throbber
Case: 1:20-cv-07179 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/12/22 Page 1 of 39 PageID #:677
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket