Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO ALOHA;
`COLEHOUR BONDERA and MELANIE
`BONDERA, husband and wife d/b/a
`KANALANI OHANA FARM; ROBERT SMITH
`and CECELIA SMITH, husband and
`wife d/b/a SMITHFARMS, and SMITHFARMS,
`LLC on behalf of themselves and others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a
`Washington corporation; AMAZON.COM, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA
`COFFEE, LTD., LLC, a Hawaiian limited liability
`company; COST PLUS/WORLD MARKET, a
`subsidiary of BED BATH & BEYOND, a New York
`corporation; BCC ASSETS, LLC d/b/a BOYER’S
`COFFEE COMPANY, INC., a Colorado
`corporation; L&K COFFEE CO. LLC, a Michigan
`limited liability company; MULVADI
`CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation; COPPER
`MOON COFFEE, LLC, an Indiana limited liability
`company; GOLD COFFEE ROASTERS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; CAMERON’S COFFEE
`AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a Minnesota
`corporation; PACIFIC COFFEE, INC., a Hawaii
`corporation; THE KROGER CO., an Ohio
`corporation; WALMART INC., a Delaware
`corporation; BED BATH & BEYOND INC., a New
`York corporation; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES
`INC., a Delaware Corporation; SAFEWAY INC., a
`Delaware Corporation; MNS LTD., a Hawaii
`Corporation; THE TJX COMPANIES d/b/a T.J.
`MAXX, a Delaware Corporation; MARSHALLS OF
`MA, INC. d/b/a MARSHALLS, a Massachusetts
`corporation; SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET,
`INC. a Delaware corporation; COSTA RICAN
`GOLD COFFEE CO., INC., a Florida Corporation;
`and KEVIN KIHNKE, an individual,
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF CLASS
`SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`(CORRECTED VERSION)
`The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik
`
`Noted for consideration: September 29,
`2022
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 
`BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................... 1 
`SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS .................................................................................... 3 
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................... 4 
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 4 
`I. 
`The Court will be able to approve the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. ......... 4 
`Class Counsel and the Settlement Class Representatives Have Adequately
`A. 
`Represented the Class. ............................................................................................ 5 
`The Settlement Is the Result of Arm’s Length Negotiations. ................................ 6 
`The Relief for the Class is Substantial. .................................................................. 7 
`The settlement relief outweighs the costs, risks, and delay of trial
`1. 
`and appeal. .................................................................................................. 7 
`Settlement Class Members will obtain relief through a
`straightforward claims process. .................................................................. 8 
`The terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including
`timing of payment, will be reasonable. ...................................................... 9 
`The Proposal Treats Class Members Equitably Relative to Each Other. ............. 10 
`D. 
`The Court will be able to certify the Class for settlement purposes upon final
`approval. ........................................................................................................................... 10 
`A. 
`The Settlement Class Meets Rule 23(a)’s Requirements. .................................... 11 
`B. 
`The Settlement Class Meets Rule 23(b)(3)’s Requirements. ............................... 14 
`The proposed notice plan should be approved. ................................................................ 16 
`III. 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 18 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`II. 
