`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JAMES P. BRICKMAN, individually and as a
`representative of all others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077-JD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`[PROPOSED] SETTLEMENT ORDER
`AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 317 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 9
`
`SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`This matter was heard on February 6, 2020, before the Court, pursuant to the previous order
`
`preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a Final Approval Hearing (“Preliminary
`
`Approval Order”) entered on December 17, 2018, (Dkt. No. 275) for the purpose of determining:
`
`(i) whether the settlement of the action, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement
`
`Agreement and Release (“Agreement”) between Plaintiffs and Defendant Fitbit, Inc., should be
`
`approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate ; (ii) the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be
`
`awarded to Class Counsel; and (iii) objections, if any, made to the Agreement, or any of its terms.
`
`IT IS NOW ORDERED:
`
`1.
`
`Words in this Judgment shall have the same meaning as defined terms in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Agreement.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over this case, over all claims raised therein, all Parties
`
`to this Action, and Class Members.
`
`3.
`
`The Court hereby finalizes its prior preliminary class certification of this Action, for
`
`settlement purposes only, as a class action. In so doing, the Court finds, for settlement purposes only,
`
`that the Action meets all the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due
`
`process and can therefore be certified as a class action, because: (1) the Settlement Sub-Classes
`
`defined below are identifiable and are not ambiguous; (2) Plaintiffs are members of the Settlement
`
`Sub-Classes; (3) the Settlement Sub-Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is
`
`impracticable; (4) there are questions of law or fact that are common to the Settlement Sub-Classes
`
`and predominate over any individual questions; (5) the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims
`
`of the Class Members; (6) Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the
`
`interests of the Settlement Sub-Classes; and (7) the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met.
`
`4.
`
`For the purposes of settlement only and this Judgment finally approving the
`
`Agreement, the Court hereby certifies, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the following
`
`Settlement Sub-Classes, defined as follows:
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 317 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 9
`
`a. California Sub-Class: All persons who purchased in the State of California,
`
`and registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between 2009 and October
`
`27, 2014 (Represented by Margaret Clingman);
`
`b. Florida Sub-Class: All persons who purchased in the State of Florida, and
`
`registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between 2009 and October 27,
`
`2014 (Represented by James P. Brickman);
`
`c. New York Sub-Class: All persons who purchased in the State of New York
`
`and registered online a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between March 26, 2012
`
`and October 27, 2014 (Represented by Carissa Ray);
`
`d. Pennsylvania Sub-Class: All persons who purchased in the State of
`
`Pennsylvania, and registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between
`
`March 26, 2012 and October 27, 2014 (Represented by Michael Landis);
`
`e. Ohio Sub-Class: All persons who purchased in the State of Ohio, and
`
`registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between March 26, 2012 and
`
`October 27, 2014 (Represented by Erica Wathey);
`
`f. Michigan Sub-Class: All persons who purchased in the State of Michigan,
`
`and registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between March 26, 2012
`
`and October 27, 2014 (Represented by Stephanie Curtis);
`
`g. New Jersey Sub-Class: All persons who purchased in the State of New
`
`Jersey, and registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between March 26,
`
`2012 and October 27, 2014 (Represented by Carolyn Ciavarella);
`
`h. Missouri Sub-Class: All persons who purchased in the State of Missouri,
`
`and registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between March 26, 2013
`
`and October 27, 2014 (Represented by James Gau);
`
`i. Multi-State Sub-Class: All persons who purchased in the State of Illinois,
`
`and registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between March 26, 2013
`
`and October 27, 2014 or purchased in the State of Washington, State of
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 317 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 9
`
`Texas, State of Georgia, or State of North Carolina, and registered online, a
`
`Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra between March 26, 2014 and October 27, 2014
`
`(Represented by Amanda Samy).
`
`5.
`
`Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court finds that notice has been
`
`given to Class Members pursuant to and in compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order,
`
`Agreement, and the Court-approved Reminder Campaign, and that the Class Notice and Summary
`
`Notice and the notice methodology adopted pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the
`
`Agreement, and the Court-approved Reminder Campaign was reasonable and the best notice
`
`practicable; satisfied due process requirements; provided Class Members with fair and adequate
`
`notice of the certification of the Settlement Sub-Classes and of the Final Approval Hearing;
`
`provided adequate information concerning the hearing, the right to be excluded from the Settlement
`
`Sub-Classes, the Agreement, and the right of Class Counsel to apply for an award of attorneys’ fees
`
`and expenses. Accordingly, the Class Notice, Summary Notice, and Claim Form are finally approved
`
`as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice of
`
`the pendency of this Action and of the Agreement has been provided to Class Members, and the
`
`Court further finds and concludes that notice of the Agreement as described in the Preliminary
`
`Approval Order and completed by the Parties complied fully with the requirements of Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 23 and the requirements of due process under the United States Constitution.
