thomas g. jarrard the law office of thomas g. jarrard, pllc€¦ · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Thomas G. Jarrard
The Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard, PLLC
1020 N. Washington
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (425) 239-7290
Email: [email protected]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Jade Wilcox, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Swapp Law, PLLC, d/b/a Craig
Swapp and Associates, and James
Craig Swapp, individually,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-275-RMP
Related to Case No. 2:17-cv-122-
RMP
PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
11/25/2019
With Oral Argument: 1:30 p.m.
920 West Riverside Ave., Rm. 901
Spokane, Washington
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2231 Page 1 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ............................................................... 2
I. History and Status of the Case ........................................................... 3
A. Statement of Facts ..................................................................... 3
B. The Claim and Relief Requested ............................................. 5
C. Procedural History .................................................................... 6
II. Terms of the Settlement ...................................................................... 8
III. The Proposed Settlement Merits Preliminary Approval ..............10
A. The Settlement is a Result of Serious, Informed, and Non-
Collusive Negotiations ............................................................12
B. The Settlement Provides Significant Benefits to the Class
and is Well Within the Range of Reasonableness ................14
C. The Settlement has No Obvious Deficiencies .......................18
IV. The Notices and Plan of Notice Should be Approved ....................22
V. The Court Should Establish Dates for Effectuating Final
Approval of the Settlement ...............................................................25
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................25
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2232 Page 2 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Anderson-Butler v. Charming Charlie Inc.,
No. 14 CV 1921, 2015 WL 4599420 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2015) ........................ 21
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,
654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 19
Burnett v. W. Customer Mgmt. Grp., LLC,
No. 10 CV 56, 2011 WL 13290339 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2011) ................ 14, 23
Carideo v. Dell Inc.,
No. 06 CV 1772, 2010 WL 11530601 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13,
2010) ................................................................................................................... 12
De La O v. Arnold-Williams,
No. 04 CV 192, 2008 WL 11426817 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 12, 2008) ................... 24
Dennings v. Clearwire Corp.,
No. 10 CV 1859, 2013 WL 1858797 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2013),
aff'd No. 13-35491 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2013) ........................................................ 20
Dunakin v. Quigley,
No. 14 CV 567, 2017 WL 123011 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2017) ........................ 12
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,
417 U.S. 156 (1974) ............................................................................................ 24
Fresco v. Auto. Directions, Inc.,
No. 03 CV 61063, 2009 WL 9054828 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2009) ................. 16, 20
Gabriel v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co.,
No. 09 CV 508, 2010 WL 11684279 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2010) ............. 11, 14
Hall v. L-3 Commc'ns Corp.,
No. 15 CV 231, 2019 WL 3845462 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 25, 2019) ................. 11, 15
Hesse v. Sprint Corp.,
598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 18
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2233 Page 3 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - iv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Logan v. Hargraves,
No. 04 CV 214, 2008 WL 11425713 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 25, 2008) ................... 22
Maracich v. Spears,
570 U.S. 48 (2013) ................................................................................................ 5
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cnty. of S.F.,
688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) .............................................................................. 10
Peters v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.,
966 F.2d 1483 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 24
Rinky Dink, Inc. v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC,
No. 14 CV 268, 2016 WL 4052588 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2016) ........... 12, 14, 16
Roberts v. Source for Pub. Data, LP,
No. 08 CV 4167, 2010 WL 2195523 (W.D. Mo. May 28, 2010) ...................... 17
Rosas v. Sarbanand Farms, LLC,
No. 18 CV 112, 2019 WL 859225 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2019) ................. 23, 24
Scott v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n,
No. 11 CV 1422, 2013 WL 12251170 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2013) .............. 11, 19
Smith v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC,
No. 11 CV 5054, 2012 WL 12863173 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2012) ................ 10
Taylor v. City of Amboy,
No. 14 CV 722, 2017 WL 4075163 (D. Minn. Sept. 14, 2017) ......................... 20
Util. Reform Project v. Bonneville Power Admin.,
869 F.2d 437 (9th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................. 10
Vinh Nguyen v. Radient Pharm. Corp.,
No. 11 CV 406, 2014 WL 1802293 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) ........................... 22
Wilcox v. Bastiste,
No.17 CV 122, 2017 WL 2525309 (E.D. Wash. June 9, 2017) ........................... 4
Wiles v. Sw. Bill Tel. Co.,
No. 09 CV 4236, 2011 WL 2416291 (W.D. Mo. June 9, 2011) ........................ 15
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2234 Page 4 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - v
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,
No. 14 CV 175, 2019 WL 1966112 (E.D. Wash. May 2, 2019) ........................ 12
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 2721 ........................................................................................................ 5
18 U.S.C. § 2721(b) ............................................................................................... 5, 6
18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(4)............................................................................................... 5
18 U.S.C. § 2722(a) ............................................................................................... 5, 6
18 U.S.C. § 2724(b) ........................................................................................... 16, 20
18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(1)............................................................................................... 6
18 U.S.C. § 2725 ........................................................................................................ 5
Other Authorities
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .............................................................................................. 6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ........................................................................................... 1, 24, 25
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) ........................................................................................ 1, 24
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ................................................................................ 23, 24
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(3) ............................................................................................ 23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d) .................................................................................................. 1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)................................................................................... 1, 2, 10, 22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) .................................................................................. 1, 24
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) ............................................................................................. 8, 16
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) .............................................................................................. 6
Manual for Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2004) ............................................ 11, 23, 24
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2235 Page 5 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
William B. Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions § 13:10 (5th
ed. 2013) ............................................................................................................. 19
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2236 Page 6 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - vii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Declaration of R. Joseph Barton with the following attachments:
Exhibit A Settlement Agreement;
Exhibit B Proposed Class Notice; and
Exhibit C Plan of Allocation.
Declaration of Colin M. Downes with the following attachments:
Exhibit A Proposal for Settlement Administration Services Submitted by
Angeion Group; and
Exhibit B Proposal for Settlement Administration Services Submitted by
RG/2 Claims Administration.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2237 Page 7 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Plaintiff Jade Wilcox moves this Court to enter an order under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff
and Defendants (attached as Exhibit A) as fair, reasonable, and adequate under
Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. Approving the proposed Class Settlement Notice (attached as Exhibit
B) as to form and content and the plan for dissemination of notice to the Class as
satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2) and (e)(1) and appointing the
Settlement Administrator;
3. Approving the proposed Plan of Allocation; and
4. Setting dates and deadlines under Rule 23(d) and (e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure in order for the Court to evaluate whether the settlement
should be given final approval (after distribution of the proposed class notices to
the Class and submission of any objections to or requests for exclusion from the
settlement, and for a fairness hearing on final approval of the settlement), to
evaluate Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and
reimbursement of costs and expenses and Plaintiff’s request for a service award as
follows:
Deadline for Settlement Administrator
to provide notice to the Class
30 days after the Preliminary Approval
Date
Deadline for Class Counsel to file 14 days before deadline for date for
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2238 Page 8 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
motion for award of attorneys’ fees and
costs for Service Award for Class
Representative
objections or exclusions
Last day for requests for exclusion
from the Class to be submitted by Class
Members
90 days after the Preliminary Approval
Date
Last day for Class Members to file
objections to the Settlement
90 days after the Preliminary Approval
Date
Last day for Class Counsel to file
Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement
105 days after the Preliminary
Approval Date
Hearing on motion for final approval of
settlement and application for
attorneys’ fees and costs
At least 120 days after the Preliminary
Approval Date
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Plaintiff Jade Wilcox respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of
her motion to preliminarily approve the proposed Class Action Settlement with
Defendants pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to
approve the proposed notice to the Class, and to set various dates related to the
approval of the Settlement.
Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants have agreed, to (1) pay $2 million,
(2) cease making use of the personal information of the Class, (3) destroy any
records containing personal information of the Class obtained from police traffic
collision reports (“PCTRs”), (4) cease purchasing police traffic collision reports in
or from the state of Washington for the purpose of acquiring contact information
for potential clients, (5) identify any third parties to whom they provided any
records containing the personal information of Class Members, and (6) advise any
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2239 Page 9 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
such third parties that Plaintiff and the Class consider those records to contain
information protected by the DPPA. Given the uncertainty of establishing both
liability and damages, the risk on appeal, and uncertainty regarding the ability of
Defendants to satisfy a judgment reached at trial, the Settlement should be
preliminarily approved by the Court.
I. History and Status of the Case
A. Statement of Facts
In the State of Washington, law enforcement officers use standard PTCRs to
document vehicle accidents. ECF No. 62-2 at 8:9-16; ECF No. 61-2 at 23:5-8. In
collecting information for the PTCR, officers are trained to and do ask drivers for
their licenses, registrations, and insurance information and then ask if the
information on the registration and drivers’ licenses is current. ECF No. 61-3 at
13:15-21; ECF No. 61-4 at 41:2-9; Declaration of Pete Cozzitorto ¶ 3, Wilcox v.
Batiste, No. 17-cv-00122-RMP (E.D. Wash.). If the information is current, officers
scan the barcode on a license or registration and if the barcode is scannable, a
software application—SECTOR—auto-populates the PTCR with information from
those documents, including the names and addresses of the driver. ECF No. 61-3 at
13:13-25; ECF No. 61-4 at 42:18-43:8; Declaration of Pete Cozzitorto ¶ 4, Wilcox
v. Batiste, No. 17-cv-00122-RMP (E.D. Wash.). If the barcode is not scannable,
officers manually enter the information from the license or registration (whichever
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2240 Page 10 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
is current). ECF No. 61-8 at 17-18.
Once officers complete their PTCRs, SECTOR transmits the PTCRs to the
Department of Transportation and to the Washington State Patrol (“WSP”). ECF
No. 61-3 at 37:9-38:2; ECF No. 62-2 at 13:13-17. WSP’s Collision Records
Section maintains all PTCRs for the State of Washington, regardless of whether
they were prepared by WSP troopers, or local law enforcement. ECF No. 62-2 at
8:9-16. At least prior to June 9, 2017, the WSP routinely sold PTCRs – containing
drivers’ names and addresses – to anyone who wished to buy them through the
WSP website. ECF No. 62-2 at 25:21-26:22; see Wilcox v. Bastiste, No.17 CV 122,
2017 WL 2525309 at *4 (E.D. Wash. June 9, 2017).
Defendants, a personal injury attorney and his law firm, purchased 10,555
PTCRs between September 1, 2017 and June 23, 2017, of which 8,835 involved
individuals who were not then – and never became – clients of Swapp Law. ECF
No. 61-7 at Nos. 2(a), (b) and (c). Two of these PCTRs contained the personal
information of Plaintiff, who was involved in car accidents in 2015 and 2016. After
her 2016 accident, Ms. Wilcox received a letter from Defendants that offered their
legal services and stated they learned “from Washington public records” that she
was “involved in a serious accident on July 9.” ECF No. 62-1 at 1. The letter also
enclosed a booklet advertising Defendants’ firm. Id. Ms. Wilcox considered the
way “they got my address” to be “an invasion of [her] privacy.” ECF No. 62-3 at
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2241 Page 11 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
94:19-24.
B. The Claim and Relief Requested
The Complaint alleges a single claim under the Driver’s Privacy Protection
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, et seq. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6.1-6.11. The DPPA makes it
“unlawful for any person knowingly to obtain or disclose personal information,
from a motor vehicle record, for any use not permitted under Section 2721(b)” of
the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2722(a). The DPPA defines personal information to mean
“information that identifies an individual, including an individual's photograph,
social security number, driver identification number, name, [and] address….”18
U.S.C. § 2725. A “motor vehicle record” is defined as “any record that pertains to
a motor vehicle operator’s permit, motor vehicle title, motor vehicle registration, or
identification card issued by a department of motor vehicles.” Id. Because PTCRs
contain information identifying individuals, including names and addresses, and
this information is from the motor vehicle records used by police to prepare
PTCRs, the PTCRs obtained by Defendants contained personal information of
Class Members under the DPPA. The marketing of legal services is not a
“permissible use” of personal information under the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b);
see Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48, 61, (2013) (holding bulk attorney solicitation
of clients not a proper purpose under 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(4)). Thus, Defendants
undisputedly had no permissible purpose, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2242 Page 12 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2722(a) or § 2721(b), to obtain the personal information of Plaintiff or the Class.
The Complaint requested relief on behalf of Plaintiff and a Class of other
drivers whose personal information was illegally obtained or used by Defendants
consisting of declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at preventing and restraining
Defendants’ practice of illegally obtaining PCTRs, an injunction preventing and
restraining Defendants from disclosing or using the DPPA-protected information in
their possession, an injunction requiring Defendants to destroy such information,
an injunction requiring Defendants to identify under oath how and to who such
information was disclosed, and monetary damages in the amount of the statutorily
provided liquidated damages of $2500 for each violation of the DPPA under 18
U.S.C. 2724(b)(1). Am Compl. at Prayer for Relief ¶¶ A-I.
C. Procedural History
The original complaint was filed on August 9, 2017. ECF No. 1. Defendants
responded by filing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, which the Court denied, ECF No. 21. Defendants then
answered the Complaint and asserted 14 defenses. ECF No. 22. Class Counsel
issued 24 interrogatories and 33 documents requests to Defendants, and reviewed
thousands of pages produced by Defendants and non-parties in discovery. Barton
Decl. ¶ 3. Class Counsel took depositions under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Washington
Department of Licensing, the Washington State Patrol, the Washington State
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2243 Page 13 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Criminal Justice Training Commission, and the Spokane Police Department.
Barton Decl. ¶ 5. Class Counsel also defended Defendants’ deposition of Plaintiff.
Id. Class Counsel filed two motions to compel seeking responses to interrogatories,
which were granted in part. Barton Decl. ¶ 3; ECF Nos. 65 & 79. Class Counsel
also successfully opposed Defendants motion to compel discovery from one of
Plaintiffs’ counsel. Barton Decl. ¶ 4; ECF Nos. 75, 84, 106.