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases 
`Ali v. Menzies Aviation, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00262RSL, 2016 WL 4611542 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 6, 2016) .............................. 17
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................................. 11
`Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans and Tr. Funds,
`568 U.S. 455 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 15
`Carr v. United Health Care Serv., Inc.,
`No.2:15-CV-1105, 2017 WL 11458425 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2017) ....................................... 10
`David v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.,
`No. 14-CV-00766-RSL, 2019 WL 2339971 (W.D. Wash. June 3, 2019) ................................ 11
`Durant v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`No.2-15-01710-RAJ, 2019 WL 2422592 (W.D. Wash. June 10, 2019) ................................... 10
`Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,
`417 U.S. 156 (1974) .................................................................................................................. 17
`Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell,
`688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 13
`Free Range Content, Inc. v. Google, LLC,
`No. 14-CV-02329-BLF, 2019 WL 1299504 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019) .................................... 6
`Hardie v. Countrywide,
`2010 WL 3894377 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2010) ..................................................................... 10
`Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Company,
`No. 16-CV-05479-JST, 2018 WL 6619983 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) ...................................... 9
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................................................................ 6
`In re Banc of California Sec. Litig.,
`326 F.R.D. 640 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .............................................................................................. 11
`In re Chambers Dev. Sec. Litig.,
`912 F. Supp. 822 (W.D. Pa. 1995) .............................................................................................. 8
`In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................................... 7
`In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2016 WL 4010049 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2016) ....................................... 11
`Jama v. Golden Gate America, LLC,
`No. 2:16-CV-00611-RSL, 2017 WL 7053650 (W.D. Wash. June 27, 2017) ........................... 12
`Just Film v. Buono,
`847 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 16
`McCluskey v. Trustees of Red Dot Corp. Emp. Stock Ownership Plan and Trust,
`268 F.R.D. 670 (W.D. Wash. 2010) .......................................................................................... 16
`Munday v. Navy Fed. Credit Union,
`No. 15-1629, 2016 WL 7655807 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2016) ...................................................... 7
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 13-03826, 2019 WL 1437101 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019) .................................................... 4
`Parsons v. Ryan,
`754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 12
`Powers v. Eichen,
`229 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................... 10
`Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc.,
`No. C17-0028-JCC, 2020 WL 3050217 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2020) ....................................... 14
`Sandoval v. Tharaldson Emp. Mgmt., Inc.,
`No. 08-482, 2010 WL 2486346 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2010) ........................................................ 6
`Stockwell v. City & Cty. of San Francisco,
`749 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 12
`Thomas v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-01160-JST, 2017 WL 4750628 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2017) ...................................... 9
`Trosper v. Styker Corp.,
`13-CV-0607-LHK 2014 WL 4145448 (N.D. Cal. August 21, 2014) ....................................... 15
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) .............................................................................................................. 14
`Wilburv. City of Mount Vernon,
`298 F.R.D. 665 (W.D. Wash. 2012) .......................................................................................... 14
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................... 12
`Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,
`No. 2:14-CV-0175-TOR, 2019 WL 1966112 (E.D. Wash. May 2, 2019) .................................. 5
`Statutes 
`Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 ................................................................................................. 2, 13
`Rules 
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ...................................................................................................................... 11
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ................................................................................................................. 12
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ................................................................................................................. 12
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ........................................................................................................... 13, 14
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D) ............................................................................................................ 16
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ............................................................................................ 4, 16, 17, 18
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) .......................................................................................................... 1, 5, 7, 10
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) ............................................................................................................. 4, 16
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) .............................................................................................................. 4
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ............................................................................................................... 4, 5
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(A) .............................................................................................................. 5
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(B) .............................................................................................................. 6
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C) .............................................................................................................. 7
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`2464052.1
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(ii) ......................................................................................................... 8
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(iii) ........................................................................................................ 9
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(D) ............................................................................................................ 10
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(3) ................................................................................................................. 10
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5) ................................................................................................................... 4
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) ...................................................................................................................... 10
`Treatises 
`2 McLaughlin on Class Actions
`§ 6.22 (18th ed.) ........................................................................................................................ 10
`2 McLaughlin on Class Actions,
`§ 6:7 (8th ed. 2011) ..................................................................................................................... 6
`5 Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil
`§ 23.22 (2016) ........................................................................................................................... 11
`William B. Rubenstein, et al., 4 Newberg on Class Actions (5th ed. 2012) ................................... 6
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs respectfully move for preliminary approval of a class action settlement with two
`of the last four remaining defendants in this litigation. This settlement – with defendants L&K
`Coffee Co. LLC (“L&K”) and its owner, Kevin Kihnke – follows eleven prior settlements
`previously approved by this Court and successfully implemented by Class Counsel. Along with
`valuable injunctive relief, L&K has agreed to pay $6.15 million to settle Plaintiffs’ and class
`members’ claims, bringing the total amount recovered for the class to over $21 million. After
`approval of this settlement, only two defendants will remain – Mulvadi Coffee Corporation and
`its primary retailer, MNS Ltd.
