Syed v. M-I LLC

Full title: Sarmad Syed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 18, 2015

1:14-cv-00742-WBS-BAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)

Opinion

Sarmad Syed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. M-I LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, PreCheck, Inc., a Texas Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Defendants. No. 1:14-cv-00742-WBS-BAM United States District Court, E.D. California. September 18, 2015

          ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

          WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

         Based on the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement and good cause shown therein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

         1. Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement. The Agreement, including all exhibits thereto, is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable and adequate and within the range of reasonableness for preliminary settlement approval. The Court finds that: (a) the Agreement resulted from extensive arm's length negotiations; and (b) the Agreement is sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement to persons in the Settlement Class and a full hearing on the approval of the Settlement;

         2. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class:

All individuals on whom, during the period from May 20, 2009 through the date of this Order, a consumer report for employment purposes was furnished by PreCheck, Inc., and where the address provided listed California as the individual's state of residence at the time the report was furnished, but not any individuals who timely opt-out of the settlement.

3. In connection with this conditional certification, the Court makes the following preliminary findings for settlement purposes only:

a. The Settlement Class appears to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

b. There appear to be questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class for purposes of determining whether this Settlement should be approved;

c. Plaintiff's claims appear to be typical of the claims being resolved through the proposed settlement;

d. Plaintiff appears to be capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the Settlement Class Members in connection with the proposed settlement;

e. Common questions of law and fact appear to predominate over questions affecting only individual persons in the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Settlement Class appears to be sufficiently cohesive to warrant settlement by representation; and

f. Certification of the Settlement Class appears to be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of the claims of the Settlement Class.

4. Class Counsel. The Dion-Kindem Law Firm and The Blanchard Law Group, APC are hereby appointed as Class Counsel.

         5. Class Representative. Plaintiff Sarmad Syed is hereby appointed Class Representative;

         6. Class Notice. The parties' proposed Class Notice is approved for distribution in accordance with the schedule included in the Settlement Agreement.

         7. Opt-Outs and Objections. Class Members shall have the right to either opt-out or object to this settlement pursuant to the procedures and scheduled included in the Settlement Agreement.

         8. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing is set for December 14, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5. The parties shall file briefs in support of the final approval of the settlement no later than 14 days before the fairness hearing.

         9. The Court hereby orders the stay lifted, and the October 26, 2015 Status Conference is now vacated.