Based on information obtained in discovery, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint that added to the factual allegations, but did not add any new legal
claim. ECF No. 69. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which
the Court denied. ECF Nos. 80, 108. After extensive discovery, Plaintiff moved for
Class Certification of the Class, which the Court granted. ECF Nos. 61 & 109. The
Class certified by the Court is defined as:
All drivers identified in Police Traffic Collision Reports whose
Personal Information, as defined by the DPPA, was derived from a
Department of Licensing record (e.g. license, registration or database)
and the Report was obtained or used by the Swapp Law Firm (d/b/a
Craig Swapp & Associates) or Mr. Swapp from the Washington State
Patrol between September 1, 2013 and June 23, 2017.
Excluded from the Class are (a) current and former clients of
Defendants; (b) individuals identified on the same PTCRs as
Defendants’ clients; (c) individuals who provided written consent to
Defendants for the disclosure of their Personal Information (as defined
by the DPPA) prior to Defendants obtaining their personal information;
(d) employees (and attorneys) of Defendants and members of their
immediate families; and (e) the presiding judge and anyone working in
the presiding judge’s chambers and the members of their families.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2244 Page 14 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Id. at 30. Defendants subsequently filed motions to reconsider class certification, to
certify the order on the Second Motion to Dismiss for interlocutory review, and
announced the intention to seek interlocutory review of class certification by the
Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f), ECF No. 113, 115 at 3 n.1.
At the request of the parties, the case was stayed and referred to Hon. Lonny
Suko for mediation. ECF No. 117. Before mediation, Class Counsel requested,
obtained and reviewed a significant amount of financial materials from Defendants
in order to evaluate Defendants’ ability to satisfy a potential judgment in this case.
Barton Decl. ¶ 7. As part of the review of those materials, Class Counsel hired an
economist to assist them in reviewing and understanding Defendants’ financial
information. Id.. The Parties exchanged pre-mediation settlement offers and then
attended an in-person mediation session on May 23, 2019 with Senior Judge Lonny
Suko. Id. ¶ 9. An agreement in principle was reached only at the end of the all-day
mediation session. Id. The parties then entered into the formal Settlement
Agreement.
II. Terms of the Settlement
The terms of the proposed settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants
provide both a monetary and non-monetary consideration. Agmt. §§ 4, 6. Under
the Settlement, effective as of the execution of the Settlement Agreement,
Defendants agree that they will refrain from purchasing PTCRs in or from the State
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2245 Page 15 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
of Washington for the purpose of acquiring contact information for potential
clients and sending marketing materials to them. Id. § 6.1. Defendants also agree
that they will cease using any such PTCRs for those purposes, and will, within 120
days after the final distribution to the Class Members, destroy all such PTCRs and
personal information taken from them. Id. § 6.3-4. Defendants also agreed to notify
Class Counsel of any third parties to whom Defendants have provided such PTCRs
(or personal information from the PTCRs), and will notify such third parties that
Plaintiff and the Class consider those records to contain information protected by
the DPPA. Id. § 6.5-6
In addition to this non-monetary consideration, Defendants have agreed to
pay the following amounts: (1) $950,000 into a Settlement Fund, which minus only
settlement administration expenses, will be paid to the Class (and which will be
fully funded by no later than June 1, 2020); and (2) between $900,000 and $1.05
million (depending on whether the amount is paid by December 1, 2020 or paid
over three years), out of which any award of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses
and class representative service award, and if there are any remaining amounts, the
remainder will be paid to the Settlement Fund.
The Net Settlement Fund will be paid to the Class Members pursuant to a
Plan of Allocation that proposes that Settlement Fund will be evenly divided
among all Class Members and that Class Members will receive a payment without
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2246 Page 16 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
needing to complete a claim form. The benefit of being able to distribute the
Settlement Funds to Class Members is that it should greatly increase the number of
persons who actually benefit from the Settlement.
In exchange for these benefits, the Class will release and dismiss with
prejudice all claims arising out of Defendants’ acquisition and use of PCTRs that
Defendants have identified as involving Class Members and will dismiss with
prejudice their claims asserted in this action. Defendants will likewise release
Plaintiff and each Class Member from all claims that could have been asserted in
this case, including any claims for attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, or sanctions,
that relate to the filing, commencement, prosecution, or settlement of this case.
III. The Proposed Settlement Merits Preliminary Approval
As a matter of public policy, settlement is a strongly favored method for
resolving disputes. Util. Reform Project v. Bonneville Power Admin., 869 F.2d
437, 443 (9th Cir. 1989). This is especially true in class actions. Officers for
Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cnty. of S.F., 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir.
1982); Smith v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, No. 11 CV 5054, 2012 WL
12863173, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2012) (“Strong judicial policy favors
settlements, particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned.”). To
protect the interests of the class, Rule 23(e) provides that a class action cannot be
settled without court approval. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). “At this stage of the
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2247 Page 17 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
proceedings, the Court must initially consider whether to grant preliminary
approval of the settlement as a first step toward final approval.” Hall v. L-3
Commc'ns Corp., No. 15 CV 231, 2019 WL 3845462, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 25,
2019).
The request for preliminary approval only requires an “initial evaluation” of
the fairness of the proposed settlement. Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.632
(4th ed. 2004). The purpose of preliminary approval is to determine “whether to
direct notice of the proposed settlement to the class, invite the class’s reaction, and
schedule a fairness hearing.” William B. Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class
Actions § 13:10 (5th ed. 2013). Because the approval is only preliminary, courts
generally undertake a limited review of the proposed settlement. Id. “The general
rule is that a court will grant preliminary approval where the proposed settlement is
neither illegal nor collusive and is within the range of possible approval.” Id. “In
granting preliminary approval, the Court considers whether the Settlement
Agreement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive
negotiations; has no obvious deficiencies; does not grant preferential treatment to
class representatives, and falls within the range of possible approval.” Hall, 2019
WL 3845462, at *3; Scott v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, No. 11 CV 1422, 2013 WL
12251170, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2013) (same); Gabriel v. Nationwide Life Ins.
Co., No. 09 CV 508, 2010 WL 11684279, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2010)
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2248 Page 18 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(same). The Settlement readily satisfies the requirements for preliminary approval.
A. The Settlement is a Result of Serious, Informed, and Non-
Collusive Negotiations
“A presumption of fairness and adequacy attaches to a class action
settlement reached in arm’s-length negotiations by experienced class counsel after
meaningful discovery.” Dunakin v. Quigley, No. 14 CV 567, 2017 WL 123011, at
*2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2017). The fact that experienced counsel has been
actively engaged in the litigation and has diligently pursued the necessary
discovery evidences the non-collusive nature of the settlement. Rinky Dink, Inc. v.
World Bus. Lenders, LLC, No. 14 CV 268, 2016 WL 4052588, at *5 (W.D. Wash.
Feb. 3, 2016) (“The presence of substantial formal discovery is an indicator that
the parties were informed regarding the wisdom of settlement and engaged in
arms-length bargaining.”). The assistance of a neutral mediator in the settlement
negotiations further evidences the non-collusive nature of the negotiations. Zamora
Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 14 CV 175, 2019 WL 1966112, at *3 (E.D.
