Shuman v. SquareTrade Inc.

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 17, 2022·No. 3:20-cv-02725·Unknown

Opinion

5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 MICHAEL SHUMAN, et al., Case No. 3:20-CV-02725-JCS

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 MOTION FOR v. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 14 15 SQUARETRADE, INC., et al.,

16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The parties to this litigation have entered into a settlement agreement which if 2 approved, would resolve this putative class action. Plaintiffs Michael Shuman, Kathleen 3 Abbott, and Tommy Gonzales have filed a motion to preliminarily approve the Settlement 4 and direct notice to the proposed Settlement Class. Defendant SquareTrade, Inc., supports 5 approval of the Settlement. The Court has read and considered the parties’ settlement 6 agreement (the “Amended Agreement”) and exhibits thereto (ECF No. 120-2), including the 7 proposed Notice;1 has reviewed the relevant briefing and determined that Plaintiffs have 8 complied with the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements and 9 provided the Court sufficient information to decide whether the Settlement should be granted 10 preliminary approval; and concludes that the Settlement is sufficiently within the range of 11 reasonableness to warrant preliminary approval of the Settlement, certification of the 12 Settlement Class, the scheduling of the Final Approval Hearing, and the distribution of Notice 13 to the members of the Settlement Class, each as provided for in this Order. 14 It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class 15 Action Settlement is GRANTED. 16 The Court finds as follows: 17 Likely Approval of the Proposed Settlement 18 1. The Court has reviewed the terms of the Amended Agreement, the exhibits thereto, 19 Plaintiffs’ motion papers, the supporting declarations, the parties’ supplemental briefing, and 20 all arguments made. 21 2. The parties’ Amended Agreement is the product of over two years of litigation, 22 including briefing on arbitration, three motions to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, 23 and discovery disputes; the production and review of tens of thousands of pages of 24 documents; depositions of each of the Plaintiffs; as well as five depositions taken by Plaintiffs. 25 3. Based on its review, the Court finds that the Court will likely be able to approve the 26 proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27

28 1 Unless otherwise stated, all capitalized terms have the meaning as defined in the Amended Agreement. 1 1 23(e)(2), and finds that the proposed Settlement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class. 2 The Amended Agreement: (a) results from efforts by representative Plaintiffs and Class 3 Counsel who adequately represented the Settlement Class; (b) was negotiated at arm’s length 4 with the assistance of Judge James L. Warren (Ret.); (c) provides relief for the Settlement Class 5 that is adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the 6 effectiveness of the proposed method of distributing relief to the Settlement Class; (iii) the 7 proposed award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards, including timing of payment; 8 and (iv) the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ claims and defenses; and (d) treats 9 members of the Settlement Class equitably relative to each other. Accordingly, the Court 10 preliminary approves the proposed Settlement. Further, release by Plaintiffs and the 11 Settlement Class of the Released Claims is preliminarily approved pending a Final Approval 12 Hearing. 13 Likely Certification of the Class 14 4. The Court further finds that it will likely be able to certify the class, for purposes of 15 judgment. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class and subclasses 16 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): 17 The Settlement Class is comprised of all members of the Fast Cash Subclass and the SKU- 18 cap Subclass. 19 The Fast Cash Subclass includes any person who, during the Class Period, (i) submitted 20 a claim for coverage under a Protection Plan, and (ii) whose claim was resolved via a 21 Fast Cash payment from Defendant. 22 The SKU-cap Subclass includes any person who, during the Class Period, (i) submitted 23 a claim for coverage under a Protection Plan, (ii) resolved the claim by receiving a 24 monetary payment from Defendant, and (iii) received less than the amount the person 25 should have received were it not for the SKU-cap Error.2 26 2 Excluded from the Settlement Class are the judge approving the Settlement and his or her 27 immediate family; Defendant; any entities in which Defendant has a controlling interest or

2 1 5. The Court finds that, for purposes of settlement, the prerequisites for a class action 2 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied for the following reasons: 3 (a) Numerosity: The Settlement Class, which consists of SquareTrade customers who 4 filed approximately 815,000 claims during the Class Period, appears so numerous 5 that joinder of all members is impracticable. 6 (b) Common Questions: There are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement 7 Class for purposes of determining whether the Settlement should be approved, and 8 those questions of law predominate over any questions affecting any individual 9 class member. The Court finds that, for settlement purposes, the common questions 10 raised by this action include the nature of SquareTrade’s obligations to Protection 11 Plan purchasers under its contract and under common law principles and 12 consumer protection statutes. 13 (c) Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class in that 14 Plaintiffs have alleged the same claims that would be pursued by anyone else who 15 was paid under the SKU-cap error and the Fast Cash program. 16 (d) Adequacy: Plaintiffs and their counsel are adequate representatives of the Class as 17 neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any conflicts of interest with absent class 18 members and Plaintiffs, who bought SquareTrade Protection Plans and were paid 19 under either the SKU-cap error or the Fast Cash program, and share Settlement 20 Class members’ interest in recouping at least some of the payout remainder 21 allegedly owed. In addition, Plaintiffs and their counsel have demonstrated their 22 commitment to the class over the last two years as described above. 23 (e) Superiority: A class action on behalf of the proposed class is superior to other 24 available means of adjudicating this dispute because the class consists of thousands 25 of members who would be unlikely to bring individual claims for the relatively 26

27 which have a controlling interest in Defendant; the officers, directors, employees, affiliates and 28 attorneys of Defendant, and the immediate family members of any such person; and any person who has submitted a timely and valid Opt-Out Request. 3 1 small amounts of money at issue. The Court also concludes that, because the action 2 is being settled rather than litigated, the Court need not consider manageability 3 issues that might be presented by the trial of a nationwide class action involving the 4 issues in this case. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997). 5 6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court appoints David Stein 6 and Amanda M. Karl of Gibbs Law Group LLP, and William H.

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

Shuman v. SquareTrade Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Shuman v. SquareTrade Inc. (Shuman v. SquareTrade Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 1997)