`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`KAYLA QUARLES, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRET A MANGER (USA) LIMITED,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Case No. 20-cv-7179
`
`Hon. Manish S. Shah
`Presiding Judge
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
`
`
`122234
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 2 of 39 PageID #:678
`
` TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Biometric Information Privacy Act. ............................................................... 2
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations. ............................................................................................ 3
`
`Procedural History. ................................................................................................ 3
`
`The proposed Settlement........................................................................................ 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The Settlement Class.................................................................................. 5
`
`Monetary relief for Settlement Class Members. ........................................ 5
`
`Cy pres distributions. ................................................................................. 6
`
`Settlement Class release. ............................................................................ 6
`
`Class Representative Service Award. ........................................................ 7
`
`Attorneys’ fees and costs. .......................................................................... 7
`
`Administration and Notice. ........................................................................ 8
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The settlement approval process. ........................................................................... 9
`
`The Settlement warrants preliminary approval. ................................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Class has been adequately represented. ............................................ 11
`
`The Settlement resulted from arm’s length negotiations. ........................ 12
`
`The proposed Settlement treats Settlement Class Members equally. ...... 14
`
`The relief provided to the Settlement Class is more than adequate. ........ 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The risks of continued litigation weigh, when
`viewed against the relief provided, weigh in favor
`of approval. ...................................................................... 16
`
`The proposed method of distribution is effective. ........... 18
`
`The proposed attorney fee award and timing of
`payment support preliminary approval. ........................... 20
`
`C.
`
`The Settlement Class should be certified. ............................................................ 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Settlement Class is sufficiently numerous. ....................................... 22
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical. ................................................................... 22
`
`Plaintiff and Counsel are adequate. ......................................................... 23
`
`Commonality is satisfied.......................................................................... 23
`
`Common questions predominate.............................................................. 24
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 3 of 39 PageID #:679
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`A class action is the superior means of resolving this dispute. ................ 25
`
`The Settlement Class is ascertainable. ..................................................... 27
`
`D.
`
`The proposed Notice plan is constitutionally sound. ........................................... 27
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 29
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 4 of 39 PageID #:680
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Aliano v. Joe Caputo & Sons - Algonquin, Inc.,
` No. 09 C 910, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48323
` (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2011) .............................................................................................................. 18
`
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
` 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ............................................................................................................. 21, 26
`
`Aranda v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.,
` No. 12 C 4069, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29400
` (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2017) .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of the City of Milwaukee,
` 616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Barnes v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n,
` 310 F.R.D. 551 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ................................................................................................ 26
`
`Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software,
` 907 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 22
`
`Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.,
` 896 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................. 7, 20
`
`Cornejo v. Amcor Rigid Plastics USA, LLC,
` No. 1:18-cv-07018
` (N.D. Ill. Sept. 10, 2020) ........................................................................................................... 20
`
`Felzen v. Andreas,
`134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`Fournigault v. Independence One Mortgage Corp.,
` 234 F.R.D. 641(N.D. Ill. 2006) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`Goldsmith v. Technology Solutions Co.,
` No. 92 C 4374, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093
` (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 1995) ......................................................................................................... 9, 18
`
`Golon v. Ohio Savs. Bank,
` No. 98-cv-7430, 1999 WL 965593
`
`(N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 1999) ............................................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 5 of 39 PageID #:681
`
`
`
`Hale v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
` No. 12-0660-DRH, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210368
` (S.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2018) ............................................................................................................. 20
`
`In re AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Servs. Sales Litig.,
`270 F.R.D. 330 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litig.,
` 326 F.R.D. 535 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ......................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`In re Google Buzz Privacy Litig.,
` No. C 10-00672 JW, 2011 WL 7460099
` (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2011) ............................................................................................................ 15
`
`In re Google LLC Street View Electronic Communications Litigation,
` No. 3:10-md-02184, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47928
` (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020) .......................................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig.,
` 330 F.R.D. 11 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litig.,
` No. 11-cv-8176, 2013 WL 4510197
`
`(N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2013) ........................................................................................................... 17
`
`Isby v. Bayh,
`75 F.3d 1191 (7th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`Johnson v. Rest Haven Illiana Christian Convalescent Home, Inc.,
