Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 1 of 32
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Lauren Biegel, Greg Maroney, Ryan
`Cosgrove, Clive Rhoden, Stephen Bradshaw,
`Angela Farve and Christina Henderson,
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated, on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Blue Diamond Growers,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 7:20-cv-03032-CS
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
`OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT,
`PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATION OF
`SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND
`APPROVAL OF NOTICE PLAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .......................................1
`
`THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ..................................................4
`
`A. Certification of the Settlement Class .......................................................................4
`
`B. Relief for the Members of the Settlement Class ......................................................4
`
`C. Incentive Awards and Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses .............................................4
`
`D. Settlement Notice .....................................................................................................5
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................6
`
`A. The Court Should Preliminarily Approve
`
`the Settlement
`
`Agreement ................................................................................................................6
`
`1. Legal Standard .............................................................................................7
`
`2. The Settlement Is Procedurally Fair, as It Is the Result of
`
`Good Faith, Arm’s-Length Negotiations by Well-Informed
`
`and Highly Experienced Counsel.................................................................8
`
`3. The Settlement Is Substantively Fair, as Application of the
`
`Factors Set Out in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.
`
`Demonstrates................................................................................................9
`
`(i) The complexity, expense, and likely duration of
`
`litigation .........................................................................................10
`
`(ii) The reaction of the class to the settlement .....................................11
`
`(iii)The stage of the proceedings and the amount of
`
`discovery completed ......................................................................11
`
`(iv) The risks of establishing liability and damages .............................12
`
`(v) The risk of maintaining class action status through
`
`trial .................................................................................................12
`
`(vi) The ability of Defendant to withstand a greater
`
`judgment ........................................................................................13
`
`(vii) The range of reasonableness of the settlement in
`
`light of the best possible recovery and in light of all
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 32
`
`the attendant risks of litigation .....................................................14
`
`B. The Court Should Preliminarily Certify the Settlement Class ...............................15
`
`1. The Settlement Class Meets All Prerequisites of Rule 23(a)
`
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .....................................................16
`
`(i) Numerosity .....................................................................................16
`
`(ii) Commonality..................................................................................16
`
`(iii)Typicality .......................................................................................17
`
`(iv) Adequacy of representation ...........................................................18
`
`2. The Settlement Class Meets All Rule 23(b)(3)
`
`Requirements .............................................................................................19
`
`(i) Common legal and factual questions predominate in
`
`this action .......................................................................................19
`
`(ii) A class action is the superior means to adjudicate
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims ............................................................................20
`
`C. The Court Should Approve the Proposed Notice Plan ..........................................21
`
`PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................24
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 4 of 32
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pages(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`
`No. CV-09-0395 (JG), 2010 WL 2925955 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2010) ...............................17
`
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
`
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .....................................................................................................15, 19
`
`Banyai v. Mazur,
`
`No. 00 CIV.9806 SHS, 2007 WL 927583 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2007) ...............................12
`
`Bezdek v. Vibram USA, Inc.,
`
`809 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................13
`
`Bodon v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC,
`
`No. 09-CV-2941 SLT, 2015 WL 588656 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2015) .................................14
`
`Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC,
`
`No. 12-CV-01831-LHK, 2014 WL 5794873 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) ............................13
`
`Charron v. Pinnacle Grp. N.Y. LLC,
`
`874 F. Supp. 2d 179 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)................................................................................13
`
`Charron v. Wiener,
`
`731 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2013).......................................................................................7, 9, 18
`
`Cicciarella v. Califia Farms, LLC,
`
`No. 19-cv-87875 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2020). ........................................................................6
`
`City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.,
`
`495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974)...........................................................................................9, 10
`
`D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank,
`
`236 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001)...................................................................................................8
`
`D.S. ex rel. S.S. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ.,
`
`255 F.R.D. 59 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) .........................................................................................11
`
`Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`
`705 F. Supp. 2d 231 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ...............................................................................10
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 5 of 32
`
`Fogarazzao v. Lehman Bros.,
`
`232 F.R.D. 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .......................................................................................17
