1 || Aaron J. Fischer (SBN 247391) Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (SBN 220934) Aaron.Fischer @ disabilityrightsca.org jvs @cooley.com 2 || Anne Hadreas (SBN 253377) Mark A. Zambarda (SBN 314808) anne.hadreas @ disabilityrightsca.org mzambarda@cooley.com 3 || DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA Addison M. Litton (SBN 305374) 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 alitton@cooley.com 4 ||Oakland, CA 94612 COOLEY LLP Telephone: (510) 267-1200 3175 Hanover Street 5 || Fax: (510) 267-1201 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 6 Donald Specter (SBN 83925) Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 dspecter @ prisonlaw.com 7 || Margot Mendelson (SBN 268583) Attorneys for Plaintiffs mmendelson @ prisonlaw.com 8 || Sophie Hart (SBN 321663) sophieh @ prisonlaw.coom 9 || PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street 10 || Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 11 || Fax: (510) 280-2704 12 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 17 LORENZO MAYS, RICKY ) Case No. 2:18-cv-02081 TLN KIN 18 || RICHARDSON, JENNIFER BOTHUN, ) ARMANI LEE, LEERTESE BEIRGE, and _) CLASS ACTION 19 | CODY GARLAND, on behalf of themselves ) 50 and all others similarly situated, Findings and Recommendations Plaintiffs, ) Recommending Final Approval of Class 21 Action Settlement be Adopted v. 22 ) Date: December 6, 2019 33 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Time: 11:00 a.m. Defendant. ) Judge: Hon. Kendall J. Newman 24 ) ) 25 ) ) 26 ) 27 28
1 On November 12, 2019, Plaintiffs and Defendant County of Sacramento (“Defendant”) filed 2 || Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The matter came before the Court for 3 || a hearing on December 6, 2019. Having considered the briefing in support of the motion, responses 4 || from class members, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS the 5 || motion. 6 1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), “claims, issues, or defenses of a 7 || certified class may be settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” The Ninth Circuit has instructed 8 || district courts to consider and balance multiple factors when assessing whether a settlement is “fair, 9 || adequate, and free from collusion” under Rule 23(e). See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 10 || 1027 (9th Cir. 1998). These factors include: the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of 12 further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 13 proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental 4 participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
15 || Id. at 1026. “This list is not exclusive and different factors may predominate in different factual 16 || contexts.” Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376 (9th Cir. 1993). 17 2. The Court finds that consideration of the factors favors settlement, and that the 18 || settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. 19 a. Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case and the Risk, Expense, and Complexity of Further 20 || Litigation: The Plaintiffs’ case is strong, as shown by the evidence that has been submitted and the 21 || serious ongoing settlement discussions that began even before the complaint was filed. However, 22 || Plaintiffs face substantial burdens in demonstrating a current and ongoing violation of individuals’ 23 || constitutional rights on a system-wide basis. Proceeding through pre-trial motions, trial, and 24 || possible appeal would impose risks, costs, and a substantial delay in the implementation of any 25 || remedy in this matter. 26 b. Risk of Maintaining a Class Action Status Through Trial: Plaintiffs face little 27 || or no risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial. The Court approved the parties’ 28
1 |] joint application for class action status on December 28, 2018, ECF No. 49, and it is unlikely that 2 || Defendant would contest class certification if the Court rejects the proposed Consent Decree. See 3 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C) (allowing court to revisit certification before final judgment). 4 c. Extent of Discovery Taken in the Case: Settlement discussions began even 5 || before the filing of this case, and were informed by considerable information-sharing as well as the 6 || investigation conducted through class counsel Disability Rights California’s statutory access 7 || authority. The parties also engaged in targeted discovery after the case was filed. Throughout, 8 || Plaintiffs’ counsel had access to the jails, personnel who worked there, and people incarcerated 9 || there. The settlement also was informed by the opinions of five neutral experts who had access to 10 || the jails. 11 d. Experience and Views of Counsel: Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience 12 || in prisoners’ nights litigation and complex class action litigation and believe that the settlement here 13 || is in the best interest of all plaintiffs. Defendant is represented by counsel who similarly is 14 || experienced and knowledgeable in this type of litigation. The Court has already found that 15 || “experienced and knowledgeable counsel . . . have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.” 16 |} ECF No. 88 at 2. 17 e. Reaction of the Class Members to the Settlement: The reaction of class 18 || members to the settlement further supports final approval. Defendant complied with the Court’s 19 || order regarding the provision of notice to the class. ECF No. 91. Class members were afforded an 20 || opportunity to comment or object to the settlement, and this Court held a hearing on the matter. 