` No. 2019-CH-01813
` (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Oct. 18, 2019) ............................................................................................. 15
`
`Jones v. CBC Rest. Corp.,
` No. 1:19-cv-06736
` (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 15
`
`Kurgan v. Chiro One Wellness Ctrs. LLC,
` No. 10-cv-1899, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20255
` (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2014)............................................................................................................. 25
`
`Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`Langendorf v. Skinnygirl Cocktails, LLC,
` 306 F.R.D. 574 (N.D. Ill. 2014) ................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 6 of 39 PageID #:682
`
`
`
`Lawrence v. First Fin. Inv. Fund V, LLC,
` No. 2:19-cv-00174-RJS-CMR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162184
`
`(D. Utah Aug. 26, 2021) ........................................................................................................... 19
`
`Martin v. JTH Tax, Inc.,
` No. 13-6923 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 16, 2015) ...................................................................................... 20
`
`Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
`339 U.S. 306 (1950) .................................................................................................................. 27
`
`
`Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC,
` 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 21, 27
`
`Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.,
` 527 U.S. 815 (1999) ................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.,
` 231 F.R.D. 280 (N.D. Ill. 2005) ................................................................................................. 22
`
`Parker v. Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P.,
` 631 F. Supp. 2d 242 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ....................................................................................... 15
`
`Phillips Randolph Enters., LLC v. Rice Fields,
`No. 06 C 4968, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3027
`(N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2007) ............................................................................................................ 18
`
`
`Phillips v. Waukegan Hous. Auth.,
` 331 F.R.D. 341 N.D. Ill. 2019). ................................................................................................. 22
`
`Rohlfing v. Manor Care,
` 172 F.R.D. 330 (N.D. Ill. 1997) ................................................................................................. 26
`
`Rysewyk v. Sears Holdings Corp.,
` Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-4519-MSS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236004
` (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2019) ............................................................................................................. 11
`
`Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank,
`805 F. Supp. 2d 560 (N.D. Ill. 2011) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`
`Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank,
` No. 09-CV-6655, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144810
` (N.D. Ill. Sept. 10, 2010) ........................................................................................................... 13
`
`Sekura v. L.A. Tan Enters., Inc.,
` 2015-CH-16694 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.). ..................................................................................... 20
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 7 of 39 PageID #:683
`
`
`
`Smith v. Dearborn County,
` 244 F.R.D. 512 (S.D. Ind. 2007) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
` No. 14 C 8461, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80926
` (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2019) ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`Spano v. The Boeing Co.,
` 633 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 22
`
`Svagdis v. Alro Steel Corp.,
` 2017-CH-12566 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.) ..................................................................................... 20
`
`Swanson v. American Consumer Industries, Inc.,
` 415 F.2d 1326 (7th Cir. 1969) .................................................................................................. 22
`
`Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
` No. 5:18-cv-00266-BLF, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237069
`
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2021) ........................................................................................................... 19
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
` 564 U.S. 338 (2011). ................................................................................................................. 23
`
`Wong v. Accretive Health, Inc.,
` 773 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 11
`
`Zepeda v. Intercontinental Hotels Grp., Inc.,
` 2018-CH-02140 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.) ..................................................................................... 20
`
`Zhirovetskiy v. Zayo Group, LLC,
` 17-CH-09323 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Apr. 8, 2019) ...................................................................... 15
`
`Statutes
`
`740 ILCS 14/1, et seq............................................................................................................. passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)....................................................................................... 13
`
`Illinois House Transcript, 2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276 (May 30, 2008) ............................................. 2
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 8 of 39 PageID #:684
`
`
`
`
`Treatises
`
` 4
`
` 4
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:53 (5th ed. 2011) ............................................................... 19
`
` NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS §§ 11.25 and 11.41 (4th ed. 2002) ........................................ 9, 10
`
`
`Manual for Complex Litig. §§ 13.14, 21.312, 21.632, and 21.633 (4th ed. 2004) ................. 10, 27
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 9 of 39 PageID #:685
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Kayla Quarles respectfully moves the Court for preliminary approval of the class
`
`action settlement (“Settlement”) reached between Plaintiff and Defendant Pret a Manger (USA)
`
`Limited (“Pret” or “Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”)
`
`Ms. Quarles alleges Pret violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”),
`
`740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. by collecting its employees’ fingerprints without complying with the
`
`statute’s informed consent regime or adhering to a publicly-available policy governing the
`
`retention and destruction of this highly-sensitive data.
`
`After engaging in substantive motion practice and exchanging written discovery, the
`
`Parties participated in an eight-hour mediation session overseen by the Honorable Judge Morton
`
`Denlow (ret.). These efforts culminated in a class-wide Settlement which provides outstanding
`
`relief for a Settlement Class of approximately 797 former Pret employees.1 If approved, Pret is
`
`required to pay $677,450.00 into a non-reversionary Settlement Fund from which approximately
`
`797 Settlement Class Member will receive an equal, pro-rata distribution without the need to file
`
`a claim or take any other action. Plaintiff estimates2 that every class member would receive $518
`
`without the need for a claim form.