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon,
`
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) ...........................................................................................................13
`
`Hadel v. Gaucho, LLC,
`
`No. 15 CIV. 3706 (RLE), 2016 WL 1060324 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2016) .....................7, 17
`
`Hall v. ProSource Techs., LLC,
`
`No. 14-CV-2502 (SIL), 2016 WL 1555128 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2016) ...............................8
`
`Handschu v. Special Servs. Div.,
`
`787 F.2d 828 (2d Cir. 1986)...............................................................................................21
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................................21
`
`In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Sec., Derivative, & ERISA Litig.,
`
`909 F. Supp. 2d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)..................................................................................9
`
`In re Med. X-Ray Film Antitrust Litig.,
`
`No. CV-93-5904, 1998 WL 661515 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 1998)..........................................12
`
`In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liab. Litig.,
`
`241 F.R.D. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .......................................................................................18
`
`In re Nassau Cty. Strip Search Cases,
`
`461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006).........................................................................................19, 20
`
`In re Nissan Radiator/Transmission Cooler Litig.,
`
`No. 10 CV 7493 VB, 2013 WL 4080946 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2013) ................................17
`
`In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig.,
`
`986 F. Supp. 2d 207 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ...............................................................................11
`
`In re Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litig.,
`
`No. 12-CV-2429 (ADS)(AKT), 2014 WL 5819921 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2014) ...............13
`
`Manley v. Midan Rest. Inc.,
`
`No. 14 CIV. 1693 (HBP), 2016 WL 1274577 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016) .....7, 8, 10, 11, 17
`
`Marisol A. v. Giuliani,
`
`126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997).........................................................................................16, 18
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 6 of 32
`
`McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave,
`
`588 F.3d 790 (2d Cir. 2009).......................................................................................7, 8, 10
`
`Meredith Corp. v. SESAC, LLC,
`
`87 F. Supp. 3d 650 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)......................................................................10, 11, 20
`
`Mills v. Capital One, N.A.,
`
`No. 14 CIV. 1937 HBP, 2015 WL 5730008 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015) ...........................13
`
`Robidoux v. Celani,
`
`987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993)...............................................................................................17
`
`Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Assocs. LLC,
`
`780 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2015).................................................................................................16
`
`Tart v. Lions Gate Entm’t Corp.,
`
`No. 14-CV-8004 AJN, 2015 WL 5945846 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2015)...............8, 17, 19, 20
`
`Tiro v. Pub. House Investments, LLC,
`
`No. 11 CIV. 7679 CM, 2013 WL 2254551 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2013) ...........................8, 9
`
`Vargas v. Capital One Fin. Advisors,
`
`559 F. App’x 22 (2d Cir. 2014) .........................................................................................21
`
`Viafara v. MCIZ Corp.,
`
`No. 12 CIV. 7452 RLE, 2014 WL 1777438 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2014) ..............................13
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`
`131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) .......................................................................................................16
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005).................................................................................7, 14, 21, 22
`
`Williams v. Gerber Products Co.,
`
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................17
`
`Willix v. Healthfirst, Inc.,
`
`No. 07-cv-1143, 2011 WL 754862 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2011) ..........................................12
`
`Zeltser v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
`
`No. 13 CIV. 1531 FM, 2014 WL 4816134 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2014) ...........11, 12, 20, 21
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ..........................................................................................................16, 17, 18
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 7 of 32
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) ......................................................................................................................19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) ........................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ....................................................................................................................3, 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) ........................................................................................................................3
`
`Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.312 (2004) ............................................................21
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 8 of 32
`
`Plaintiffs1 Lauren Biegel (“Biegel”), Greg Maroney (“Maroney”), Stephen Bradshaw
`
`(“Bradshaw”), Angela Farve (“Farve”), Ryan Cosgrove (“Cosgrove”), Clive Rhoden (“Rhoden”),
`
`and Christina Henderson (“Henderson”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves
`
`and on behalf of those similarly situated, hereinafter the Settlement Class Members, respectfully
`
`submit this memorandum of law in support of Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary
`
`approval of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`In the operative, Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 46) (“Complaint” or “Action”),
`
`Plaintiffs have asserted claims on behalf of a nationwide class that defendant Blue Diamond
`
`Growers (“Defendant”, “BDG”, or the “Company”), deceptively and misleadingly marketed and
`
`labeled its almondmilk, almondmilk blend, or almondmilk yogurt products (“Products”) by
`
`misstating that the Products contain “Vanilla [with other natural flavors],” when in reality, the
`
`Products are not flavored mainly from vanilla. The Settlement Agreement that Plaintiffs now
`
`submit for preliminary approval provides excellent relief to Settlement Class Members,
`
`providing a refund of 100% of the inflated portion of the price that consumers paid for the
`
`Products.
