UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Similar documents
NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

Case 4:13-cv YGR Document 126 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:14-cv PGS-LHG Document 130 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 4283

Case 0:11-cv CMA Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2015 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 5:12-cv SOH Document 457 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 12296

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 58 Filed: 11/10/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:314

1631 Zimmerman Trail 319 Maverick St. Billings, MT San Antonio, TX T: (406) T: (210) F: (406) F: (210)

Case 1:14-cv RNS Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2017 Page 1 of 5. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Case 3:09-cv JPG-PMF Document 47 Filed 01/11/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #466

Case 3:14-cv SI Document 240 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 3:11-md DMS-RBB Document 108 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 133 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 5

1,=-= := usns son~ 1,.!oocume?~t " LEl'TRONICALLY fl.led i!

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 82 Filed 12/20/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 5:05-cv RMW Document 97 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 7:16-cv KMK Document 75 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. TJ H Case No. 5:15-cv ~jc~-gjs

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 266 Filed: 10/05/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:5588

Case 1:17-cv AT Document 77 Filed 09/14/18 Page 1 of 12

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 576 Filed: 07/06/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:22601

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Case 2:14-cv RJS Document 67 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

mg Doc 4808 Filed 08/23/13 Entered 08/23/13 08:51:55 Main Document Pg 1 of 12

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 63 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 13

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CLAIMS

Case 3:14-cv TJC-JBT Document 173 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6189

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. ORDER This matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Modification of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv RJC

nm OPOREPJYINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:09-cv SAS Document 59-1 Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 169 Filed: 12/01/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:2786

Case: 1: 1 0-cv Document #: 77 Filed: 03/22/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:569

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

Case 1:15-cv WHP Document 148 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 14

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 214 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 8

Plaintiff, Defendant. for Denbury Resources, Inc. ("Denbury" or "Defendant") shares pursuant to the merger of

Case3:11-cv EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page1 of 43

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 571 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IOC SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YOR. This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to this Court's Order Granting

Case 2:14-cv JCC Document 98 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 1:12-cv VEC Document 186 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 11. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x

Case 2:17-cv JFB-SIL Document 16 Filed 07/14/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 71

GRANTED WITH MODIFICATIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

Case 9:14-cv WPD Document 251 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2017 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLfEAS p H. D H lit ui Item 4u.i CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:10-cv ER-SRF Document 844 Filed 11/19/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 3:12-cv DRH-SCW Document 942 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #40056

Case 4:13-cv AWA-LRL Document Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 4099

All. final approval a proposed settlement of this class action, which is unopposed by Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OFPENNSVLVAJ'ELA ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

Case 1:11-cv LAK-JCF Document 285 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 9

BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION

Case 2:07-cv RAJ Document 87 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

~~_,_ ~~-~ni~i#j~rj I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURIAA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

: : : : : : CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Class Action Settlement Agreement (the Agreement or Settlement Agreement )

Case 8:11-cv JST-JPR Document Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:5240

Case: 4:16-cv ERW Doc. #: 95 Filed: 12/15/17 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 734

Case 2:15-cv LDD Document 54 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


[QIJ$&J ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND

Case 3:14-md WHO Document 1054 Filed 09/20/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 117 Filed: 08/12/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:706

Currently before the Court for preliminary approval is a settlement (the

Case: 4:16-cv JAR Doc. #: 97 Filed: 12/13/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 2279

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, AT INDEPENDENCE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. Plaintiff, j Judge: Hon. Joan M. Lewis ) ) )

GRANTED WITH MODIFICATIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv VEC Document 259 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 2:13-cv WJM-MF Document 66-2 Filed 11/14/16 Page 7 of 75 PageID: 729 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:08-cv SHM-dkv Document 327 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID 8969

Case3:12-cv WHO Document276 Filed02/14/14 Page1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

Case 1:04-cv DAB Document 569 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8 SOUTHERN DISTIUCT OF NEW YORK..