21 || Though approximately 3,700 individuals are incarcerated at Defendant’s jails, the Court received 22 || only four letters about the settlement, including one from a non-class member. See ECF Nos. 96-98, 23 || 100. The letters detailed individual experiences with the deficiencies for which Plaintiffs seek a 24 || remedy in this case; these letters weigh in favor of approving the Consent Decree. 25 The Court is satisfied that the concerns in the comments are adequately addressed by 26 || the Consent Decree. The Court also notes that the settlement will not bar individual damage claims 27 || byclass members. See Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1291 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he general rule is 28 || that a class action suit seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief does not bar subsequent
1 || individual damage claims by class members, even if based on the same events.”). Overall, the 2 || reaction to the Consent Decree therefore weighs in favor of approval. 3 f. Whether the Settlement Appears Non-Collusive: As this Court has previously 4 || found, “the proposed settlement is the product of arms-length, serious, informed, non-collusive, 5 || negotiations.” Doc No. 88 at 2. The parties have presented no reason for the Court to reconsider 6 || this previous finding. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval. 7 3. The Court further finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of the Prison 8 || Litigation Reform Act at 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). In so doing, the Court finds that the relief contained 9 || therein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to ensure the protection of the federal 10 || constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive means necessary to 11 |} accomplish those objectives.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 || Aaron J. Fischer (SBN 247391) Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (SBN 220934) Aaron.Fischer @ disabilityrightsca.org jvs @cooley.com 2 || Anne Hadreas (SBN 253377) Mark A. Zambarda (SBN 314808) anne.hadreas @ disabilityrightsca.org mzambarda@cooley.com 3 || DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA Addison M. Litton (SBN 305374) 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 alitton@cooley.com 4 ||Oakland, CA 94612 COOLEY LLP Telephone: (510) 267-1200 3175 Hanover Street 5 || Fax: (510) 267-1201 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 6 Donald Specter (SBN 83925) Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 dspecter @ prisonlaw.com 7 || Margot Mendelson (SBN 268583) Attorneys for Plaintiffs mmendelson @ prisonlaw.com 8 || Sophie Hart (SBN 321663) sophieh @ prisonlaw.coom 9 || PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street 10 || Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 11 || Fax: (510) 280-2704 12 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 17 LORENZO MAYS, RICKY ) Case No. 2:18-cv-02081 TLN KIN 18 || RICHARDSON, JENNIFER BOTHUN, ) ARMANI LEE, LEERTESE BEIRGE, and _) CLASS ACTION 19 | CODY GARLAND, on behalf of themselves ) 50 and all others similarly situated, Findings and Recommendations Plaintiffs, ) Recommending Final Approval of Class 21 Action Settlement be Adopted v. 22 ) Date: December 6, 2019 33 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Time: 11:00 a.m. Defendant. ) Judge: Hon. Kendall J. Newman 24 ) ) 25 ) ) 26 ) 27 28
1 On November 12, 2019, Plaintiffs and Defendant County of Sacramento (“Defendant”) filed 2 || Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The matter came before the Court for 3 || a hearing on December 6, 2019. Having considered the briefing in support of the motion, responses 4 || from class members, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS the 5 || motion. 6 1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), “claims, issues, or defenses of a 7 || certified class may be settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” The Ninth Circuit has instructed 8 || district courts to consider and balance multiple factors when assessing whether a settlement is “fair, 9 || adequate, and free from collusion” under Rule 23(e). See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 10 || 1027 (9th Cir. 1998). These factors include: the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of 12 further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 13 proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental 4 participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
15 || Id. at 1026. “This list is not exclusive and different factors may predominate in different factual 16 || contexts.” Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376 (9th Cir. 1993). 17 2. The Court finds that consideration of the factors favors settlement, and that the 18 || settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. 19 a. Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case and the Risk, Expense, and Complexity of Further 20 || Litigation: The Plaintiffs’ case is strong, as shown by the evidence that has been submitted and the 21 || serious ongoing settlement discussions that began even before the complaint was filed. However, 22 || Plaintiffs face substantial burdens in demonstrating a current and ongoing violation of individuals’ 23 || constitutional rights on a system-wide basis. Proceeding through pre-trial motions, trial, and 24 || possible appeal would impose risks, costs, and a substantial delay in the implementation of any 25 || remedy in this matter. 26 b. Risk of Maintaining a Class Action Status Through Trial: Plaintiffs face little 27 || or no risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial. The Court approved the parties’ 28
