the opportunity to exclude themselves from or object to this Settlement, the Court has 19 personal jurisdiction over all Class Members (as defined below and in the Agreement). The 20 Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 §§ 1332 and 1367, including, without limitation, jurisdiction to approve the proposed Settlement 22 and the Agreement and all exhibits attached thereto, grant final certification of the Class for 23 settlement purposes, settle and release all claims arising out of the transactions alleged in this 24 Action, dismiss the Action on the merits and with prejudice, and issue related orders. The Court 25 finds that venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 26 4. Final Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. The Class preliminarily 27 certified by this Court is hereby finally certified, for settlement purposes only, under Rules 23(a) 28 and(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), the Court finding that the Class fully 1 satisfies all the applicable requirements of FRCP 23 and due process. The Class shall consist of 2 all customers, vendors, and current and former employees of Golden to whom Golden mailed 3 notice that between May 30, 2019, and October 6, 2019, Golden was the target of a cyberattack in 4 which third parties sent phishing emails to Golden’s employees in the hopes of gaining access to 5 Golden’s computer systems and might have resulted in unauthorized parties accessing personal 6 information. The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) Golden and its respective officers and 7 directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely opt-out of the settlement; (iii) the judge 8 assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement; and (iv) any other person found by a court of 9 competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding, or abetting 10 the criminal activity occurrence of the Phishing Attack or who pleads nolo contendere to any such 11 charge. 12 5. Requests for Exclusion. The Court finds that one Class Member, Kevin Berghel, 13 has submitted a valid request for exclusion from the Class, and, accordingly, all Class Members 14 other than Mr. Berghel shall be bound by this Order. 15 6. Adequacy of Representation. The Court designates Plaintiffs as representatives of 16 the Class and finds that these Plaintiffs have adequately represented the Class for purposes of 17 entering into and implementing the Agreement. The Court appoints the law firm of Bursor & 18 Fisher, P.A. as counsel for the Class (“Plaintiffs’ Counsel”). For purposes of these settlement 19 approval proceedings only, the Court finds that Bursor & Fisher, P.A. are experienced and 20 adequate Plaintiffs’ Counsel. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel have satisfied the requirements of 21 FRCP 23(a)(4) and 23(g). 22 7. Class Notice. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Class Notice in 23 accordance with the terms of the Agreement and this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, as 24 described in the Settlement Administrator’s Declaration filed before the Fairness Hearing, a copy 25 of which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof: 26 a. constituted the best practicable notice to Class Members under the 27 circumstances of the Action; 28 1 b.

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

Related

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1994)
In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability
654 F.3d 935 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Ginger McCall v. Facebook, Inc.
696 F.3d 811 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Boyd v. Bechtel Corp.
485 F. Supp. 610 (N.D. California, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Miranda v. Golden Entertainment (NV), Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miranda-v-golden-entertainment-nv-inc-nvd-2021.