Wash. May 2, 2019) (finding no collusion where “the Settlement Agreement was
achieved under the supervision of a trusted third-party mediator following
extensive settlement negotiations”); Carideo v. Dell Inc., No. 06 CV 1772, 2010
WL 11530601, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2010) (“The assistance of an
experienced mediator … confirms that the settlement is non-collusive.”).
In this case, a settlement was not reached until Plaintiff’s counsel had
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2249 Page 19 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
conducted substantial discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel did not only seek, obtain, and
review thousands of pages of documents and answers to interrogatories, but also
met and conferred with Defendants on numerous discovery matters and, ultimately,
twice moved to compel Defendants to provide futher responses to interrogatories.
Barton Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff’s counsel also took the depositions of the Washington
Department of Licensing, the Washington State Patrol, the Washington State
Criminal Justice Training Commission, and the Spokane Police Department, and
defended the deposition of Ms. Wilcox. Barton Decl. ¶ 5.
The terms of the Settlement resulted from hard-fought negotiations. Id. ¶¶ 6-
13. The Parties negotiated the principal terms of the agreement in an in-person
mediation facilitated by Senior Judge Hon. Lonny Suko on May 23, 2019, in
Yakima, Washington. Id. ¶ 9. The Parties reached the principal terms of the
Settlement only after Plaintiff had received and reviewed documents produced by
Defendants regarding their financial circumstances and ability to satisfy a potential
judgment in this case. Barton Decl. ¶ 7. After reaching the principal terms of the
Settlement at the May 23 session, Plaintiff and Defendants spent additional time
crafting the detailed terms of a formal agreement and finalizing them in the
Settlement Agreement. Barton Decl. ¶ 11.
The opinion of experienced class action attorneys is to be considered on
preliminary approval. See Burnett v. W. Customer Mgmt. Grp., LLC, No. 10 CV
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2250 Page 20 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
56, 2011 WL 13290339, at *6 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2011). As previously
demonstrated on their Motion for Class Certification, Class Counsel are
experienced in class action litigation. Pl.’s Mot. for Class Cert. (ECF No. 61).
Class Counsel believe that the proposed Settlement is a very good result and that
they received sufficient discovery to reach that conclusion. Barton Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 12.
Accordingly, as a product of extensive negotiations aided by a neutral
professional mediator and conducted by informed and experienced counsel over 26
months of hard-fought litigation, the Settlement Agreement is the product of
informed, vigorous, arms-length bargaining.
B. The Settlement Provides Significant Benefits to the Class and
is Well Within the Range of Reasonableness
While the Court’s ultimate assessment of whether the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate depends on many factors, at preliminary approval,
the Court must only be satisfied that the settlement “falls within the range of
possible approval” and has no “obvious deficiencies.” Gabriel v. Nationwide Life
Ins. Co., No. 09 CV 508, 2010 WL 11684279, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2010)
(emphasis added); Rinky Dink, Inc. v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC, No. 14 CV 268,
2016 WL 4052588, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2016) (“[A]t this preliminary
approval stage, the Court conducts a less searching inquiry of each factor and only
requires that the proposed settlement be within the range of final approval”). “To
determine whether a settlement amount falls within the range of reasonableness,
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2251 Page 21 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
courts primarily consider plaintiffs' expected recovery balanced against the value
of the settlement offer.” Hall, 2019 WL 3845462, at *4 (citations and quotation
marks removed). Here, the Settlement Agreement will provide for at least
$950,000 to be paid into a Settlement Fund for the benefit of the Class, which
results in at least a per Class Member value of $ 29.41 (before settlement
administration expenses) and $26.34 (after payment of estimated settlement
administration expenses).1 Agmt. § 4.1. The total amount is in line with class
settlements approved in DPPA cases by other courts. E.g. Wiles v. Sw. Bill Tel.
Co., No. 09 CV 4236, 2011 WL 2416291, at *1 (W.D. Mo. June 9, 2011) (finding
a $900,000 settlement reasonable for a class of all drivers licensed in Missouri).
Particularly in light of the other factors, this Settlement is a very good result for the
Class.
First, the expense, risk, and length of continued proceedings necessary to
prosecute the litigation against Defendants through trial and appeals, including the
risk that the claim might fail on a motion for summary judgment, following a trial
on the merits, or on appeal, weighs in favor of settlement. Defendants filed
1 Defendants purchased 10,555 PTCRs between September 1, 2017 and June 23,
2017, of which 8,835 involved individuals who were not then – and never became
– clients of Swapp Law. ECF No. 61-7 at Nos. 2(a), (b) and (c). After reviewing
the data, eliminating duplicates, eliminating persons excluded from the Class,
Class Counsel estimates the Class to consist of approximately 32,300 individuals.
Barton Decl. ¶13. An express condition of the Settlement is that Defendants
purchased no more than 9,000 PCTRs during the Class Period. Agrmt. § 14.2.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2252 Page 22 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
motions for reconsideration and interlocutory appeal of this Court’s order
certifying the Class, and stated the intention to pursue a petition to the Ninth
Circuit for review of the same under Rule 23(f). ECF No. 113, 115 at 3 n.1.
Second, the uncertainty introduced by the remedial provisions of the DPPA
weighs in favor of settlement. The DPPA provides that “[t]he court may award—
(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500;
(2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law; (3)
reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and (4)
such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be
appropriate.” 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b). Some courts have taken the position that relief
is awarded “at the discretion of the district court,” and “statutory damages are not
mandatory recovery in a DPPA case.” Fresco v. Auto. Directions, Inc., No. 03 CV
61063, 2009 WL 9054828, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2009) (holding proposed
DPPA settlement within range of potential recovery). In that case, the Class may
receive far less than the $25 million and the jury may award far less than $25
million or perhaps nothing at all.
Third, there is a substantial risk that even if the Class obtained a judgment
against Defendants, Defendants would not be able to satisfy the judgment. Barton
Decl. ¶ 8. In Rinky Dink, Inc. v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC, No. 14 CV 268, 2016
WL 4052588 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2016), the court recognized that prior to seeking
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2253 Page 23 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
preliminary approval, class counsel had reviewed detailed financial documents
establishing that defendants “d[id] not have the ability to pay a larger settlement,”
and held that “[t]his factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval.” Id. at *4.
Here, Defendants produced a substantial volume of financial records to allow Class
counsel to assess the financial position of the Defendants and their ability to satisfy
a judgment. Barton Decl. ¶ 7. Based on those records, Defendants do not have the
capacity to pay anything more than a fraction of the judgement. Id. ¶ 8. A
judgment of full damages for the Class would likely bankrupt Defendants and
require liquidation of the Defendants’ assets in court proceedings (further depleting
the funds available to satisfy the judgment and placing the Class in the position of
junior, unsecured creditors). Id.