1 |] joint application for class action status on December 28, 2018, ECF No. 49, and it is unlikely that 2 || Defendant would contest class certification if the Court rejects the proposed Consent Decree. See 3 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C) (allowing court to revisit certification before final judgment). 4 c. Extent of Discovery Taken in the Case: Settlement discussions began even 5 || before the filing of this case, and were informed by considerable information-sharing as well as the 6 || investigation conducted through class counsel Disability Rights California’s statutory access 7 || authority. The parties also engaged in targeted discovery after the case was filed. Throughout, 8 || Plaintiffs’ counsel had access to the jails, personnel who worked there, and people incarcerated 9 || there. The settlement also was informed by the opinions of five neutral experts who had access to 10 || the jails. 11 d. Experience and Views of Counsel: Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience 12 || in prisoners’ nights litigation and complex class action litigation and believe that the settlement here 13 || is in the best interest of all plaintiffs. Defendant is represented by counsel who similarly is 14 || experienced and knowledgeable in this type of litigation. The Court has already found that 15 || “experienced and knowledgeable counsel . . . have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.” 16 |} ECF No. 88 at 2. 17 e. Reaction of the Class Members to the Settlement: The reaction of class 18 || members to the settlement further supports final approval. Defendant complied with the Court’s 19 || order regarding the provision of notice to the class. ECF No. 91. Class members were afforded an 20 || opportunity to comment or object to the settlement, and this Court held a hearing on the matter. 21 || Though approximately 3,700 individuals are incarcerated at Defendant’s jails, the Court received 22 || only four letters about the settlement, including one from a non-class member. See ECF Nos. 96-98, 23 || 100. The letters detailed individual experiences with the deficiencies for which Plaintiffs seek a 24 || remedy in this case; these letters weigh in favor of approving the Consent Decree. 25 The Court is satisfied that the concerns in the comments are adequately addressed by 26 || the Consent Decree. The Court also notes that the settlement will not bar individual damage claims 27 || byclass members. See Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1291 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he general rule is 28 || that a class action suit seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief does not bar subsequent
1 || individual damage claims by class members, even if based on the same events.”). Overall, the 2 || reaction to the Consent Decree therefore weighs in favor of approval. 3 f. Whether the Settlement Appears Non-Collusive: As this Court has previously 4 || found, “the proposed settlement is the product of arms-length, serious, informed, non-collusive, 5 || negotiations.” Doc No. 88 at 2. The parties have presented no reason for the Court to reconsider 6 || this previous finding. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval. 7 3. The Court further finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of the Prison 8 || Litigation Reform Act at 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). In so doing, the Court finds that the relief contained 9 || therein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to ensure the protection of the federal 10 || constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive means necessary to 11 |} accomplish those objectives. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Joint Motion for Final Approval of 13 || the Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 102) be GRANTED. The undersigned finds that the Consent 14 || Decree should be approved and adopted as the Order of the Court, the parties should be ordered to 15 |} comply with all its terms, and the Defendant should be ordered to implement the Remedial Plan and 16 || accompanying policies pursuant to the schedule set forth therein. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within ten days after being 19 || served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 20 || court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 21 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed 22 || and served within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 23 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 24 || Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 || //// 26 || //// 27 | //// 28 |) ////
1 The parties are advised that if they do not object to these recommendations, each counsel 2 || shall file a statement of non-opposition or statement of no objections, to shorten the objection period 3 || and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the district court. 4 || Dated: December 9, 2019 Frese Arn UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 /mays208 1 fair 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28