CIV CIV DS MISC ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT filed

Case: 4:16-cv ERW Doc. #: 105 Filed: 05/15/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 915

PLAINTIFF S EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:13-md MMB Document 185 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 9

Case Case 1:10-cv AKH Document Document Filed 03/16/15 03/13/15 Page 11of9

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document Filed 06/17/16 Page 8 of 156

Case 2:13-md MMB Document 427 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 9

[~DJ FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Transcription:

Case :-cv-0-ab-ffm Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION OMAR VARGAS, ROBERT BERTONE, MICHELLE HARRIS, and SHARON HEBERLING individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. Plaintiffs, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. Case No.: CV-0 AB (FFMx) CLASS ACTION Hon. André Birotte Jr. [PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT Date: October, Time: 0:00 am Place: Courtroom B

Case :-cv-0-ab-ffm Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 On April,, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order that preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement Agreement in this Litigation and specified the manner in which Ford Motor Company ( Ford ) was to provide Class Notice to the Class. All capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement, which was filed with the Court on March, [Dkt. -] and is incorporated by reference. Following the dissemination of the Class Notice, all Class Members were given an opportunity to request exclusion from the Class or object to the Settlement Agreement (including Class Counsel s request for attorneys fees and expenses and the Class Representatives collective application for a Service Award). Prospective Class Members who had a pending suit against Ford as of the Notice Date were given an opportunity to opt-in. A Fairness Hearing was held on October,, at which time all interested persons were given a full opportunity to state any objections to the Settlement Agreement or to Class Counsel s request for attorneys fees and expenses and the Class Representatives collective application for Service Awards. The Fairness Hearing was held more than 0 days after Ford provided notice of the proposed Settlement to federal and state-level attorneys general as required by U.S.C. (b), thus complying with U.S.C. (d). Having read and fully considered the Settlement Agreement and all submissions made in connection with it, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be finally approved and the Litigation dismissed with prejudice as to all Class Members who have not excluded themselves from the Class, and without prejudice as to all persons who timely and validly excluded themselves from the Class. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: Page

Case :-cv-0-ab-ffm Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction as to this action and all Parties before it, including all Class Members. The Court certifies the following Class for purposes of settlement only: All current residents of the United States (including territories of the United States) who, prior to the Preliminary Approval Order, purchased or leased new or used Class Vehicles that () were originally sold in the United States (including territories of the United States) and () were equipped with the PowerShift Transmission. Excluded from the Class are: () except as to the Named Plaintiffs in this Litigation and the Anderson plaintiffs, all owners or lessees of Class Vehicles who have filed and served litigation against Ford alleging problems with the PowerShift Transmission in Class Vehicles that was pending as of [insert Notice Date] and who do not dismiss their actions before final judgment and affirmatively elect to opt-in to the Settlement (Owners or lessees of Class Vehicles who dismiss such litigation and affirmatively opt-in to the Settlement shall be members of the Class for all purposes); () Ford s officers, directors, employees, affiliates and affiliates officers, directors and employees; their distributors and distributors officers, directors, and employees; and Ford Dealers and Ford Dealers officers and directors; () judicial officers assigned to the Actions and their immediate family members, and any judicial officers who may hear an appeal on this matter; () all entities and natural persons who have previously executed and delivered to Ford releases of their claims based on the PowerShift Transmission; () all parties to litigation against Ford alleging problems with the PowerShift Transmission in Class Vehicles in which final judgment has been entered, and () all those otherwise in the Class who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class as provided in this Settlement. Page

Case :-cv-0-ab-ffm Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. The Class certified for the purposes of settlement satisfies all of the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (a) and (b)().. The Court appoints and finally approves Plaintiffs Omar Vargas, Michelle Harris, Sharon Heberling, Robert Bertone, Kevin Klipfel, Andrea Klipfel, Maureen Cusick, Eric Dufour, Abigail Fisher, Christie Groshong, Virginia Otte, Tonya Patze, Lindsay Schmidt, Patricia Schwennker, Patricia Soltesiz, Joshua Bruno, Jason Porterfield, and Jamie Porterfield as representatives of the above-described Class.. The Court finds that Capstone Law APC, Berger & Montague, P.C. and Zimmerman Law Group have demonstrable experience litigating consumer and other class actions. The Court hereby appoints and finally approves said law firms as Class Counsel and designates Capstone Law APC as Lead Class Counsel.. The Court finds that the mailing of the Short Form Class Notice to the Class, publication of the Publication Notice, and posting of the Long Form Class Notice to the Settlement Website has been completed in conformity with the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order. These forms of notice, taken together, provided adequate notice of the proceedings, including the proposed settlement terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Class Notice fully satisfied due process requirements and the requirements of Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As executed the Class Notice was the best notice practicable under the circumstances.. The Court finds that appropriate notice was given by Defendant to all appropriate State and Federal Officials pursuant to U.S.C. (a), and that no objections were filed.. The Court hereby finally approves the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, Page