`
`As demonstrated below, the significant relief provided by the Settlement, along with its
`
`equitable and effective method of distribution, places the Settlement squarely within the range of
`
`possible approval, whereas the proposed Settlement Class easily satisfies Rule 23’s requirements
`
`
`1 During the pandemic, Pret closed every location it owned and operated in the State of Illinois.
`2 Plaintiff’s estimate is based on a pro-rata distribution after deduction of $10,000 administration
`costs, $9,173 in reimbursed expenses, $5,000 for incentive award, and $240,282 for fees. As explained
`below, Plaintiff will separately file a fee petition and there is no clear sailing agreement for fees or incentive
`award.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 10 of 39 PageID #:686
`
`
`
`for conditional certification. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant
`
`preliminary approval of the Settlement, certify the proposed Settlement Class, appoint Plaintiff’s
`
`attorneys as Class Counsel, approve the proposed form and method of Class Notice, and set a Final
`
`Approval Hearing.
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Biometric Information Privacy Act.
`
` The growing use of biometric data in commercial transactions implicates unique privacy
`
`concerns. Unlike other forms of personally-identifiable information, biometric information such
`
`as fingerprints cannot be changed (much less replaced) when stolen. Recognizing the “very serious
`
`need of protections for the citizens of Illinois when it comes to biometric information,” the
`
`legislature passed BIPA in 2008 to provide heightened protections for biometric privacy rights.
`
`See Illinois House Transcript, 2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276, p.249 (May 30, 2008); see also 740 ILCS
`
`14/5(g). The statute features several safeguards that protect Illinois’ citizens’ ability to maintain
`
`control over their biometric information.
`
`One such safeguard is Section 15(b)’s informed consent regime. As relevant to this case,
`
`this provision prohibits an employer from collecting its employee’s biometric information without
`
`first: (1) providing the employee with a written disclosure explaining that biometric information
`
`is being collected, the reason for the collection, and the length of time for which the biometric
`
`information will be retained; and (2) obtaining a signed written release from the employee
`
`authorizing the collection. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).
`
`Section 15(a) of BIPA, in turn, requires an employer who possess biometric information to
`
`destroy that data once the purpose for which it was collected has been satisfied. See 740 ILCS
`
`14/15(a).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 11 of 39 PageID #:687
`
`
`
`B. Plaintiff’s allegations.
`
`Pret is an international sandwich chain that owns and operates locations throughout the
`
`country, thirteen of which were previously situated in the Chicago area. Plaintiff worked at one
`
`such location from April 2018 to January 2019. Compl. at ¶¶ 27-29.
`
`As alleged in the Complaint, Pret required Plaintiff (like all other new employees) to use a
`
`biometric timekeeping system that verified her identity through a fingerprint scan. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9,
`
`24, 28-31. Plaintiff alleges Pret required new hires such as herself to scan their fingerprints to
`
`enroll in Pret’s employee fingerprint database, and to subsequently use their fingerprints in order
`
`to clock in and out of work. Id. at ¶¶ 24, 28-31.
`
`According to Plaintiff, Pret’s implementation of this biometric timekeeping system directly
`
`violated BIPA in two discrete ways. First, Plaintiff alleges Pret violated Section 15(a) of the statute
`
`by failing to implement and adhered to a publicly-available policy governing the retention and
`
`destruction of its employees’ biometric data. See id. at ¶¶ 26, 36-37, 44-52. Second, Plaintiff
`
`alleges Pret violated Section 15(b) by collecting, storing, and using its employees’ biometric data
`
`without first providing the necessary disclosures or receiving informed written consent. Id. at ¶¶
`
`24-25, 32-35, 53-62.
`
`C. Procedural History.
`
`On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed this class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
`
`Pret removed the case to this Court on December 4, 2020, see ECF No. 1, where it remains
`
`pending.
`
`On January 11, 2020, Pret moved to stay this case pending the Illinois Appellate Court’s
`
`resolution of Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. See ECF No. 9. The Court denied this Motion on
`
`December 14, 2020, and directed Pret to respond to the Complaint. See ECF No. 10.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 12 of 39 PageID #:688
`
`
`
`On January 6, 2021, Pret filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that
`
`Plaintiff’s claims were subject to—and thus barred by—the one-year statute of limitations set forth
`
`in 735 ILCS 5/13-201. See, generally, ECF No. 13. On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed her
`
`Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. 14.
`
`Pret subsequently retained new counsel, and shortly thereafter filed a renewed motion to
`
`stay, as well as a motion for leave to file an Amended Motion to Dismiss (“Amended Motion”).
