`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-04721-VC Document 251 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`BUCKEYE TREE LODGE AND SEQUOIA
`VILLAGE INN, LLC, a California limited
`liability company, 2020 O STREET
`CORPORATION, INC, D/B/A THE MANSION
`ON O STREET, PROSPECT HISTORIC
`HOTEL, and SHILOH MORNING INN, LLC, a
`Oklahoma limited liability company,
`individually and on behalf of themselves and all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`EXPEDIA, INC., a Washington corporation;
`HOTELS.COM, L.P., a Texas limited
`partnership; HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, a Texas
`limited liability company; ORBITZ, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:16-cv-04721-VC
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENT, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
`COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS
`
`Date: March 25, 2021
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Courtroom: 4, 17th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Vince Chhabria
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`Case No. 16-cv-04721-VC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-04721-VC Document 251 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement came on for regularly
`
`scheduled hearing before this Court as noticed. Having considered the Parties’ briefs, supporting
`
`evidence, and other documents, and good cause having been shown, the Court hereby ORDERS as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`The Court confirms its certification of the Rule 23(b)(2) class and its finding that the
`
`requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy had been established for a California
`
`Rule 23(b)(2) class; that the California class was ascertainable; and that questions of law and fact common to
`
`all Class Members predominated over questions affecting only individual members.
`
`2.
`
`The Court confirms the appointment of the law firms Patterson Law Group, APC, Cuneo
`
`Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Pratt & Associates, and Richa Law Group, P.C. as Class Counsel.
`
`3.
`
`The Court confirms the appointment of David Pfau, Ted Spero, Dennis Villavicencio, and
`
`13
`
`Fred Wickman as Class Representatives.
`
`14
`
`4.
`
`The class action settlement is approved. It is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and it meets
`
`15
`
`the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2) and the standards set by the Ninth Circuit in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`
`16
`
`150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) and its progeny. Specifically, the Court finds that the following
`
`17
`
`relevant factors weigh in favor of approval: (1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense,
`
`18
`
`complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status
`
`19
`
`throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the
`
`20
`
`stage of the proceedings; and (6) the experience and views of counsel.
`
`21
`
`5.
`
`Notice is not required for this Rule 23(b)(2) class. The terms of the Settlement provide for
`
`22
`
`injunctive relief only and specifically preserve the Class Members’ rights to bring claims for monetary
`
`23
`
`damages of any kind. Class Members do not have the right to opt out. As a result, notice is not required.
`
`24
`
`Moreno v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., No. 17-cv-02911-JSC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`25
`
`13309, 2019 WL 343472, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019); Stathakos v. Columbia Sportswear Co., No.
`
`26
`
`4:15-cv-04543-YGR, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17138, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2018); Lilly v. Jamba
`
`27
`
`Juice Co., No. 13-CV-02998-JST, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34498, 2015 WL 1248027, at *25-26 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Mar. 18, 2015). And because notice is not required, neither is a preliminary approval hearing. See
`1
`AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-04721-VC
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-04721-VC Document 251 Filed 04/09/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`Stathakos, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17138, at *15; Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-CV-02998-JST, 2015
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58451, at *11 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2015); Kim v. Space Pencil, Inc., No. C 11-037996
`
`LB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169922, 2012 WL 5948951, at *17 (“[T]he reaction of class members is not
`
`relevant here because notice [is] not required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and there is no
`
`binding effect on the Class nor is there a release being provided.”).
`
`6.
`
`The Court enters the injunction as defined in the Parties’ settlement agreement as follows:
`
`a.
`
`Expedia shall implement, within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Approval
`
`Order, the following injunctive relief:
`
`i.
`
`Expedia shall use best efforts to ensure that properties with which Expedia
`
`does not have a contract and that have no relationship with a third party provider to the
`
`Websites (“class member properties”) do not appear in search results on the Websites with
`
`unavailability messaging or on a property details page with unavailability messaging.
`
`Recognizing that technology is evolving, best efforts may include steps currently taken by
`
`Expedia and those that have been implemented since the filing of this Action, such as
`
`contractually requiring third party providers to notify Expedia when a hotel terminates its
`
`relationship with that third party and using technological controls to prevent hotels from
`
`appearing in search results when third parties notify Expedia that a hotel has terminated its
`
`relationship with that third party. Nothing in this Paragraph 4(a)(i) shall prevent Expedia
`
`from taking different or additional steps to ensure that class member properties do not
`
`appear in search results with unavailability messaging or on property details pages with
`
`unavailability messaging. To the extent that Expedia becomes aware that a class member
`
`property is appearing next to unavailability messaging, Expedia shall act promptly to
`
`remove that property from its Websites.
`
`ii.
`
`Expedia shall remove from the Websites any property that terminates its
`
`contract with Expedia and that is not available to Expedia through a third party provider to
`
`the Websites.
`
`2
`AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`Case No. 16-cv-04721-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6(a)(i)
`
`

`

`YAYADOA&_—WwBPO
`
`oOo
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:16-cv-04721-VC Document 251 Filed 04/09/21 Page 4 of 4
`Case 3:16-cv-04721-VC Document 251 Filed 04/09/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`ill.
`
`Expedia shall use best efforts to ensure that search engine marketing,
`
`search engine optimization, and social media advertisements for the Websites do not
`
`identify by name class memberproperties that are not in and of themselvesattractions.
`
`Iv.
`
`To the extent it has not already done so, Expedia will notify all third party
`
`providers that when a hotel with which the third party has contracted terminates its
`
`agreement with that
`
`third party,
`
`the third party must provide accurate availability
`
`information to Expedia to allow it to remove the property from the Websites.
`
`V.
`
`Every six months, Expedia will perform an audit to confirm that a sample
`
`of hotels appearing on its websites are affiliated with Expedia through direct contracts or
`
`third party providers.
`
`b.
`
`The terms of this injunction shall be in effect for three (3) years from the Approval
`
`Date.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`The Court approvesthe stipulated Attorney’s Fees and Costs award of $2,100,000.
`
`The Court approvesthe stipulated Incentive Awards of $12,500 for each of the four Class
`
`Representatives.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED: April 9, 2021
`
`3
`AMENDED J[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`Case No. 16-cv-04721-VC
`
`