Additionally, non-monetary relief in the form of changes to business
practices and the removal of protected information from the possession of
Defendants accomplishes the privacy purposes of the DPPA. See Roberts v. Source
for Pub. Data, LP, No. 08 CV 4167, 2010 WL 2195523, at *3 (W.D. Mo. May 28,
2010) (holding return and removal of DPPA-protected information alone, even
with no monetary component, constituted reasonable and satisfactory terms of
settlement). Under the terms of the Settlement, Defendants will be required to
destroy the PTCRs or other records in their possession containing the personal
information of Class Members and to cease and refrain from using that personal
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2254 Page 24 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
information for any purpose. Agmt. § 6.2-4. Defendants are also required to notify
third parties to whom they have transmitted the personal information of Class
Members that the Class consider that information protected by the DPPA. Agmt. §
6.6. And Defendants will no longer purchase PCTRs in or from the State of
Washington for the purpose of soliciting clients. Agmt. § 6.1. Accordingly, both
the monetary and the non-monetary component of the Settlement are well within
the range of reasonableness.
The scope of the releases in a proposed settlement is acceptable where the
claims released are limited to those based upon the facts set forth in the complaint.
Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A settlement agreement
may preclude a party from bringing a related claim in the future even though the
claim was not presented and might not have been presentable in the class action,
but only where the released claim is based on the identical factual predicate as that
underlying the claims in the settled class action”). Here, the Settlement only
releases claims based on allegations in the Amended Complaint. Agmt. § 12.2.
C. The Settlement has No Obvious Deficiencies
The final factor considered on preliminary approval is whether the
agreement has any obvious deficiencies, such as “unduly preferential treatment of
class representatives or of segments of the class, or excessive compensation of
attorneys.” Scott v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, No. 11 CV 1422, 2013 WL
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2255 Page 25 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
12251170, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2013); Newberg on Class Actions § 11:25
(4th ed. 2010). The Ninth Circuit has advised courts to be concerned (a) “when
counsel receive a disproportionate distribution of the settlement, or when the class
receives no monetary distribution but class counsel are amply rewarded”; (b)
“when the parties negotiate a ‘clear sailing’ arrangement providing for the payment
of attorneys' fees separate and apart from class funds, which carries ‘the potential
of enabling a defendant to pay class counsel excessive fees and costs in exchange
for counsel accepting an unfair settlement on behalf of the class’”; and (c) “when
the parties arrange for fees not awarded to revert to defendants rather than be
added to the class fund.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935,
947 (9th Cir. 2011). Such signs do not necessarily mean that a settlement is
improper, but only that it is supported by an explanation of why the fee is justified
and does not betray the class's interests. Id. at 949.
With respect to the first potential area of concern, the Class is to receive a
monetary distribution and counsel’s distribution will not be disproportionate. The
Settlement Agreement provides for the prompt payment of equal amounts to Class
Members out of an $950,000 Settlement Fund. Agmt. § 4.1. In light of the limits of
Defendants financial capacities, it was necessary in order to reach Settlement for
the monetary component of the Settlement to be paid over time. Barton Decl. ¶ 10.
The structure of the Settlement requires payment to the Class before Class Counsel
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2256 Page 26 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
will be paid. Compare Agmnt §§ 4.1, 10.3. Class Counsel agreed to allow fee and
expense amounts paid over time in order to accomplish the settlement and
negotiated the terms of fees and expenses only after agreement had been reached
on the underlying settlement for the Class. Barton Decl. ¶ 10. Class Counsel will
also only seek attorneys’ fees calculated under the lodestar method. Id. Plaintiff
would have been entitled to attorneys’ fees and expenses as a remedy if Plaintiff
prevailed at trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b) (“The Court may award… reasonable
attorneys fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred….”); Taylor v. City of
Amboy, No. 14 CV 722, 2017 WL 4075163, at *1 (D. Minn. Sept. 14, 2017)
(applying lodestar method to award attorneys fees in DPPA case); Fresco, 2009
WL 9054828, at *8 (same).
While the Settlement Agreement does provide for payment of attorneys’ fees
separate from class funds, this structure is appropriate in this case and does not
raise concerns that Plaintiff’s counsel is accepting an unfair settlement on behalf of
the class. Paying the Class from the Settlement Fund and paying Plaintiff’s counsel
from the later payments ensures both that the Class will be promptly paid and that
Class Counsel—not the Class—will bear the default risk for these later payments
by Defendants. In Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. 10 CV 1859, 2013 WL
1858797, at *9 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2013), aff'd No. 13-35491 (9th Cir. Sept. 9,
2013), the court held that there was no evidence of collusion despite the existence
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2257 Page 27 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
of a “clear sailing” provision. Id. at 8. Specifically, the Court noted that the
negotiations had been conducted at arm’s length with the assistance of a mediator,
as here. Id. And the Court also held that where the “clear sailing” feature provides
any amounts not awarded will revert to the Class that there is no indication of
collusion. Id. at 9. Here the settlement likewise provides that any amount of these
later payments by Defendants that the Court does not award as attorneys fees will
revert to the Settlement Fund. Agmt § 4.2.
At this point, the question is merely whether the agreement is preliminarily
fair. In Anderson-Butler v. Charming Charlie Inc., No. 14 CV 1921, 2015 WL
4599420 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2015), proposed class settlement allowed plaintiff’s
counsel to apply for a fee award to be paid by the defendant separate and apart
from the recovery of the class, which defendant had agreed not to oppose. Id. at *2.
The court preliminarily approved the settlement, and declined to “evaluate the fee
award at length” in “considering whether the settlement is adequate,” because “[i]f
the court, in ruling on the fees motion, finds that the amount of the settlement
warrants a fee award at a rate lower than what plaintiff’s counsel requested” the
court had the power to reduce the award accordingly. Id. at 11. Likewise, here the
specific amounts of attorneys’ fees and any class representative incentive award
can be reserved on this preliminary approval motion to the final approval hearing
and the discretion of the Court.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2258 Page 28 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
No Class Member or group of Class Members will receive unduly favorable
treatment under the terms of the Settlement. The Plan of Allocation proposes that
the Settlement Fund will be equally divided among all Class Members. See Barton
Decl. Ex. C at ¶ 3. “[C]ourts recognize that an allocation formula need only have a
reasonable, rational basis, particularly if recommended by experienced and
competent counsel.” Vinh Nguyen v. Radient Pharm. Corp., No. 11 CV 406, 2014
WL 1802293, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) (internal quotation marks and
modifications omitted). Here the Plan of Allocation has a reasonable basis because
Class Members would each be entitled to seek liquidated damages in the amount of
$2,500 in the event their respective claims succeeded on the merits. While Plaintiff
will be entitled to apply for an incentive award, the amount will be in the discretion
of the Court and will come from the funds marked for application for attorneys’
fees, not the Settlement Fund. Agmt. § 4.2.
IV. The Notices and Plan of Notice Should be Approved
Once the parties obtain preliminary approval of the settlement, Rule 23(e)
requires that the court to direct notice in a reasonable manner to all Class Members
who would be bound by the settlement. Logan v. Hargraves, No. 04 CV 214, 2008
WL 11425713, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 25, 2008). A proper notice should (1)
describe the facts underlying the action and the class, (2) describe the terms of the
settlement, (3) disclose any benefits provided to class representatives, (4) provide
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2259 Page 29 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
information regarding attorney’s fees, (5) state the time and place of the final
hearing, (6) provide counsel’s contact information and instructions on how to
object and/or make inquiries, and (7) explain the procedure for allocation. Manual
for Complex Litigation, supra, § 21.312; see Rosas v. Sarbanand Farms, LLC, No.