`This Court has previously assessed the propriety of preliminary approval and the issuance
`of notice as to multiple defendants and settlements in this litigation. Those prior settlements were
`on behalf of the identical class of Kona coffee farmers, involved the same claims, the same
`allegations, and were structured substantially identically as the ones that are now before the
`Court. Just as the Court previously found as to those prior settlements, Plaintiffs respectfully
`submit that the Court is likely to certify the proposed class for settlement purposes and approve
`this latest settlement after notice and a final approval hearing. Like the previously approved
`settlements, this settlement will deliver a substantial monetary payment to class members and
`also provide for valuable injunctive relief that will benefit the members of the settlement class
`and prevent future economic harm. This settlement readily satisfies Rule 23(e)’s standard for
`preliminary approval, and the Court may approve the issuance of notice to the class and set a
`schedule for final approval.
`BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`As the Court is aware, this is Plaintiffs’ fourth motion for preliminary approval of
`settlements reached in this litigation. In their previous motions for preliminary approval (Dkt.
`393, 411, and 602), Plaintiffs set forth the relevant background to their motions, and do so again
`here for completeness of the record and with updates through the filing of this motion.
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Plaintiffs are coffee farmers in the Kona region of Hawaii, and along with members of
`the proposed Settlement Class, grow the entire worldwide supply of Kona coffee. Plaintiffs filed
`their initial complaint on February 27, 2019, alleging that Defendants, who are both suppliers
`and retailers of coffee, violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, by misleadingly labeling and
`selling coffee not from the Kona region as “Kona” coffee. The complaint included the results of
`an extraordinary pre-filing investigation that included scientific testing to confirm that the coffee
`marketed and sold by Defendants as “Kona” coffee in fact contained little or no such coffee.
`A group of retailer defendants and a group of supplier defendants filed motions to
`dismiss; Defendant BCC Assets, LLC (“BCC”) filed a separate motion to dismiss. See Dkt. Nos.
`100, 106, & 107, respectively. On November 12, 2019, the Court denied the suppliers’ and
`BCC’s motions in full, and denied the retailers’ motion in part, dismissing only false advertising
`claims against the retailers. See Dkt. Nos. 154-56. Discovery then commenced, and closed on
`March 11, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion against those non-settling
`defendants on December 22, 2021, which followed a motion for default against defendant
`Mulvadi Corporation (Dkt. 544) on November 23, 2021. Plaintiffs served reports from seven
`different experts on August 11, 2022. The remaining defendants served their rebuttal reports on
`September 22, 2022, and expert discovery will close on November 18, 2022.
`As this history reflects, the parties have litigated the case intensively. The parties served
`dozens of document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admission, and produced tens of
`thousands of documents. This Court resolved numerous discovery disputes involving the scope
`of document production and depositions. See Dkt. Nos. 144, 248, 255, 266, 274, 341, 350, 362,
`382, 470, 477, 487, 578, 694. Defendants took the depositions of the five named plaintiffs during
`the week of August 17, 2020. Plaintiffs have taken or participated in nine depositions of parties
`and non-parties to date (plus noting and appearing for two depositions in which a third party
`failed to appear), as well as taken two expert depositions.
`As Plaintiffs described in their motion for preliminary approval of the first set of
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`settlements (Dkt. 393), there were parallel efforts at resolution as the parties litigated the case.
`First, in the spring of 2020, the parties agreed to a brief pause in most discovery activity to
`engage in a near-global mediation with Hon. Edward Infante on June 2, 2020. See Declaration of
`Jason L. Lichtman (“Lichtman Decl.”) ¶ 6. L&K participated in that mediation, but did not reach
`a settlement with Plaintiffs at that time and returned to active litigation. L&K and Plaintiffs
`participated in a mediation with Mark LeHocky, of ADR Services, Inc., on February 3, 2021,
`and another mediation with Mr. LeHocky on May 5, 2021. Id. ¶ 7. After returning to discovery,
`including fully litigating class certification, the parties again mediated, this time with Robert
`Meyer of JAMS, on June 9, 2022. Id. Counsel continued to hold settlement discussions after that
`mediation, and kept Mr. Meyer involved and informed in those discussions. Mr. Meyer
`ultimately made a mediator’s proposal, which both parties accepted on September 12, 2022, with
`the parties signing the settlement agreement immediately thereafter on September 13, 2022. Id.