`
`6.
`
`The Court finds that the Agreement was entered into in good faith between Plaintiffs
`
`and Fitbit, and is the result of non-collusive, diligent, and good faith arm’s length negotiations by
`
`the Parties thereto. In addition, the Court finds that Final Approval of the Agreement will result in
`
`substantial savings in time and resources of the Court and the Parties and will further the interests
`
`of justice, and is in the best interest of the Settlement Sub-Classes, especially in light of the benefits
`
`to the Settlement Sub-Classes and the costs and risks associated with the complex proceedings
`
`necessary to achieve a favorable result in this Action. Further, the Court finds that the Agreement
`
`is fair, reasonable, and adequate to Class Members based on proceedings in this Action, discovery,
`
`due diligence, and the absence of material objections sufficient to deny approval.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 317 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 9
`
`7.
`
`Therefore, the terms of the present settlement, as set forth in the Agreement, are
`
`hereby determined to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the Agreement, including
`
`each of its respective terms and conditions, is hereby finally approved by and incorporated as part
`
`of this Judgment.
`
`8.
`
`The Court hereby enters final judgment approving the settlement, as set forth in the
`
`Agreement. In accordance with the Agreement and this Judgment, the Court hereby enters
`
`judgment fully and finally terminating all claims of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Sub-Classes
`
`against Fitbit, on the merits, with prejudice, and without leave to amend.
`
`9.
`
`The Court further finds that all Class Members who have not timely and properly
`
`excluded themselves, regardless of whether such Class Members have claimed or obtained benefits
`
`under the Agreement, shall, by operation of this Judgment, and do release, dismiss with prejudice,
`
`and forever discharge Defendant Fitbit, Inc., and each of its past or present directors, officers,
`
`employees, agents, insurers, shareholders, attorneys, advisors, consultants, representatives,
`
`partners, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, joint venturers, independent contractors, wholesalers,
`
`resellers, distributors, retailers, related companies, and divisions, and each of their predecessors,
`
`successors, heirs, and assigns (collectively, “Released Persons”), from any and all liabilities,
`
`claims, cross-claims, causes of action, rights, actions, suits, debts, liens, contracts, agreements,
`
`damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, losses, expenses, obligations, or demands, of any kind whatsoever,
`
`whether known or unknown, existing or potential, or suspected or unsuspected, whether raised by
`
`claim, counterclaim, setoff, or otherwise, including any known or unknown claims, which they
`
`have or may claim now or in the future to have, that were or could have been alleged or asserted
`
`against any of the Released Persons in this Action, arising out of or related to claims relating to the
`
`sleep-tracking feature of the Devices and Fitbit’s advertising regarding the same.
`
`10.
`
`Those Class Members who timely and properly requested exclusion from the
`
`Settlement Sub-Classes are identified in Exhibit G to the Affidavit of Deborah McComb (Dkt. No.
`
`309-2) on behalf of KCC, the Settlement Administrator, filed with the Court. The Court approves
`
`this list of Class Members who have excluded themselves from the Settlement Sub-Classes, and
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 317 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 9
`
`those individuals are excluded from the Settlement Sub-Classes. All other Class Members of the
`
`Settlement Sub-Classes are, together with their heirs, estates, trustees, executors, administrators,
`
`principals, agents, beneficiaries, assigns, successors, and legal representatives bound by this
`
`Judgment and all proceedings embodied by the Agreement, including the releases provided for in
`
`this Judgment.
`
`11.
`
`Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, and
`
`Defendant shall by operation of this Judgement, be deemed to have waived the provisions, rights
`
`and benefits of California Civil Code § 1542, and any similar law of any state or territory included
`
`in the Settlement Sub-Classes or principle of common law. As of the date of the Parties Settlement,
`
`California Civil Code § 1542 read as follows:
`
`Certain Claims Not Affected By General Release: A general release
`
`does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect
`
`to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which
`
`if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her
`
`settlement with the debtor.1
`
`12.
`
`The Court finds that Plaintiffs and counsel for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class,
`
`Patrick J. Perotti and Frank A. Bartela, of Dworken & Bernstein Co., LPA, and Ronald A. Margolis,
`
`of Bonezzi Switzer Polito & Hupp Co., L.P.A., have fairly and adequately satisfied the
`
`requirements of Rule 23 in representing the class.
`
`13.
`
`For the reasons stated in the March 20, 2020
`
` separate Order on Class
`
`Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Incentive Compensation (Dkt.
`
`No. 282), and Class Counsel having accepted on August 9, 2019 (Dkt. No. 302) this Court’s election
`
`proposed on August 1, 2019 (Final Approval Hearing Transcript, August 1, 2019, Dkt. No. 298, at
`
`pp. 8, 10 and 14) of a reduction in lodestar awarded from $3,851,425 down to $2,765,732.05
`
`combined with a multiplier of 2.5 on that lodestar, and Class Counsel having accepted on August
`
`
`1 Section 1542 was amended on January 1, 2019 to read, "A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor
`or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if
`known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party." This
`revision to the statutory language does not impact the Court's Order.
