Tanner v. Plavan Commercial Fueling, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedFebruary 18, 2025
Docket3:24-cv-01341
StatusUnknown

This text of Tanner v. Plavan Commercial Fueling, Inc. (Tanner v. Plavan Commercial Fueling, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tanner v. Plavan Commercial Fueling, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No. 3:24-cv-1341-BTM-JLB 10 TRACY TANNER, on behalf of himself and ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 11 all others similarly situated, UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 12 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 13 TO DIRECT NOTICE OF PROPOSED 14 v. SETTLEMENT TO THE CLASS

15 PLAVAN COMMERCIAL FUELING, INC., 16 [ECF No. 20] Defendant. 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval and to 2 Direct Notice of Proposed Settlement to the Settlement Class (ECF No. 20). The terms of the 3 proposed settlement (the “Proposed Settlement”) are set forth in a Settlement Agreement with 4 accompanying exhibits attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ motion (the “Settlement 5 Agreement”).1 Having fully considered the issue, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and 6 orders as follows: 7 1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. The Settlement Agreement 8 provides for: (i) a Settlement Class consisting of individuals to whom Defendant Plavan 9 Commercial Fueling, Inc. d/b/a P-Fleet (“Plavan”) sent notice of the Ransomware Attack that 10 Plavan announced in June 2024, defined as follows: 11 Settlement Class: All individual U.S. residents to whom Plavan sent written 12 notification of the February 23, 2024, Ransomware Incident. 13 14 Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge and Magistrate Judge presiding over 15 the Lawsuits, any members of the Judges’ respective staffs, and any person within the third 16 degree of relationship to either of the Judges or the Judges’ spouses, or the spouse of such a 17 person; (2) officers, directors, members and shareholders of Defendant; (3) persons who 18 timely and validly request exclusion from and/or opt-out of the Settlement Class and the 19 successors and assigns of any such excluded persons; and (4) any person found by a court of 20 competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting 21 the criminal activity or occurrence of the Ransomware Incident or who pleads nolo contendere 22 to any such charge. Defendant represents that the Settlement Class contains approximately 23 2,948 individuals. 24 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court finds that giving notice 25 is justified. The Court finds that it will likely be able to approve the Proposed Settlement as 26 fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court also finds that it will likely be able to certify the 27 Settlement Class for purposes of judgment on the Proposed Settlement because it meets all of 1

2 the requirements of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Specifically, the Court 3 finds for settlement purposes that: a) the Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all 4 Settlement Class Members would be impracticable; b) there are issues of law and fact that are 5 common to the Settlement Class; c) the claims of the Representative Plaintiff are typical of 6 and arise from the same operative facts and seek similar relief as the claims of the Settlement 7 Class Members; d) the Representative Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests 8 of the Settlement Class as the Representative Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in 9 conflict with the Settlement Class and has retained experienced and competent counsel to 10 prosecute this matter on behalf of the Settlement Class; e) questions of law or fact common to 11 Settlement Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual 12 members; and f) a class action and class settlement is superior to other methods available for 13 a fair and efficient resolution of this controversy. 14 The Court further finds that, at the preliminary approval stage, the Proposed Settlement 15 satisfies the criteria set forth in Rule 23(e) and Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 16 2003)). Specifically, the Court finds for settlement purposes that: the Proposed Settlement (i) 17 appears to be the result of serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations, (ii) has no 18 obvious deficiencies, (iii) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class 19 representatives or segments of the class, and (iv) falls within the range of possible approval. 20 2. Class Representative and Class Counsel. The Court finds for settlement 21 purposes only that the Representative Plaintiff will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 22 23(e)(2)(A) and be appointed as the Class Representative. Additionally, the Court finds that 23 Proposed Class Counsel, Patrick A. Barthle II of Morgan & Morgan and Ryan D. Maxey of 24 Maxey Law Firm, P.A., will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and for 25 settlement purposes are appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). 26 3. Preliminary Settlement Approval. Upon preliminary review, the Court finds 27 the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant providing notice of the making this determination, the Court has considered the benefits to the Settlement Class, the 1

2 specific risks faced by the Settlement Class in prevailing on Plaintiff’s claims, the stage of the 3 proceedings at which the Proposed Settlement was reached, the effectiveness of the proposed 4 method for distributing relief to the Settlement Class, the proposed manner of allocating 5 benefits to Settlement Class Members, and all of the other factors required by Rule 23. 6 4. Jurisdiction. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1332(d)(2), and personal jurisdiction over the Parties before it. Additionally, venue is proper 8 in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). 9 5. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on July 21, 10 2025, at 3:30 p.m. at the United States District Court, Southern District of California, 333 11 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Courtroom 15B, to determine, among other things, 12 whether: (a) this matter should be finally certified as a class action for settlement purposes 13 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3); (b) the Proposed Settlement should be approved 14 as fair, reasonable and adequate, and finally approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); (c) 15 this action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the Settlement 16 Agreement; (d) Settlement Class Members should be bound by the releases set forth in the 17 Settlement Agreement; (e) the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees, 18 costs, and expenses should be approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h); and (e) the 19 application of the Class Representative for a service award should be approved. 20 6. Claims Administrator. The Court appoints Simpluris, Inc. as the Claims 21 Administrator, with responsibility for class notice and claims administration. The Claims 22 Administrator is directed to perform all tasks the Settlement Agreement reasonably requires 23 in effectuating the Notice, Notice Program, and Claims Administration. The Claims 24 Administrator’s fees will be paid out of the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Settlement 25 Agreement. 26 7. Notice.

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

Related

Staton v. Boeing Co.
327 F.3d 938 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tanner v. Plavan Commercial Fueling, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanner-v-plavan-commercial-fueling-inc-casd-2025.