`
`SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS
`Like the previous settlements, Plaintiff’s settlement with L&K, attached as Exhibit 1 to
`the Lichtman Declaration, delivers substantial monetary relief to the Settlement Class and
`includes injunctive terms that continue to transform the marketplace, with L&K agreeing to
`changes in its labeling practices that will prevent further economic harm to the growers of
`legitimate Kona coffee.
`First, L&K will pay $6,150,000. Second, it will, like previously settling defendants, alter
`its labeling of Kona-labeled coffee so that such products “will accurately and unambiguously
`state on the front label of the product the minimum percentage of authentic Kona coffee beans
`contained in the product using the same font type and same (or similar) color as the word Kona,
`and no smaller than one-half (1/2) the size as the word “Kona” appears, on the front of the
`package.” Ex. 1 ¶ 11(a). The agreements clarifies, “Only Kona coffee certified and graded by the
`Hawaii Department of Agriculture as 100% Kona shall be considered authentic Kona coffee.” Id.
`HIKC also agrees “to use at least the percentage of Kona coffee required by Hawaiian law, or as
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`may be required by Hawaii law in the future, in any product labeled as “‘Kona’ or “‘Kona
`Blend.’” Id. ¶ 11(b). These injunctive terms compound the benefits of the agreements of the
`previously settling defendants that increase and improve the information found on Kona-labeled
`products in the marketplace.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that class actions “may be settled … only
`with the court’s approval.” Rule 23(e) governs a district court’s analysis of the fairness of a
`proposed class action settlement and creates a multistep process for approval. First, a court must
`determine that it is likely to (i) approve the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
`after considering the factors outlined in Rule 23(e)(2), and (ii) certify the settlement class after
`the final approval hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B). Second, a court must direct notice to
`the proposed settlement class, describing the terms of the proposed settlement and the definition
`of the proposed class, to give them an opportunity to object to or to opt out of the proposed
`settlement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), (5). Third, after a hearing,
`the court may grant final approval of the proposed settlement on a finding that the settlement is
`fair, reasonable, and adequate, and certify the settlement class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).
`Through this motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set in motion the first
`two steps of this three-part process: provide preliminary approval of the settlement, and approval
`of the issuance of notice to the class.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`The Court will be able to approve the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
`The December 1, 2018 amendments to Rule 23 “provide new guidance on the ‘fair,
`adequate, and reasonable’ standard at the preliminary approval stage.” O’Connor v. Uber Techs.,
`Inc., No. 13-03826, 2019 WL 1437101, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019). Even after the
`amendments, fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy remain the “touchstones” for approval of a
`class action settlement. Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-0175-TOR,
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`2019 WL 1966112, at *2 (E.D. Wash. May 2, 2019). The amendments served “to focus the
`court and the lawyers on the core concerns of procedure and substance that should guide the
`decision whether to approve the proposal.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory committee’s
`note to 2018 amendments).
`Under the amended rule, a court is to preliminarily approve the settlement and direct
`notice to the class if it finds that the court “is likely to approve the proposal under Rule
`23(e)(2).” Rule 23(e)(2) contains the “core concerns of procedure and substance” that guide this
`inquiry. Just as the previous settlements did, this settlement readily satisfies the criteria for
`preliminary approval.
`
`A.
`
`Class Counsel and the Settlement Class Representatives Have Adequately
`Represented the Class.