`
`On April 15, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff Lauren Biegel, filed a lawsuit against Defendant
`
`for the mislabeling of its yogurt products purporting to be flavored with vanilla and “natural
`
`flavors”, under the Almond Breeze brand (“Product”).2 On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff Biegel
`
`filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms shall have the meaning that the Settlement
`Agreement ascribes to them. (See generally Class Settlement Agreement (filed concurrently
`herewith).) References to “§ __” are to sections in the Settlement Agreement.
`2 (Declaration of Spencer Sheehan in Support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary.
`Approval ¶¶ 10-12 (“Sheehan Decl.”) (filed concurrently herewith).)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 9 of 32
`
`York (the “Amended Complaint”) asserting the same causes of action and adding Plaintiff
`
`Maroney as an additional named plaintiff. On April 19, 2021, Plaintiffs Biegel and Maroney filed
`
`a Second Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
`
`York (the “Second Amended Complaint”) asserting the same causes of action and expanding the
`
`class definition to assert a nationwide class in accordance with the terms set forth in this Settlement
`
`Agreement. Over the next several months, Sheehan & Associates, PC, Shub Law Firm LLC and
`
`Reese LLP (“Class Counsel”) engaged in extensive informal discovery and a series of settlement
`
`negotiations, including an all-day mediation conducted before esteemed mediator Randall W.
`
`Wulff of Wulff Quinby Sochynsky.3
`
`Plaintiffs’ objective in filing the Action was to compensate Settlement Class members
`
`damaged by the alleged misrepresentations. Through the Actions and the Settlement Agreement,
`
`Plaintiffs achieved substantial relief for the Settlement Class. The Settlement also allows eligible
`
`Settlement Class members to make claims up to two million dollars ($2,000,000), depending on
`
`the amount of their purchases during the Class Period, and whether or not the Settlement Class
`
`Member has retained proof of purchase, to recover either more than full value of the inflated
`
`portion of the price of the purchases if a Settlement Class Member has Proof of Purchase, or 100%
`
`of the value of the claimed purchases if a Settlement Class Member does not possess Proof of
`
`Purchase. Thus, the Settlement is an outstanding result for Plaintiffs and the members of the
`
`Settlement Class.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 (Id. at ¶¶ 15-17.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 10 of 32
`
`The Parties only reached the Settlement after conducting discovery and engaging in
`
`extensive arm’s-length, good-faith negotiations, including a mediation session with an esteemed
`
`mediator from Wulff Quinby Sochynsky.4 While providing significant benefits for the Settlement
`
`Class members, the Settlement also takes into account the substantial risks the Parties would face
`
`if the Action progressed.5
`
`For all of the reasons given herein, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to grant preliminary
`
`approval of the Settlement, allowing the Claims Administrator to provide notice to the Settlement
`
`Class members, and to schedule a Fairness Hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement.
`
`See FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e). Plaintiffs also respectfully request to be appointed as representatives for
`
`the Settlement Class and for their counsel to be appointed as Class Counsel.6 See FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`23(g). The Court should also approve the notice program to which the Parties agreed in the
`
`Settlement, as it meets the requirements of due process and is the best notice practicable under the
`
`circumstances. See FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 (Sheehan Decl. ¶¶ 15-18.)
`5 (Id. at ¶¶ 22-30.)
`6 “Class Counsel” are the law firms of Sheehan & Associates, P.C., Shub Law Firm LLC, and
`Reese LLP.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 11 of 32
`
`II.
`
`THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
`
`The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class, describes the Parties’ agreed-upon
`
`Settlement relief, and proposes a plan for disseminating notice to the Settlement Class members.
`
`A.
`
`Certification of the Settlement Class
`
`Under the Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree to seek certification of a nationwide
`
`Settlement Class defined as follows:
`
`All consumers in the United States who purchased the Products during the Class
`Period.
