Common use of Preliminary Approval of the Settlements Clause in Contracts

Preliminary Approval of the Settlements. 16 A trial court may approve a proposed settlement if it is determined to be “fair, reasonable, 17 and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Preliminary approval should only be granted where the 18 parties have “show[n] that the court will likely be able to . . . approve the proposal under Rule 19 23(e)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B); see also X’Xxxxxx v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 13-cv- 20 03826-EMC, 2019 WL 1437101, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2019). “The Court cannot, however, fully 21 assess such factors until after the final approval hearing; thus, a full fairness analysis is 22 unnecessary at th[e] [preliminary approval] stage.” Xxxxxxx v. NSMG Shared Services, LLC, 333 00 X.X.X. 000, 000 (X.X. Cal. 2019) (quoting Xxxxxxx x. GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 665 (E.D. Cal. 24 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). And while the trial court must make a preliminary 25 finding of fairness, there is a “‘strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly where 26 complex class action litigation is concerned.’” See Ayala v. Coach, Inc., No. 14-CV-02031-JD, 27 2016 WL 9047148, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016) (quoting Class Ptfs. v. City of Seattle, 955 28 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992)). 1 The Court hereby finds that it is likely to approve the proposed Settlements under the 3 including the injunctive relief provided to the Settlement Classes and the release of claims, and 4 Plaintiffs’ motion papers. Based on review of those papers and its familiarity with the Actions, 5 the Court finds and concludes that the Settlements are the result of good-faith, prolonged, serious, 6 informed, and non-collusive arms’-length negotiations after Class Counsel had adequately 7 investigated Plaintiffs’ claims, including through extensive discovery, and become familiar with 8 their strengths and weaknesses. The assistance of Judge Xxx Xxxxxx (Xxx.), Lexi X. Xxxx, and 9 Xxxxx Xxxxx, three highly-qualified mediators, in the settlement process supports the finding that 10 the Settlements are non-collusive. The Settlements will also avoid substantial additional costs to 11 all parties, as well as avoid the delay and risks presented by further prosecution of issues during 12 pre-trial, trial, and possible appeal. Additionally, Class Counsel’s review of the extensive 13 discovery provided in this action and evaluation of the strength of the Settlement Classes’ claims 14 against each defendant supports the scope of relief set forth in the Settlement Agreements. Based

Preliminary Approval of the Settlements. 16 A trial court may approve a proposed settlement if it is determined to be “fair, reasonable, 17 and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Preliminary approval should only be granted where the 18 parties have “show[n] that the court will likely be able to . . . approve the proposal under Rule 19 23(e)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B); see also X’Xxxxxx v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 13-cv- 20 03826-EMC, 2019 WL 1437101, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2019). “The Court cannot, however, fully 21 assess such factors until after the final approval hearing; thus, a full fairness analysis is 22 unnecessary at th[e] [preliminary approval] stage.” Xxxxxxx v. NSMG Shared Services, LLC, 333 00 X.X.X. 000, 000 (X.X. Cal. 2019) (quoting Xxxxxxx x. GMRIXXXX, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 665 (E.D. Cal. 24 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). And while the trial court must make a preliminary 25 finding of fairness, there is a “‘strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly where 26 complex class action litigation is concerned.’” See Ayala v. Xxxxx x. Coach, Inc., No. 14-CV-02031-JD, 27 2016 WL 9047148, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016) (quoting Class Ptfs. v. City of Seattle, 955 28 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992)). 1 The Court hereby finds that it is likely to approve the proposed Settlements under the 3 including the injunctive relief provided to the Settlement Classes and the release of claims, and 4 Plaintiffs’ motion papers. Based on review of those papers and its familiarity with the Actions, 5 the Court finds and concludes that the Settlements are the result of good-faith, prolonged, serious, 6 informed, and non-collusive arms’-length negotiations after Class Counsel had adequately 7 investigated Plaintiffs’ claims, including through extensive discovery, and become familiar with 8 their strengths and weaknesses. The assistance of Judge Xxx Xxxxxx (Xxx.), Lexi Xxxx X. XxxxMyer, and 9 Xxxxx Xxxxx, three highly-qualified mediators, in the settlement process supports the finding that 10 the Settlements are non-collusive. The Settlements will also avoid substantial additional costs to 11 all parties, as well as avoid the delay and risks presented by further prosecution of issues during 12 pre-trial, trial, and possible appeal. Additionally, Class Counsel’s review of the extensive 13 discovery provided in this action and evaluation of the strength of the Settlement Classes’ claims 14 against each defendant supports the scope of relief set forth in the Settlement Agreements. Based

Preliminary Approval of the Settlements. 16 A trial court may approve a proposed settlement if it is determined to be “fair, reasonable, 17 and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Preliminary approval should only be granted where the 18 parties have “show[n] that the court will likely be able to . . . approve the proposal under Rule 19 23(e)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B); see also X’Xxxxxx v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 13-cv- 20 03826-EMC, 2019 WL 1437101, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2019). “The Court cannot, however, fully 21 assess such factors until after the final approval hearing; thus, a full fairness analysis is 22 unnecessary at th[e] [preliminary approval] stage.” Xxxxxxx v. NSMG Shared Services, LLC, 333 00 X.X.X. 000, 000 (X.X. Cal. 2019) (quoting Xxxxxxx x. GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 665 (E.D. Cal. 24 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). And while the trial court must make a preliminary 25 finding of fairness, there is a “‘strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly where 26 complex class action litigation is concerned.’” See Ayala v. Coach, Inc., No. 14-CV-02031-JD, 27 2016 WL 9047148, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016) (quoting Class Ptfs. v. City of Seattle, 955 28 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992)). 1 The Court hereby finds that it is likely to approve the proposed Settlements under the 3 including the injunctive relief provided to the Settlement Classes and the release of claims, and 4 Plaintiffs’ motion papers. Based on review of those papers and its familiarity with the Actions, 5 the Court finds and concludes that the Settlements are the result of good-faith, prolonged, serious, 6 informed, and non-collusive arms’-length negotiations after Class Counsel had adequately 7 investigated Plaintiffs’ claims, including through extensive discovery, and become familiar with 8 their strengths and weaknesses. The assistance of Judge Xxx Xxxxxx (Xxx.), Lexi X. Xxxx, and 9 Xxxxx Xxxxx, three highly-qualified mediators, in the settlement process supports the finding that 10 the Settlements are non-collusive. The Settlements will also avoid substantial additional costs to 11 all parties, as well as avoid the delay and risks presented by further prosecution of issues during 12 pre-trial, trial, and possible appeal. Additionally, Class Counsel’s review of the extensive 13 discovery provided in this action and evaluation of the strength of the Settlement Classes’ claims 14 against each defendant supports the scope of relief set forth in the Settlement Agreements. BasedBased 15 on all of these factors, including strengths of the proposed injunctive relief, the Court concludes 16 that the Settlements meet the criteria for preliminary settlement approval. The Settlements have 17 no obvious defects and are likely to be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, such that 18 notice to the Settlement Classes is appropriate.