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 317 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 9
`
`7, 2019 (Dkt. No. 300) this Court’s reduction of costs from $366,944.48 to $151,610.80, the
`
`following amounts shall be paid by Defendant
`
`a. The sum of $7,065,940.93 is hereby awarded as the entire attorneys’ fees and
`
`reimbursement to Class Counsel for costs and expenditures in this Action, consisting
`
`of $6,914,330.13 for all fees for legal services, and $151,610.80 for all costs, all
`
`disbursements, all out-of-pocket expenses, and all other expenditures pursuant to the
`
`Court’s Order on Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and
`
`Costs and Incentive Compensation. (Dkt. No. 282).
`
`b. 25% of the $7,065,940.93 in fees will be paid after counsel have filed the Post-
`
`Distribution Accounting required by the N.D. Cal. Procedural Guidance for Class
`
`Action Settlements.
`
`c. The sum of $5,000.00 each is hereby awarded as incentive compensation to
`
`Plaintiffs Brickman and Clingman for their efforts in litigating and settling this
`
`Action for the Settlement Class Members. These sums shall be paid by Fitbit to
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Counsel representing Plaintiffs and the Class Members pursuant
`
`to the terms and conditions and at the time set forth in the Agreement.
`
`d. The sum of $500 each is hereby awarded as incentive compensation to Plaintiffs
`
`Carissa Ray, Stephanie Curtis, Michael Landis, Carolyn Ciavarella, Erica Wathey,
`
`James E. Gau, II, and Amanda Samy for their efforts in litigating and settling this
`
`Action for the Settlement Class Members. These sums shall be paid by Fitbit to
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Counsel representing Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class
`
`Members pursuant to the terms and conditions and at the time set forth in the
`
`Agreement.
`
`14.
`
`The Court overrules the objection of Wanda J. Cochran (Dkt. No. 286) as it lacks
`
`any merit and fails to provide any support for its opposition to Class Counsel’s motion for an award
`
`of attorneys’ fees and costs. Further, the Court strikes the Cochran objection as the objector failed
`
`to provide the reasonable materials and information required by the Agreement and the Preliminary
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 317 Filed 03/20/20 Page 8 of 9
`
`Approval Order.
`
`15.
`
`The Parties are directed to consummate the Agreement in accordance with its terms.
`
`Fitbit shall pay the costs of administration of the settlement, in accordance with the terms and
`
`conditions set forth in the Agreement.
`
`16.
`
`Disbursements to eligible Settlement Class Members who timely file proper Claim
`
`Forms, will be made by the Settlement Administrator or Fitbit in the manner, within the time
`
`periods, and under the terms and conditions provided in the Agreement. Fitbit will provide funds
`
`as necessary to the Settlement Administrator to make disbursements to eligible Settlement Class
`
`Members, as provided in the Agreement.
`
`17.
`
`The Settlement Administrator will discharge all aspects of notice, payment, and
`
`other settlement administration in accordance with the Agreement.
`
`18.
`
`Neither this Judgment, the Agreement, the fact of settlement, the settlement
`
`proceedings, settlement negotiations, nor any related document, shall be used as an admission of
`
`any act or omission by Fitbit or any other Released Person, or be offered or received in evidence
`
`as an admission, concession, presumption, or inference of any wrongdoing by Fitbit or any other
`
`Released Person, in any action or proceeding in any court, administrative panel or proceeding, or
`
`other tribunal, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to consummate or enforce the
`
`Agreement.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Nothing herein shall bar any action or claim to enforce the terms of the Agreement.
`
`The Parties are hereby authorized without further approval from the Court to agree
`
`upon such amendments or modifications of the Agreement and all exhibits thereto as shall be
`
`consistent in all respects with this Judgment and do not limit the rights of Class Members.
`
`21. Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court retains jurisdiction over this
`
`Agreement to the extent necessary to implement, enforce, and administer the Agreement and this
`
`Judgment. Upon written report of the Settlement Administrator that all distributions have been
`
`made pursuant to the Agreement, the Court will dismiss this Action with prejudice and without
`
`costs or attorneys’ fees (except such costs and fees as are awarded herein) as to all claims that were
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 317 Filed 03/20/20 Page 9 of 9
`
`asserted or could have been asserted by Plaintiff and/or the Settlement Sub-Classes.
`
`Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Order constitutes a final and complete adjudication of the
`
`claims of the Settlement Sub-Classes and other matters presented herein, and the Court expressly
`
`determines that there is no just reason for delay, pursuant to Rule 54(B).
`
`
`
`March 20
`Dated: ________________, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`JAMES DONATO
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`8
`
`