`
`The Settlement Class excludes the Released Parties, any government entities,
`persons who made such purchase for the purpose of resale, persons who made a
`valid, timely request for exclusion, and Hon. Cathy Seibel and Randall W. Wulff,
`and any members of their immediate family.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Relief for the Members of the Settlement Class
`
`The Settlement Agreement provides for significant substantial monetary relief.
`
`With respect to monetary relief, the Settlement Agreement provides that Defendant will
`
`provide refunds in the amount up to $2,000,000 to pay timely, valid, and approved Claims.
`
`Defendant will also separately pay all costs of notice and claims administration; judicially
`
`approved Incentive Awards; and, judicially approved Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. (§§ 3.6, 3.13,
`
`5.1-5.2.)
`
`C.
`
`Incentive Awards and Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses
`
`Defendant has agreed not to oppose an application for payment of Incentive Awards of up
`
`to $3,571.42 to each of the named Plaintiffs (for a total of $25,000) to compensate them for the
`
`actions and risk they took in their capacities as class representatives. (§ 5.2). Defendant has also
`
`agreed not to oppose an application for payment of $550,000 for attorneys’ fees and costs to Class
`
`Counsel and for reimbursement of litigation expenses as compensation for Class Counsel’s work
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 12 of 32
`
`on the Actions. (§ 5.1).
`
`D.
`
`Settlement Notice
`
`The Settlement Agreement proposes that the Court appoint Angeion Group to administer
`
`the notice process and outlines the forms and methods by which notice of the Settlement
`
`Agreement will be given to the Settlement Class members, including notice of the deadlines to opt
`
`out of, or object to, the Settlement. (§§ 4.1, 6.5-6.9)
`
`In terms of the methods of notice, the Parties developed a robust notice program7 with the
`
`assistance of Angeion Group that includes: (1) comprehensive digital media based notice (2) a
`
`dedicated Settlement Website through which Settlement Class members can obtain more detailed
`
`information about the Settlement and access case documents; and (3) a toll-free telephone helpline
`
`through which Settlement Class members can obtain additional information about the Settlement
`
`and request the class notice and/or a Claim Form. See (Weisbrot Decl.). The notice plan has been
`
`designed to deliver an approximate 75.18% reach with an average frequency of 4.77 times each.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 34.)
`
`Under
`
`the
`
`Settlement
`
`Agreement,
`
`the
`
`Settlement
`
`Website
`
`(www.almondbreezesettlement.com) will post Settlement-related and case-related documents
`
`such as the Long Form Notice; answers to frequently asked questions; a Contact Information page
`
`that includes the address for the Claim Administrator and addresses and telephone numbers for
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel; the Agreement; the signed order of Preliminary
`
`Approval; a downloadable and online version of the Claim Form; a downloadable and online
`
`version of the form by which Settlement Class Members may exclude themselves from the
`
`
`7 The details of the notice program are set forth in the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot (“Weisbrot
`Decl.”), filed concurrently herewith.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 13 of 32
`
`Settlement Class; and (when they become available) the motion for final approval and Plaintiffs’
`
`application(s) for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and an Incentive Award. (Class Settlement Agreement,
`
`Sheehan Decl., Ex. 1) The Settlement Website will also include procedural information regarding
`
`the status of the Court approval process, such as announcements of the Fairness Hearing date,
`
`when the Final Order and Judgment has been entered, and when the Final Settlement Date has
`
`been reached. (Weisbrot Decl. at ¶ 38.) To allow for the maximum convenience of the Settlement
`
`Class Members, claims may be submitted online.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Court Should Preliminarily Approve the Settlement Agreement
`
`Class Counsel have worked steadfastly to reach a fair, reasonable, and adequate Settlement.
`
`(See generally Sheehan Decl.). Plaintiffs and their counsel believe the claims the Settlement
`
`resolves are strong and have merit. (Id. at ¶ 21.) They recognize, however, that significant expense
`
`and risk are associated with continuing to prosecute the claims through trial and any appeals. (Id.)
`
`In negotiating and evaluating the Settlement, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have taken these costs
`
`and uncertainties into account, as well as the delays inherent in complex class action litigation.
