Terry v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 2, 2021·No. 2:15-cv-00799·Unknown

Opinion

1 Laura L. Ho (SBN 173179) lho@gbdhlegal.com 2 Anne Bellows (SBN 293722) abellows@gbdhlegal.com 3 GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900 4 Oakland, CA 94612 (510)763-9800; (510) 835-1417 (Fax) 5 Andrew Wolff (SBN 195092) 6 andrew@awolfflaw.com LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 7 1615 Broadway, 4th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 8 (510)834-3300; (510) 834-3377 (Fax) 9 Jesse Newmark (SBN 247488) jessenewmark@centrolegal.org 10 CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA 3022 International Blvd., Suite 410 11 Oakland, CA 94601 (510)437-1863; (510) 437-9164 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Relators and the Certified Classes 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Case No.: 2:15-CV-00799-KJM-DB 17 DENIKA TERRY, ROY HUSKEY III, and TAMERA LIVINGSTON, and each of them for CLASS ACTION 18 themselves individually, and for all other persons similarly situated and on behalf of the UNITED JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 19 STATES OF AMERICA APPOINTMENT OF THE IMPACT FUND AS CLASS COUNSEL 20 Plaintiffs/Relators, Trial Date: None Set 21 vs. 22 WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP, LLC, WASATCH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., 23 WASATCH POOL HOLDINGS, LLC, CHESAPEAKE APARTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, 24 LOGAN PARK APARTMENTS, LLC, LOGAN PARK APARTMENTS, LP, ASPEN PARK 25 HOLDINGS, LLC, BELLWOOD JERRON HOLDINGS, LLC, BELLWOOD JERRON 26 APARTMENTS, LP, BENT TREE APARTMENTS, LLC, CALIFORNIA PLACE 27 APARTMENTS, LLC, CAMELOT LAKES HOLDINGS, LLC, CANYON, CLUB HOLDINGS, LLC, COURTYARD AT CENTRAL 1 PARK APARTMENTS, LLC, CREEKSIDE HOLDINGS, LTD, HAYWARD SENIOR 2 APARTMENTS, LP, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS, LP, OAK VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS, LLC, OAK VALLEY HOLDINGS, LP, PEPPERTREE APARTMENT 4 HOLDINGS, LP, PIEDMONT APARTMENTS, LP, POINT NATOMAS APARTMENTS, LLC, 5 POINT NATOMAS APARTMENTS, LP, RIVER OAKS HOLDINGS, LLC, SHADOW WAY 6 APARTMENTS, LP, SPRING VILLA APARTMENTS, LP, SUN VALLEY HOLDINGS, 7 LTD, VILLAGE GROVE APARTMENTS, LP, WASATCH QUAIL RUN GP, LLC, WASATCH 8 PREMIER PROPERTIES, LLC, WASATCH POOL HOLDINGS III, LLC, 9 and DOES 1-4, 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiffs Denika Terry, Roy Huskey III, and Tamera Livingston (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants 2 Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, Wasatch Property Management, Inc., Wasatch Pool Holdings, LLC, 3 Chesapeake Apartment Holdings, LLC, Logan Park Apartments, LLC, Logan Park Apartments, LP, 4 Aspen Park Holdings, LLC, Bellwood Jerron Holdings, LLC, Bellwood Jerron Apartments, LP, Bent 5 Tree Apartments, LLC, California Place Apartments, LLC, Camelot Lakes Holdings, LLC, Canyon 6 Club Holdings, LLC, Courtyard at Central Part Apartments, LLC, Creekside Holdings, Ltd., Hayward 7 Senior Apartments, LP, Heritage Park Apartments, LP, Oak Valley Apartments, LLC, Oak Valley 8 Holdings, LP, Peppertree Apartment Holdings, LP, Piedmont Apartments, LP, Point Natomas 9 Apartments, LLC, Point Natomas Apartments, LP, River Oaks Holdings, LLC, Shadow Way 10 Apartments, LP, Spring Villa Apartments, LP, Sun Valley Holdings, Ltd., Village Grove Apartments, 11 LP, Wasatch Quail Run Gp, LLC, Wasatch Premier Properties, LLC, and Wasatch Pool Holdings III, 12 LLC (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby 13 stipulate, pursuant to Local Rule 143, to appoint the nonprofit law firm the Impact Fund as class 14 counsel in this matter and jointly request that the Court approve this stipulation: 15 WHEREAS on July 30, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as to 16 the Rule 23(b)(3) class and granted conditionally Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as to the Rule 17 23(b)(2) class. 18 WHEREAS this Court previously appointed Centro Legal de la Raza and the Law Offices of 19 Andrew Wolff, PC as class counsel on July 30, 2018. 20 WHEREAS this Court later appointed Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho as class counsel on 21 May 21, 2019, following stipulation by the parties. 