18 CV 112, 2019 WL 859225, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2019) (approving notice
that provided such information); Burnett v. W. Customer Mgmt. Grp., LLC, No. 10
CV 56, 2011 WL 13290339, at *4 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2011) (same). Here, the
proposed notice to the Class provides information on all of these subjects and
informs Class Members about their rights under the Settlement as well as their
right to be heard at the final fairness hearing. See Barton Decl. Ex. B at 8.
For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), Rule 23(c)(3) requires that the
notice inform class members of the following: “(i) the nature of the action; (ii) the
definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a
class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so
desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests
exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding
effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2)(B). Here, the proposed notice to the Class meets these requirements. See
Barton Decl. Ex. B at 1, 6-8. Thus the form of the proposed notice to the Class
should be approved.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2260 Page 30 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
“District courts possess broad discretion to shape such notice to comply with
Rule 23.” Rosas, 2019 WL 859225, at *1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B); see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) (requiring “the best notice practicable under the
circumstances”). It is well-established that notice sent by first class mail is
sufficient when the names and addresses of the class members are known. Eisen v.
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173-77 (1974); Peters v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
Corp., 966 F.2d 1483, 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“It is beyond dispute that notice by
first class mail ordinarily satisfies rule 23(c)(2)'s requirement that class members
receive ‘the best notice practicable under the circumstances.’”); see Manual for
Complex Litigation, supra, § 21.311 (explaining that individual notice via mail is
preferred when names and addresses are known). In such circumstances, courts
have authorized notice only by mail. See De La O v. Arnold-Williams, No. 04 CV
192, 2008 WL 11426817, at *5 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 12, 2008). Here, the members of
the Class will receive notice by U.S. Mail. Agmt. § 3.3.2 Thus, these procedures
satisfy due process, meet the requirements of Rule 23, and should be approved.
Publication notice is not necessary in this case, because data identifies the
2 Class Counsel has analyzed data produced by Defendants identifying the
individuals appearing on PTCRs they purchased during the class period. Downes
Decl. ¶ 4. By running searches over this data, Class Counsel has excluded entries
that are duplicative, excluded from the class definition (e.g., business or
government entities rather than individuals), or bear indicia that a driver’s personal
information was not sourced from a motor vehicle record (e.g., an address of
“UNKNOWN”). Downes Decl. ¶ 5.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2261 Page 31 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
names and addresses of Class Members. Due to the nature of this case, many Class
Members are unlikely to know that Defendants possess their personal information,
ECF No. 85 at 27. Not only would publication notice be of minimal value in
alerting potential Class Members, but it would likely increase the costs of
administration and decrease the benefits available to pay Class Members.
Class Counsel has solicited bids for class notice and administration services
through a competitive process. Class Counsel solicited responses to a request for
proposals from six reputable service providers, of which four submitted bids.
Downes Decl. ¶ 2-3. Following extensive discussion with the respondents to ensure
an apples to apples comparison of services, Class Counsel has submitted the two
lowest priced bids for this Court’s consideration. See Downes Decl. ¶ 7 and Exs. A
and B. The Court should appoint either RG/2 Claims Administration or Angeion
Group as the Settlement Administrator under the Settlement Agreement.
V. The Court Should Establish Dates for Effectuating Final Approval
of the Settlement
In order to send out an effective Notice, Plaintiff requests that the Court
establish the dates set forth in Plaintiff’s motion.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion to
preliminarily approve the proposed Settlement, approve the proposed Class notice,
authorize its distribution to the Class, and set dates outlined above.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2262 Page 32 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Dated: October 25, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Thomas G. Jarrard
Thomas G. Jarrard
The Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard, PLLC
1020 N. Washington
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (425) 239-7290
Email: [email protected]
R. Joseph Barton
Block & Leviton LLP
1735 20th Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20009
Telephone: 202-734-7046
Email: [email protected]
Jason Leviton
Block & Leviton LLP
155 Federal Street, Suite 400
Boston MA 02110
Telephone: 617-398-5660
Email: [email protected]
James R. Sweetser
Marcus Sweetser
Sweetser Law Office
1020 N. Washington St.
Spokane WA 99201
Telephone: 509-328-0678
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2263 Page 33 of 34
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 25, 2019 I caused to be filed electronically a
true copy of the foregoing document using the CM/ECF system which effected
service of the same upon all counsel of record.
/s/ Thomas G. Jarrard
Thomas G. Jarrard
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2264 Page 34 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JADE WILCOX, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SWAPP LAW, PLLC, D/B/A
CRAIG SWAPP AND
ASSOCIATES, AND JAMES
CRAIG SWAPP, individually,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-275-RMP
Related to Case No. 2:17-cv-00122-
RMP
DECLARATION OF R. JOSEPH
BARTON IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-1 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2265 Page 1 of 6
Decl. of R. Joseph Barton in Support of Pls’ Unopposed Mo. for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I, R. Joseph Barton, hereby declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of
the United States as follows:
1. I am an attorney and a partner in the law firm of Block & Leviton,
LLP. I am counsel for Plaintiff and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class in this case
(together with Thomas Jarrard, “Class Counsel”). I am an active member of the
bars of the State of California and the District of Columbia. I am admitted pro hac
vice to practice before this Court.
2. At Block & Leviton, I was the partner in charge of supervising this
litigation and had an active role in litigating the case, including taking a number of
the depositions and arguing many of the substantive motions.
3. During discovery Class Counsel issued 24 interrogatories and 33
documents requests to Defendants, reviewed thousands of pages produced by
Defendants and non-parties in discovery, met and conferred with Defendants on
numerous discovery matters, and twice moved to compel Defendants to provide
further responses to interrogatories.
4. During discovery, Defendants’ counsel moved to compel Plaintiff’s
counsel James R. Sweetser to produce attorney client communications and attorney
work product materials directly related to this litigation. Mr. Sweetser responded
through separate counsel and sought a protective order. ECF No. 84. The Court
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-1 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2266 Page 2 of 6
Decl. of R. Joseph Barton in Support of Pls’ Unopposed Mo. for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
held the sought discovery was irrelevant and sought work product, and on that
basis quashed Defendants’ subpoena. ECF No. 106.
5. Class Counsel took four depositions in this litigation: (1) a Rule
30(b)(6) of the Washington Department of Licensing, (2) a Rule 30(b)(6) the
Washington State Patrol (by four different designated witnesses), (3) a Rule
30(b)(6) the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, and (4) a
Rule 30(b)(6) the Spokane Police Department. Class Counsel defended the
deposition of Plaintiff.
6. Originally Plaintiff made an initial offer to settle this case on behalf of
the Class more than a year before the mediation; however, Defendants did not
respond to that offer and expressed no interest in discussing settlement until after
the Court certified the Class.