`
`(Id.) Additionally, in the process of investigating and litigating the Actions, Class Counsel
`
`conducted significant research on the consumer protection statutes at issue, as well as the overall
`
`legal landscape, to determine the likelihood of success and reasonable parameters under which
`
`courts have approved settlements in comparable cases. (Id. at ¶ 29.). In fact, this Court approved
`
`a class action settlement involving substantially similar claims less than a year ago, involving some
`
`of the same class counsel in this case. See Cicciarella v. Califia Farms, LLC, No. 19-cv-87875
`
`(S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2020). This Settlement largely models the terms set forth and approved by this
`
`Court in Cicciarella v. Califia Farms. In light of all of the foregoing reasons, Class Counsel believe
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 14 of 32
`
`this Settlement provides significant relief to the Settlement Class members and is fair, reasonable,
`
`adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. (Id. at ¶ 31.)
`
`1.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`Under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may approve a class
`
`action settlement “only . . . on finding that [the settlement agreement] is fair, reasonable, and
`
`adequate.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e)(2). The “fair, reasonable, and adequate” standard effectively
`
`requires parties to show that a settlement agreement is both procedurally and substantively fair.
`
`Charron v. Wiener, 731 F.3d 241, 247 (2d Cir. 2013); accord McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave,
`
`588 F.3d 790, 803–04 (2d Cir. 2009).
`
`The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized a “strong judicial policy in favor
`
`of settlements, particularly in the class action context.” McReynolds, 588 F.3d at 803 (quoting Wal-
`
`Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Visa”)). “The compromise
`
`of complex litigation is encouraged by the courts and favored by public policy.” Visa, 396 F.3d at
`
`117 (citation omitted); see also Hadel v. Gaucho, LLC, No. 15 CIV. 3706 (RLE), 2016 WL
`
`1060324, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2016) (“Courts encourage early settlement of class actions,
`
`when warranted, because early settlement allows class members to recover without unnecessary
`
`delay and allows the judicial system to focus resources elsewhere.”). A “presumption of fairness,
`
`adequacy, and reasonableness may attach to a class settlement reached in arm’s-length negotiations
`
`between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.” Visa, 396 F.3d at 116 (quoting
`
`MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (THIRD) § 30.42 (1995)).
`
`“Preliminary approval is the first step in the settlement of a class action whereby the court
`
`‘must preliminarily determine whether notice of the proposed settlement . . . should be given to
`
`class members in such a manner as the court directs, and an evidentiary hearing scheduled to
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 15 of 32
`
`determine the fairness and adequacy of settlement.’” Manley v. Midan Rest. Inc., No. 14 CIV. 1693
`
`(HBP), 2016 WL 1274577, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016) (citations omitted). “To grant
`
`preliminary approval, the court need only find that there is ‘probable cause’ to submit the
`
`[settlement] to class members and hold a full-scale hearing as to its fairness.” Id. (citations and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted); accord Tart v. Lions Gate Entm’t Corp., No. 14-CV-8004 AJN,
`
`2015 WL 5945846, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2015). “If the proposed settlement appears to fall
`
`within the range of possible approval, the court should order that the class members receive notice
`
`of the settlement.” Manley, 2016 WL 1274577, at *8 (citation omitted); accord Hadel, 2016 WL
`
`1060324, at *2; Tart, 2015 WL 5945846, at *5.
`
`Here, the Settlement Agreement is both procedurally and substantively fair and falls well
`
`within the range of possible approval.
`
`2.
`
`The Settlement Is Procedurally Fair, as It Is the Result of Good Faith,
`Arm’s-Length Negotiations by Well-Informed and Highly
`Experienced Counsel
`
`
`
`To demonstrate a settlement’s procedural fairness, a party must show “that the settlement
`
`resulted from ‘arm’s-length negotiations and that plaintiffs’ counsel have possessed the experience
`
`and ability, and have engaged in the discovery, necessary to effective representation of the class’s
`
`interests.’” D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); accord
`
`McReynolds, 588 F.3d at 804; see also Hall v. ProSource Techs., LLC, No. 14-CV-2502 (SIL),
`
`2016 WL 1555128, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2016).