`
`See ECF Nos. 15-22. On February 3, 2021, the Court granted Pret’s motion for leave to file the
`
`Amended Motion, denied the pending motion to dismiss as moot, and entered and continued Pret’s
`
`renewed Motion to Stay. ECF No. 21.
`
`On February 3, 2021, Pret filed its Amended Motion, which asserted myriad substantive
`
`grounds for dismissal. See, generally, ECF No. 22. After receiving full briefing on the issues, the
`
`Court denied the Amended Motion on April 26, 2021, and directed Pret to respond to the
`
`Complaint. See ECF No. 27. On May 25, 2021, Pret filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint. Shortly thereafter, the Parties commenced written discovery in the form of
`
`interrogatories and document requests.
`
`The Parties subsequently agreed to mediate this dispute on August 23, 2021 before the
`
`Honorable Morton Denlow (ret.) of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”).
`
`Over the weeks leading up to the mediation, the Parties submitted detailed briefs setting forth their
`
`respective views on the strengths of their cases.3 At mediation, the parties discussed their relative
`
`views of the law and the facts and potential relief for the proposed Class.4 With the assistance of
`
`Judge Denlow—and eight-hours of arm’s-length negotiations—the Parties reached an agreement-
`
`
`3 See Declaration of Keith J. Keogh (“Keogh Decl.”) attached as Exhibit B, ¶ 4.
`4 Id. at ¶ 5.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 13 of 39 PageID #:689
`
`
`
`in-principle on the material terms of a class-wide settlement.
`
`Following the mediation, the Parties continued extensive negotiations over several months
`
`on their remaining points of dispute, which ultimately culminated in the fully executed Agreement
`
`for which the Parties now seek preliminary approval, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`D. The proposed Settlement.
`
`The Settlement’s details are contained in the Agreement signed by the Parties. See Ex. A.
`
`For purposes of preliminary approval, the following summarizes the Agreement’s terms:
`
`1. The Settlement Class.
`
`The Settlement Class is defined as follows:
`
`All individuals employed by Defendant Pret a Manger (USA) Limited and any
`other related entities in the State of Illinois who logged onto, interfaced with, or
`used any software, systems, or devices that used the individual’s finger, hand, or
`any biometric identifier of any type (“Biometric Systems”) in Illinois, including
`any employee of the above entities who has a claim under the Illinois Biometric
`Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., from November 4, 2015 through
`the date of preliminary approval.
`
`Ex. A at §§ II.29; V.1.5 Based on the information obtained in discovery, the Settlement Class
`
`consists of 797 individuals. See Ex. B (Keogh Decl.), ¶ 8.
`
`2. Monetary relief for Settlement Class Members.
`
`The Settlement requires Defendants to create a non-reversionary Settlement Fund of
`
`$677,450.00, from which each Settlement Class Member will receive a pro rata portion after
`
`payment of Settlement Administration Expenses, attorney’s fees and costs, and any incentive
`
`
`5 Excluded the Settlement Class are the Judge to whom the Action is assigned and any member of
`the Court’s staff and immediate family (to the extent they received a listed call) and all persons who have
`opted-out of the Settlement Class pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 13.1 of this Agreement.
`Id.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 14 of 39 PageID #:690
`
`
`
`award approved by the Court. See Ex. A (Agreement) at §§ II.35, V.5, X.2-3. No amount of the
`
`Settlement Fund will revert to Defendants, and Settlement Class Members are not required to
`
`submit a claim or take any action to receive compensation. Instead, the class administrator
`
`(“Administrator”) will automatically issue checks to the last known address of each Settlement
`
`Class Member who declines to opt out. Id. at §§ II.5, X.2. Checks issued to Settlement Class
`
`Members shall remain valid for 90 days from the date of their issuance. Id. at § X.2. If, after the
`
`expiration date of the checks distributed, there remains money in the Settlement Fund sufficient to
`
`pay at least five dollars ($5.00) to each Settlement Class Member who cashed their initial check,
`
`those remaining funds will be distributed on a pro rata basis to those Settlement Class Members
`
`(the “Second Distribution”). Id. at § X.3.
`
`3. Cy pres distributions.
`
`Only if a Second Distribution is not feasible or if there remains money after the Second
`
`Distribution will the money be donated to a cy pres beneficiary. Subject to Court approval, the
`
`Plaintiff suggests any such funds be sent to the Electronic Privacy Information Center as that
`
`organization is closely related to the privacy issues of this BIPA class. Ex. A (Agreement) at §X.3.
`
`The class notice will identify this organization.
`
`4. Settlement Class release.
