Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case as Compared to Settlement Offer Sample Clauses

Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case as Compared to Settlement Offer. “The most important factor relevant to the fairness of a class action settlement is the first one listed: the strength of plaintiff’s case on the merits balanced against the amount offered in the settlement.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Valuing hypothetical continued litigation is necessarily somewhat speculative and not an exact science. Xxxxxxx v. Walgreen Co., 311 X.X.X. 000, 000 (X.X. Ill. 2015) (Xxxxxxxx, J.). As detailed in the Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law In Support of Final Approval, the amount offered in the settlement also appears to be substantial in light of the Plaintiff’s risks in this Action. As of the time that the Settlement was reached, the Cruise Defendants had raised substantial challenges to Plaintiff’s sole expert [DE 521] and another key witness [DE 519] in connection with class certification, which is pending before this Court and would have been ruled upon prior to ruling on class certification. Had the Cruise Defendants prevailed on their Xxxxxxx challenge, class certification would likely have been denied since Plaintiff’s expert was the premise for Plaintiff’s class certification motion. An adverse ruling on the Cruise Defendants’ Xxxxxxx Motion, or their Motion to Strike the Declaration of Xx. Xxxxx, may have, therefore, had a significant impact on Plaintiff’s ability to certify the class. If those motions had been denied, the Cruise Defendants also presented the Court with a number of reasons why this particular case was not susceptible to class certification in their substantial opposition to class certification. If the Court had agreed with the Cruise Defendants, the class would recover nothing. Further, even if the Court had granted class certification, Plaintiff would still have to provide proof, whether at summary judgment or trial, that the Cruise Defendants, who never directly placed any automated telemarketing calls to Plaintiff or the Settlement Class Members, could be held vicariously liable for alleged TCPA violations committed by their alleged agent, RMG. The Cruise Defendants have indicated that they were ready to file summary judgment motions on Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims, which would have presented legally complex questions as to whether the Cruise Defendants could have been held liable for telephone calls made solely by the RMG Defendants. The Cruise Defendants were prepared to allege that a number of courts2 have held there can be no liability under similar circumstances and that there...