`
`Furthermore, participation of a highly qualified mediator in settlement negotiations
`
`strongly supports a finding that negotiations were conducted at arm’s length and without collusion.
`
`See D’Amato, 236 F.3d at 85 (“[A] court-appointed mediator’s involvement in precertification
`
`settlement negotiations helps to ensure that the proceedings were free of collusion and undue
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 16 of 32
`
`pressure.”); Tiro v. Pub. House Investments, LLC, No. 11 CIV. 7679 CM, 2013 WL 2254551, at
`
`*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2013) (“The assistance of an experienced JAMS employment mediator . . .
`
`reinforces that the Settlement Agreement is non-collusive.”); In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.
`
`Sec., Derivative, & ERISA Litig., 909 F. Supp. 2d 259, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
`
`Here, Plaintiffs and their counsel conducted a thorough investigation and evaluation of the
`
`claims and defenses prior to filing the Action and continued to analyze the claims throughout the
`
`pendency of the cases. (See, e.g., Sheehan Decl. at ¶¶ 8-9.) Prior to agreeing to the Settlement,
`
`Class Counsel conducted discovery. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Through this investigation, discovery, and
`
`ongoing analysis, Class Counsel obtained an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the
`
`Actions. (See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 20-21, 34.)
`
`Class Counsel have substantial experience litigating class actions and negotiating class
`
`settlements. (Id. at ¶¶ 39-44; Ex. 2, (Sheehan & Associates, P.C. firm resume); Ex. 3 (Reese LLP’s
`
`firm résumé); Ex. 4 (Shub Law Firm LLC firm resume)). Moreover, the Parties participated in
`
`serious and informed arms-length negotiations before a highly qualified mediator at Wulff Quinby
`
`Sochynsky – Randall W. Wulff, which led to an agreement in principle to settle the case and,
`
`ultimately, the finalized Settlement Agreement. (Sheehan Decl. at ¶¶ 17-18.)
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Settlement Agreement is procedurally fair.
`
`3.
`
`The Settlement Is Substantively Fair, as Application of the Factors Set
`Out in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp. Demonstrates
`
`
`
`To demonstrate the substantive fairness of a settlement agreement, a party must show that
`
`the factors the Second Circuit set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir.
`
`1974) (“Grinnell”), weigh in favor of approving the agreement. Charron, 731 F.3d at 247. The
`
`Grinnell factors are:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 17 of 32
`
`(1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of
`the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of
`discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of
`establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial;
`(7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of
`reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; (9) the
`range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all
`the attendant risks of litigation.
`
`McReynolds, 588 F.3d at 804 (quoting Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 463). Here, the Grinnell factors
`
`overwhelmingly favor preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.
`
`(i)
`
`The complexity, expense, and likely duration of litigation
`
`“The greater the ‘complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation,’ the stronger
`
`the basis for approving a settlement.” Meredith Corp. v. SESAC, LLC, 87 F. Supp. 3d 650, 663
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citations omitted). Consumer class action lawsuits, like the Actions, are
`
`complex, expensive, and lengthy. See, e.g., Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 705 F. Supp. 2d
`
`231, 239 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); see also Manley, 2016 WL 1274577, at *9 (“Most class actions are
`
`inherently complex[.]”). Should the Court decline to approve the Settlement Agreement, further
`
`litigation would resume. Such litigation could include motions to dismiss; contested class
`
`certification (and possibly decertification) proceedings and appeals, including competing expert
`
`testimony and contested Daubert motions; further costly nationwide discovery, including dozens
`
`of depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admission, and yet more voluminous document
`
`production; costly merits and class expert reports and discovery; and trial. (Id.) Each step towards
`
`trial would be subject to Defendant’s vigorous opposition and appeal. (Id.) Even if the case were
`
`to proceed to judgment on the merits, any final judgment would likely be appealed, which would
`
`take significant time and resources. (Id.) These litigation efforts would be costly to all Parties and
`
`would require significant judicial oversight. (Id.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 7:20-cv-03032-CS Document 48 Filed 04/19/21 Page 18 of 32
`
`In short, “litigation of this matter . . . through trial would be complex, costly and long.”
`
`Ma