Moore v. Robinhood Financial LLC

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedJuly 16, 2024
Docket2:21-cv-01571
StatusUnknown

This text of Moore v. Robinhood Financial LLC (Moore v. Robinhood Financial 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
Moore v. Robinhood Financial LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

THE HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7 COOPER MOORE and ANDREW GILLETTE, on their own behalf and on 8 behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 2:21-cv-01571-BJR 9 Plaintiffs, FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 10 v. 11 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 12 Defendant. 1 13 4

15 This matter, having come before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the 16 proposed class action settlement with Defendant Robinhood Financial LLC (“Defendant”); the 17 Court having considered all papers filed and arguments made with respect to the proposed 18 settlement of the claim asserted under the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act 19 (“CEMA”) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), by the proposed Settlement 20 Class, and the Court, being fully advised, finds that: 21 1. On July 16, 2024, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing, at which time the 22 Parties were afforded the opportunity to be heard in support of or in opposition to the settlement. 23 The Court received no objections to the settlement. 24 2. Notice to the Settlement Class required by Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure has been provided in accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. Such 26 Notice has been given in an adequate and sufficient manner; constitutes the best notice practicable 27 1 under the circumstances, including the dissemination of individual notice to all Settlement Class 2 Members who can be identified through reasonable effort; and satisfies Rule 23(e) and due process. 3 3. Defendant has timely served notification of this settlement with the appropriate 4 officials pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715. 5 4. The Court finds that the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and that all members 6 of the Settlement Class have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution because 7 a person’s receipt of an unsolicited text message sent without the recipient’s clear and affirmative 8 consent intrudes upon privacy and is an injury for purposes of Article III. See Van Patten v. 9 Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 874 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017). 10 5. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are incorporated fully into this Order by 11 reference. 12 6. The Court finds that the terms of Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and 13 adequate in light of the complexity, expense, and duration of litigation, and the risks involved in 14 establishing liability and damages, and maintaining the class action through trial and appeal. 15 7. The Court has considered the factors enumerated in Rule 23(e)(2) and finds they 16 counsel in favor of final approval. 17 8. The Court finds that the relief provided under the settlement constitutes fair value 18 given in exchange for the release of claims. 19 9. The Parties and each Settlement Class Member have irrevocably submitted to the 20 jurisdiction of this Court for any suit, action, proceeding, or dispute arising out of the Settlement 21 Agreement. 22 10. The Court finds that it is in the best interests of the Parties and the Settlement Class 23 and consistent with principles of judicial economy that any dispute between any Settlement Class 24 Member (including any dispute as to whether any person is a Settlement Class Member) and any 25 Released Party which, in any way, relates to the applicability or scope of the Settlement Agreement 26 or the Final Judgment and Order should be presented exclusively to this Court for resolution by 27 this Court. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 2 11. This action is a class action against Defendant on behalf a class of persons defined 3 as follows (the “Settlement Class”): All persons or entities who received a Robinhood referral 4 program text message, and who were Washington residents at the time of the receipt of such text 5 message, between and including August 9, 2017 and February 13, 2024, which was the date the 6 Court entered an order granting preliminary approval. Persons who clearly and affirmatively 7 consented in advance to receive Robinhood referral program text messages are excluded from the 8 class. The Settlement Class does not include Defendant, any entity that has a controlling interest 9 in Defendant, and Defendant’s current or former directors, officers, counsel, and their immediate 10 families. The Settlement Class also does not include any persons who validly requested exclusion 11 from it. 12 12. The Court finds that the Settlement Class satisfies all of the requirements of Federal 13 Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) as set forth in its earlier order granting preliminary 14 approval in this matter. 15 13. The Settlement Agreement submitted by the Parties for the Settlement Class is 16 finally approved pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as fair, reasonable, 17 and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Agreement shall be 18 deemed incorporated herein and shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and 19 provisions thereof, except as amended or clarified by any subsequent order issued by this Court. 20 14. As agreed by the Parties in the Settlement Agreement, upon Final Approval, the 21 relevant parties shall be released and discharged in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. 22 15. As agreed by the parties in the Settlement Agreement, upon Final Approval, each 23 Settlement Class Member is enjoined and permanently barred from instituting, maintaining, or 24 prosecuting, either directly or indirectly, any lawsuit that asserts Released Claims. 25 16. As agreed by the parties in the Settlement Agreement, upon Final Approval, 26 Defendant is enjoined and permanently barred from instituting, maintaining, or prosecuting, either 27 directly or indirectly, any lawsuit that asserts Robinhood Released Claims. 1 17. Upon consideration of Class Counsel’s application for fees and costs and other 2 expenses, the Court awards $2,250,000.00 as reasonable attorneys’ fees and $142,407.76 as 3 reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, which shall be paid from the Settlement 4 Fund. 5 18. Upon consideration of the application for approval of a service award, Class 6 Representative Cooper Moore is awarded the sum of $10,000.00, and Class Representative 7 Andrew Gillette is awarded the sum of $10,000.00, to be paid from the Settlement Fund, for the 8 service they have performed for and on behalf of the Settlement Class. 9 19. The Court authorizes Class Counsel and defense counsel to authorize payment to 10 the Settlement Administrator from the Settlement Fund as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 11 20. Neither this Final Judgment and Order, nor the Settlement Agreement, shall be 12 construed or used as an admission or concession by or against Defendant or any of the Released 13 Parties of any fault, omission, liability, or wrongdoing, or the validity of any of the Released 14 Claims or Robinhood Released Claims. This Final Judgment and Order is not a finding of the 15 validity or invalidity of any claims in this lawsuit or a determination of any wrongdoing by 16 Defendant or any of the Released Parties. The final approval of the Settlement Agreement does 17 not constitute any opinion, position, or determination of this Court, one way or the other, as to the 18 merits of the claims and defenses of the Class Representatives, Settlement Class Members, or 19 Defendant. 20 21.

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

Related

United States v. Micah Iverson Kelly
874 F.3d 1037 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moore v. Robinhood Financial LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-robinhood-financial-llc-wawd-2024.