Case :-cv-0-ab-ffm Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 reasonable and adequate, and directs the Parties to effectuate all remaining provisions of the Settlement Agreement according to its terms. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement has been reached as a result of informed and noncollusive, arm s-length negotiations. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs and Defendant have conducted extensive investigation and research into the factual and legal aspects of Plaintiffs claims, and their attorneys were able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions.. The Court also finds that the Parties, by settling now, will avoid additional and potentially substantial litigation costs, as well as delay and risks if the Parties were to continue to litigate the case. Additionally, after considering the prospective and monetary relief provided as part of the Settlement in light of the challenges posed by continued litigation, the Court concludes that Class Counsel secured fair, reasonable and adequate relief for Class Members.. The Settlement Agreement is not an admission of fault by Defendant or by any other Released Party, nor is this Final Order and Judgment a finding on the validity of any allegations or of any wrongdoing by Defendant or any other Released Party. Neither this Final Order and Judgment, the Settlement Agreement, nor any document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement Agreement, may be construed as, or may be used as, an admission of any fault, wrongdoing, omission, concession, or liability whatsoever by or against Defendant or any of the other Released Parties. 0. The Settlement Agreement shall be fully, finally, and forever binding on Ford and all Plaintiffs, including all members of the Class who did not opt out of this Settlement and have not been otherwise excluded pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.. Having granted final approval to this Settlement, the Court dismisses on the merits and with prejudice Vargas v. Ford Motor Co., No. :- Page

Case :-cv-0-ab-ffm Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 cv-0-ab (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.) and each and every action transferred and consolidated with it, including Klipfel v. Ford Motor Co., No. :-cv-00-ab (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.), and Cusick v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. :-cv- 0-AB (C.D. Cal.). In accordance with the Settlement, the plaintiffs in Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., No. :-cv-0 (N.D. Ill.) are obligated to dismiss that action with prejudice. In addition, the Court also dismisses all claims which any Class Member alleged or could have alleged in any complaint, action, or litigation, based upon the Transmission defect in the Class Vehicles.. All Class Members were given a full and fair opportunity to participate in the Fairness Hearing, and all Class Members who asked to be heard were heard. The objections of are hereby overruled. Members of the Class also have had a full and fair opportunity to exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement and the Class. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list setting forth the name of each person who has requested exclusion from the Class under the procedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order.. Having granted final approval to this Settlement, the Named Plaintiffs and each Class Member hereby forever discharge the Released Parties from all Released Claims.. To effectuate the Settlement, the Court hereby orders that all Class Members who did not timely exclude themselves from the Settlement are barred, enjoined, and forever restrained from commencing, prosecuting or asserting any Released Claims against any Released Parties as set forth in Paragraph above, except that Class Members may continue to pursue claims in the Arbitration Program as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Arbitration Rules.. The Court hereby finds that all Class Members who have not made their objections to the Settlement in the manner provided in the Class Notice are deemed to have waived any objections by appeal, collateral attack or otherwise. Page

Case :-cv-0-ab-ffm Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0. The Court has considered Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Service Awards separate from its consideration of the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement. Any order or proceedings relating to the Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, or any appeal from any order relating thereto or reversal or modification thereof, shall not disturb or affect this Final Order and Judgment or affect or delay its finality.. The Court awards $,0,0. in attorneys fees to Class Counsel and costs in the amount of $,.. Lead Class Counsel are to allocate the fees and cost reimbursement according to the fee allocation agreement among Class Counsel.. The Court also approves and awards $0,000 to Plaintiff Omar Vargas, $,00 to Plaintiffs Michelle Harris, Sharon Heberling, Robert Bertone and $,000 to Plaintiffs Kevin Klipfel, Andrea Klipfel, Maureen Cusick, Eric Dufour, Abigail Fisher, Christie Groshong, Virginia Otte, Tonya Patze, Lindsay Schmidt, Patricia Schwennker, Patricia Soltesiz, Joshua Bruno, Jason Porterfield, Jamie Porterfield for their services on behalf of the Class and $,000 for each of the Plaintiffs in Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., No. :-cv-0 (N.D. Ill.) for their dismissal of their action with prejudice, and accordingly orders Defendant to pay those amounts to the Claims Administrator for distribution to those Class Representatives.. If either (a) the Effective Date of the Settlement does not occur for any reason whatsoever, or (b) the Settlement Agreement becomes null and void pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Final Order and Judgment shall be deemed vacated and shall have no force or effect whatsoever.. Without affecting the finality of the Final Order and Judgment in any way, the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties, Page

Case :-cv-0-ab-ffm Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 including the Class Members, to enforce the terms of the Final Order and Judgment, and shall have continuing jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED. Dated:, The Hon. André Birotte Jr United States District Judge Page