7. Before mediation, Class Counsel requested, obtained and reviewed a
significant amount of financial materials provided by Defendants in order to
evaluate Defendants’ ability to satisfy a potential judgment in this case. As part of
the review of those materials, Class Counsel hired an economist to assist them in
reviewing and understanding Defendants’ financial information. In addition, Class
Counsel conducted research on their own. After reviewing those materials, Class
Counsel concluded that Defendants probably would not have been able to satisfy a
full judgment of liquidated damages.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-1 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2267 Page 3 of 6
Decl. of R. Joseph Barton in Support of Pls’ Unopposed Mo. for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
8. Based on my review and analysis of the financial materials obtained
from Defendants and the analysis by the economist retained by Class Counsel,
Class Counsel concluded that there was a substantial risk that even if the Class
obtained a judgment against Defendants, Defendants would not be able to satisfy
such a judgment. Indeed, Class Counsel considered the substantially likelihood that
a full judgment for the Class would likely bankrupt Defendants and require
liquidation of the Defendants’ assets in court proceedings and even then
Defendants’ assets would likely satisfy only a fraction of the judgement.
9. Prior to the mediation, the parties to this case exchanged settlement
offers. The Parties and their counsel attended an in-person mediation session on
May 23, 2019 with Senior Judge Lonny Suko. An agreement in principle was
reached only at the end of the all-day mediation session. An agreement to settle the
underlying claims of the Class was reached before negotiating and an agreeing on
an amount available to pay attorneys’ fees and costs.
10. In light of the limits of Defendants financial capacities and likely
cash-flow, it was necessary in order to reach Settlement some portion of the
monetary component of the Settlement to be paid over time. While the Parties
could have structured the settlement to have a portion of the Settlement Fund to be
paid over time, Class Counsel agreed to have the Settlement Fund to be paid to the
Class paid first and agreed to have the amounts used to pay attorneys’ fees and
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-1 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2268 Page 4 of 6
Decl. of R. Joseph Barton in Support of Pls’ Unopposed Mo. for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
expense to be paid over time in order to accomplish the settlement. The amount in
attorneys’ fees and expenses was designed to pay Class Counsel only for the actual
lodestar amount for which Plaintiff would have been entitled to seek as an award
of fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2724(b)(3).
11. Following the in-person mediation session, Class Counsel drafted the
detailed terms of a formal agreement, Defendants’ counsel proposed edits to the
Agreement and Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel finalized the terms in the
Settlement Agreement, which is attached here as Exhibit A.
12. In considering whether to settle these claims on the terms set forth in
the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel considered a number of factors including
the risks and expense of further litigation (including the possibility of an
immediate appeal pursuant to either Rule 1292(b) and/or Rule 23(f), the continued
expense and further delay of further litigation, the likely inability of Defendants to
satisfy a judgment and the risks, expense and delay of collection proceedings. At
the time that this settlement was reached, Class Counsel had engaged in significant
discovery and briefing and had more than a sufficient understanding of
Defendants’ arguments. Based on consideration of these factors, Class Counsel
believe that the proposed Settlement is a very good result for the Class.
13. As part of the discovery obtain in this litigation, Class Counsel
obtained data about the Class from the Washington State Patrol and Defendants.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-1 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2269 Page 5 of 6
Decl. of R. Joseph Barton in Support of Pls’ Unopposed Mo. for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Class Counsel conducted a review and analysis of that data, including the
elimination of duplicates and persons who either did not meet the Class definition
or were explicitly excluded from the Class. Based on that analysis, the members
Class should not exceed 32,000 individuals. That number may be further reduced
after receiving additional information from Defendants identifying other persons
who are excluded from the Class or further analysis of the Class data.
14. Attached as Exhibit B is the proposed Class Notice which has been
approved by Defendants’ counsel.
15. Attached as Exhibit C is the proposed Plan of Allocation.
Executed this 25th day of October, 2019, in Philadelphia, PA.
R. Joseph Barton
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-1 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2270 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit A
34
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2271 Page 1 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JADE WILCOX, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SWAPP LAW, PLLC, D/B/A
CRAIG SWAPP AND
ASSOCIATES, AND JAMES
CRAIG SWAPP, individually,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-275-RMP
Related to Case No. 2:17-cv-00122-
RMP
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
35
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2272 Page 2 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 2
RECITALS ............................................................................................................... 2
1. Definitions. ....................................................................................................... 5
2. Class Certification. ......................................................................................... 9
3. Class Notice ...................................................................................................11
4. Settlement Fund ............................................................................................13
5. Distributions from the Settlement Fund ....................................................16
6. Non-Monetary Settlement Consideration ..................................................17
7. Plan of Allocation..........................................................................................19
8. Settlement Administration ...........................................................................20
9. Approval of the Settlement ..........................................................................25
10. Attorneys Fees, Expenses, and Service Award .......................................29
11. Notice Under Class Action Fairness Act .................................................34
12. Releases. ......................................................................................................34
13. No Admission of Wrongdoing ..................................................................35
14. Conditions of Settlement ...........................................................................36
15. Effect of Disapproval, Cancellation or Termination .............................38
16. Miscellaneous Provisions ..........................................................................40
36
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2273 Page 3 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
INTRODUCTION
Subject to approval by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington, this Agreement is made and entered into by Plaintiff and
Class Representative Jade Wilcox, on behalf of herself and the Class, and
Defendants James Craig Swapp, and Swapp Law, PLLC, d/b/a Craig Swapp and
Associates, a Utah Professional Limited Liability Company to settle claims against
Defendants subject to the terms and conditions below.
RECITALS
A. On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint as a putative class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, docketed as
Case No. 2:17-CV-275-RMP in the Eastern District of Washington (the “Action”),
alleging that Defendants purchased police traffic collision reports (“PTCRs”) from
the Washington State Patrol containing personal information protected by the
Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721 (the “DPPA”), and that
Defendants obtained and used personal information in the PTCRs to send Plaintiff
and the Class marketing materials in violation of the DPPA.
B. Defendants initially responded to Plaintiff’s Complaint by filing a
Motion to Dismiss on October 20, 2017, which the Court denied by Order dated
December 21, 2017. After Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was denied, Defendants
filed an Answer to the Complaint.
37
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2274 Page 4 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
C. During the course of the litigation, Plaintiff served written discovery
on Defendants and document subpoenas on third parties and reviewed thousands of
pages of documents produced in the course of discovery in the Action.
D. During the course of the litigation, Plaintiff took the depositions of
representatives of the Washington State Patrol, the Washington Department of
Licensing, the Spokane Police Department, and the Washington State Criminal
Justice Training Commission in the course of discovery in the Action.
E. On August 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification
(DKT), which the Court granted by Order dated January 25, 2019 (Dkt. 109).
F. On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 69)
based on information learned through the course of discovery.
G. On September 12, 2018, Defendants responded to the Amended
Complaint with a Second Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 80), which the Court denied by
Order dated January 24, 2019 (Dkt. 109).
H. Prior to mediation and as part of settlement negotiations, Defendants
provided Class Counsel with confidential information and significant amounts of
documentation regarding Defendants financial position. Defendants provided that
information to Class Counsel with the intent that Class Counsel would rely upon
the financial information in formulating settlement offers, evaluating and
negotiation a settlement of this Action. Class Counsel represents that they did rely
38
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2275 Page 5 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
on the financial information and documents provided by Defendants about
Defendants’ financial position in providing advice to Plaintiff as to whether to
settle this case, in making recommendations concerning settlement offers, in
evaluating the benefits of a settlement versus continued litigation, in negotiating a
settlement, and in recommending the settlement and Plaintiff relied on that
information in deciding to agree to this Settlement.