`
`In exchange for the benefits allowed under the Settlement, Settlement Class Members who
`
`do not opt out will provide a release tailored to the practices at issue in this case. Specifically, they
`
`will release all claims that “relate in any way to information that is or could be protected under
`
`[BIPA] or any other similar state, local, or federal law, regulation, or ordinance, or common law,
`
`regarding the use, collection, capture, receipt, maintenance, storage, transmission, or disclosure of
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 15 of 39 PageID #:691
`
`
`
`biometric identifiers that Settlement Class Members claim, might claim, or could have claimed in
`
`any court or administrative proceeding.” Ex. A (Agreement) at § XI.1.
`
`5. Class Representative Service Award.
`
`The Agreement provides that Plaintiff may petition the Court for a Service Award. Ex. A
`
`(Agreement) at § V.4. There is no clear sailing provision as to this request. The Service Award
`
`shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund and is subject to this Court’s approval; neither Court
`
`approval nor the amount of the Service Award is a condition of the Settlement. Id. Given Plaintiff’s
`
`role in prosecuting this action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Plaintiff will request a Service
`
`Award of $5,000.00. The Class Notice will advise the Settlement Class of Plaintiff’s request.
`
`6. Attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`Prior to the Final Approval hearing and prior to the objection deadline, Class Counsel will
`
`apply to the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Ex. A (Agreement) at §§ V.3, VI.2.B.
`
`As will be addressed in Class Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees, courts in this district commonly
`
`award approximately 36% plus reasonable expenses in common fund class settlements after
`
`settlement administration costs are deducted. See Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 896
`
`F.3d 792, 796-97 (7th Cir. 2018) (affirming attorney fees in TCPA class action of 36% of the first
`
`$10 million, 30% of the next $10 million, and 24% of the next $34 million).
`
`This amount is appropriate to compensate Class Counsel in this amount here for the work
`
`they have performed in procuring a settlement for the Settlement Class, as well as the work
`
`remaining to be performed in documenting the settlement, securing Court approval of the
`
`settlement, overseeing settlement implementation and administration, assisting Settlement Class
`
`Members, and obtaining dismissal of the action. It should be noted, however, that the
`
`enforceability of the Settlement is not contingent on Court approval of an award of attorneys’ fees
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 16 of 39 PageID #:692
`
`
`
`or costs. Ex. A at § V.3 Further, the Class Notice will inform the Settlement Class Members that
`
`Class Counsel will seek 36% of the fund net administration costs. As with the incentive award to
`
`the class, the Agreement does not contain a clear sailing agreement as to attorney fees or costs.
`
`7. Administration and Notice.
`
`All costs of notice and claims administration shall not exceed $10,000 and be advanced by
`
`Defendants, credited against the Settlement Fund. The Administrator will be American Legal
`
`Claim Services, LLC (“ALCS”) subject to this Court’s approval. Ex. A (Agreement) at § II.6. The
`
`Administrator shall administer the Settlement, which includes the following duties: (1) issuing
`
`Class Notice; (2) setting up and maintaining the settlement website and toll-free number; and (3)
`
`issuing settlement payments. Id. at §§ VI, X.
`
`Within fourteen (14) days of the entry of Preliminary Approval Order, the Administrator
`
`will issue the Class Notice (Exhibit 3 to the Agreement) via direct mail to all Settlement Class
`
`Members. Id. at §§ II.17, VI.2.A. Before doing so, the Administrator will update Settlement Class
`
`Members’ addresses by running their names and addresses through the National Change of
`
`Address database. Id. For Settlement Class Members whose Notice is returned as undeliverable,
`
`the Administrator will conduct a database search and re-issue the Mail Notice to all Settlement
`
`Class Members for whom an alternative address can be found. Id.
`
`Further, the Administrator will establish and maintain a Settlement Website. Id. at § VI.2.B.
`
`The Settlement Website will include general information such as the Agreement, Website Notice,
`
`the Preliminary Approval Order, the operative Complaint, the attorney fee motion and any other
`
`materials the Parties agree to include. Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 17 of 39 PageID #:693
`
`
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. The settlement approval process.
`
`Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C), a court may approve a class action settlement if it is
`
`“fair, adequate, and reasonable, and not a product of collusion” There is usually a presumption of
`
`fairness when a proposed class settlement “is the product of arm’s length negotiations, sufficient
`
`discovery has been taken to allow the parties and the court to act intelligently, and counsel involved
`
`are competent and experienced.” NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 11.41 (4th ed. 2002); Goldsmith
`
`v. Technology Solutions Co., No. 92 C 4374, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093, at *10 n.2 (N.D. Ill.
`
`Oct. 10, 1995) .
`
`As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, federal courts strongly favor and encourage
`
`settlements, particularly in