`
`Under Rule 23(e)(2), the Court first considers whether counsel for the class, as well as
`the class representatives, adequately represent the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(A). This
`requirement is met. Class Counsel have zealously advanced the interests of the Plaintiffs and the
`proposed Settlement Class. Following an extensive pre-filing investigation, they defeated
`motions to dismiss by the retailer defendants and the supplier defendants, and took on the
`daunting logistical task of pursuing discovery against over twenty defendants and from numerous
`third parties. These efforts put Plaintiffs and the Class in a position to negotiate the prior sets of
`settlements with the help of experienced mediators. Even with approval of settlements against
`the majority of the defendants, Class Counsel did not slow down, and instead continued to
`prepare for class certification and trial. Most recently, Plaintiffs served expert reports from seven
`experts, in fields ranging from consumer surveys to accounting to coffee trading.
`As explained in previous motions for preliminary approval, the class representatives have
`worked tirelessly on behalf of Settlement Class members, and more than meet this standard.
`They have worked closely with proposed Class Counsel at every stage of this litigation,
`answered dozens of written discovery requests, produced thousands of documents, sat for day-
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`long depositions, and personally participated in various mediations. They have also monitored
`and participate actively in both sets of claims processes relating to the prior settlements,
`answering questions from class members, while monitoring ongoing litigation against the
`remaining defendants. Each Plaintiff runs a small coffee farm, and amidst the challenges of the
`global pandemic, have unflaggingly devoted their time, along with expertise and experience as
`Kona farmers, to help Class Counsel move this litigation in a positive direction for the
`Settlement Class.
`
`B.
`The Settlement Is the Result of Arm’s Length Negotiations.
`To grant final approval, this Court will determine if the proposed settlement was
`negotiated at arm’s length. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(B). This Court is likely to so find here.
`Settlements reached after a supervised mediation are entitled to a presumption of reasonableness
`and the absence of collusion. 2 McLaughlin on Class Actions, § 6:7 (8th ed. 2011); see also
`Sandoval v. Tharaldson Emp. Mgmt., Inc., No. 08-482, 2010 WL 2486346, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June
`15, 2010) (“The assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process confirms that the
`settlement is non-collusive”); Free Range Content, Inc. v. Google, LLC, No. 14-CV-02329-BLF,
`2019 WL 1299504, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019) (holding that a “presumption of correctness”
`attaches where, as here, a “class settlement [was] reached in arm’s-length negotiations between
`experienced capable counsel after meaningful discovery”).
`Here, proposed Settlement Class Counsel negotiated these this settlement after full
`discovery was complete, and after they had moved for class certification and served expert
`reports. Where extensive information has been exchanged, “[a] court may assume that the parties
`have a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases and hence
`that the settlement’s value is based upon such adequate information.” William B. Rubenstein, et
`al., 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 13:49 (5th ed. 2012) (“Newberg”); see also In re Anthem, Inc.
`Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 320 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (concluding that the “extent of
`discovery” and factual investigation undertaken by the parties gave them “a good sense of the
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL
`2464052.1
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013-1413
`Tel. 212.355.9500 • Fax 212.355.9592
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00290-RSL Document 706 Filed 10/03/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`strength and weaknesses of their respective cases in order to ‘make an informed decision about
`settlement”) (citing In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 2000)).
`Further, there is no evidence of fraud or collusion in arriving at resolution. Only after
`pertinent discovery and the meaningful exchange of information did the parties participate in
`mediation; subsequent negotiations were protracted, as described above and in the accompanying
`declarations of counsel. Plaintiffs continued to litigate against L&K after most other defendants
`settled, and have shown their willingness to continue with highly contested litigation with the
`two remaining defendants.
`
`C.
`The Relief for the Class is Substantial.
`Next, Rule 23(e)(2)(C) asks whether the relief provided for the class is “adequate,” taking
`into account: “(i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any
`proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-
`member claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of
`payment; and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`23(e)(2)(C). Here, the proposed settlement provides significant monetary relief and important
`injunctive relief to the Class.
`1.
`The settlement relief outweighs the costs, risks, and delay of trial and
`appeal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`The settlement provides significant monetary