22 WHEREAS Plaintiffs wish to have the Impact Fund appointed as class counsel in order to 23 bring additional resources and expertise to the litigation of their class action. 24 WHEREAS the Declaration of Jocelyn D. Larkin, filed herewith, sets forth her experience and 25 expertise in class action litigation, as well as the Impact Fund’s history of prosecuting class actions. 26 WHEREAS Defendants consent to the appointment of the Impact Fund as class counsel. 27 1 WHEREAS under Rule 23(c)(1)(B) and Rule 23(g), a court appoints class counsel based on a 2 variety of factors, including the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims 3 in the action; counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of 4 claims asserted in the action; counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and the resources that counsel 5 will commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). The Declaration of Jocelyn D. 6 Larkin filed in support of this stipulation provides further evidence demonstrating that Plaintiffs’ new 7 counsel have considerable experience in class actions, are qualified to represent the proposed class, and 8 can be expected to perform their responsibilities adequately in light of that experience, the record to 9 date in this case, and related considerations. 10 WHEREAS since being retained, the Impact Fund has been working closely with Centro Legal 11 de la Raza, the Law Offices of Andrew Wolff, PC, and Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho to litigate 12 this case in an effective manner. See Larkin Decl. ¶ 6. 13 WHEREAS proposed class counsel are experienced in handling class actions and other 14 complex litigation, including with regard to housing. See Larkin Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. 15 WHEREAS proposed class counsel are knowledgeable of the applicable law. The declaration 16 submitted in support of this stipulation demonstrates that proposed class counsel have expertise in class 17 actions and housing, and are capable of adequately representing Plaintiffs in the prosecution of this 18 class action. See id. 19 WHEREAS the Impact Fund will commit sufficient resources to represent the class. The 20 Impact Fund, along with co-counsel, are advancing costs for this class action. Such a mechanism for 21 funding litigation is appropriate in a case such as this. See, e.g., Irwin v. Mascott, 96 F. Supp. 2d 968 22 (N.D. Cal. 1999). See Larkin Decl. ¶ 7. 23 WHEREAS the Impact Fund meets the standard for adequacy because plaintiffs and their new 24 counsel have no interest that is antagonistic to the interests of the class, but rather share a common 25 interest in challenging Defendants’ unlawful actions. See Larkin Decl. ¶ 8. 26 WHEREAS, the Impact Fund has been found adequate to represent classes of individuals in 27 numerous cases. See Larkin Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A. 1 WHEREAS the appointment of additional class counsel is appropriate given the magnitude and scope of the litigation. The appointment of the Impact Fund is reasonably necessary and appropriate to 3|| effectively represent the class. The use of multiple law firms in large scale class actions 1s routine. See Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2012 WL 4371817, *55 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012) (appointing five law firms as class counsel in gender discrimination case). 6 THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate that the Court enter the following order: 7 The law firm of the Impact Fund is adequate to serve as class counsel and are hereby appointed 8 || as Class Counsel for the Classes previously certified by this Court on July 30, 2018.

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

Terry v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Terry v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC (Terry v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
657 F.3d 970 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Parra v. Bashas', Inc.
536 F.3d 975 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
803 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. California, 1992)
Irwin v. Mascott
96 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. California, 1999)
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
285 F.R.D. 492 (N.D. California, 2012)