I. Plaintiff along with Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defendants along
with Defendants’ Counsel participated in and conducted arms-length negotiations
at a mediation session with Hon. Lonny R. Suko on May 23, 2019 and reached an
oral agreement in principle on this Settlement that same day.
J. As of the date of the signing of this Agreement, Class Counsel is not
aware of any information suggesting that the data provided by Defendants in
discovery regarding the members of the Class or the information regarding
Defendants financial position were materially inaccurate.
K. As of the date of the signing of this Agreement, Defendants and
Defendants’ Counsel is not aware of any information suggesting that the data
provided by Defendants in discovery regarding the members of the Class or the
information regarding Defendants financial position were materially inaccurate.
L. As a result of the factual investigation and legal research conducted
by Class Counsel concerning the claims asserted in the Action and discovery, Class
39
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2276 Page 6 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Counsel have concluded that terms of this Settlement are fair, reasonable, adequate
and in the best interests of the Class.
M. Each of the undersigned counsel have informed their respective
clients of and each of the parties are fully informed of the provisions set forth
below.
N. The parties want to promptly and fully resolve and settle all claims on
the terms of this agreement, subject to the approval of the Court.
The Parties therefore agree as follows:
1. Definitions.
1.1 “Agreement in Principle” means the verbal agreement reached
by Plaintiff on behalf of the Class with Defendants on May 23, 2019.
1.2 “CAFA” means the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28
U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711-1715.
1.3 “Class” means the Class previous certified by this Court on
January 25, 2019 as set forth in Section 2.1.
1.4 “Class Counsel” or “Co-Lead Class Counsel” means Thomas
Jarrard of the Law Offices of Thomas Jarrard and R. Joseph Barton of Block &
Leviton LLP.
1.5 “Class Member” means a driver who is included in the Class
and is not excluded from the Class Definition.
40
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2277 Page 7 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1.6 “Class Notice” means the notice summarizing the settlement
terms contained herein, as approved by the Court and to be sent to Class Members
as set forth herein in accordance with Section 3.3.
1.7 “Class Period” means the period from September 1, 2013 to
June 23, 2017, inclusive.
1.8 “Court” means the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington.
1.9 “Defendants” means James Craig Swapp, and Swapp Law,
PLLC, d/b/a Craig Swapp and Associates.
1.10 “Defendants’ Counsel” means Evans, Craven & Lackie, PS
and Lane Powell PC.
1.11 “DPPA” means the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2721.
1.12 “Effective Date” means the date on which the Final Order and
Judgment in the Action becomes Final.
1.13 “Escrow Account” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.1.
1.14 “Escrow Agent” means the Bank with the authority over the
Escrow Account.
1.15 “Expense Award” means the amount of reimbursement
expenses sought by or awarded to Class Counsel by the Court.
41
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2278 Page 8 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1.16 “Fairness Hearing” means the hearing that is to take place
after the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order and after the Notice is sent to the
Class for purposes of: (a) entering the Final Order and Judgment fully and finally
resolving the Action; (b) determining whether the Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (c) ruling upon an application by Class
Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and the Plaintiff’s service award.
1.17 “Fee Award” means the award of attorneys’ fees sought by or
awarded to Class Counsel and Plaintiff’s Counsel by the Court.
1.18 “Final” means (a) if no objections to the Settlement are filed, or
if any objections are filed and voluntarily withdrawn prior to the entry of the Final
Order and Judgment, the date after the time to file any appeals of the Final Order
and Judgment has expired; or (b) if any objections are filed and not voluntarily
withdrawn prior to the entry of the Final Order and Judgment, the later of (i) the
expiration of the time to file or notice any appeal or move for reargument from the
Court’s judgment approving this agreement, or (ii) the date of final affirmance of
any appeals therefrom.
1.19 “Final Order and Judgment” means the final judgment of the
Court approving the Settlement.
1.20 “First Year Cashout Option” has the meaning set forth in
Section 10.4.
42
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2279 Page 9 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1.21 “Net Class Settlement Fund” has the meaning set forth in
Section 5.3
1.22 “Party” or “Parties” means Plaintiff on behalf of herself and
the Class and/or the Defendants.
1.23 “Plan of Allocation” has the meaning set forth in Section 7.1.
1.24 “PTCR” means a police traffic collision report (and does not
include a collision report completed only by non-police officers (i.e. civilians).
1.25 “Plaintiff” means Jade Wilcox.
1.26 “Plaintiff’s Counsel” means Block & Leviton LLP, the Law
Office of Thomas Jarrard and the Sweetser Law Office.
1.27 “Preliminary Approval Order” means the order preliminarily
approving the Settlement and conditionally certifying the Class, as approved by the
Court.
1.28 “Released Claims” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.1.
1.29 “Second Year Cashout Option” has the meaning set forth in
Section 10.6.
1.30 “Settled Claims” means the claims that the Parties have agreed
to resolve as set forth in Section 12.
1.31 “Settlement” means the settlement of this matter as described
in this Agreement.
43
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2280 Page 10 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1.32 “Settlement Fund” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.3.
1.33 “Settlement Administrator” means the third-party
administrator, who will be proposed by Class Counsel and approved by the Court
to administer the Settlement.
1.34 “Swapp Law” means Swapp Law, PLLC, d/b/a Craig Swapp
and Associates, a Utah Professional Limited Liability Company.
2. Class Certification.
2.1 Class Definition. The Settlement Class will be the Class
previously certified by the Court on January 25, 2019 as follows:
All drivers identified in Police Traffic Collision Reports whose Personal
Information, as defined by the DPPA, was derived from a Department of
Licensing record (e.g. license, registration or database) and the Report was
obtained or used by Swapp Law or James Craig Swapp from the
Washington State Patrol between September 1, 2013 and June 23, 2017.
Excluded from the Class are (a) current and former clients of
Defendants; (b) individuals identified on the same PTCRs as Defendants’
clients; (c) individuals who provided written consent to Defendants for the
disclosure of their Personal Information (as defined by the DPPA) prior to
Defendants obtaining their personal information; (d) employees (and
attorneys) of Defendants and members of their immediate families; and (e)
44
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2281 Page 11 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the presiding judge and anyone working in the presiding judge’s chambers
and the members of their families.
2.2 Determination of Status as a Class Member. Status as a Class
Member will be determined based on a person being identified as a driver on the
electronic data produced by the Washington State Patrol and the records produced
by Defendants and who meets the definition of a member of the Class. A person
who is not identified as a driver on a PTCR purchased by Defendants in either the
data produced by the Washington State Patrol or the records produced by
Defendants will not be considered a Class Member. To the extent that there is a
conflict between the records produced by the Washington State Patrol and the
records produced by Defendants as to whether a driver meets the Class Definition,
the Settlement Administrator will resolve any reasonable differences in favor of
finding that a driver is a Class Member (unless the individual does not otherwise
fall within the Class Definition or requests exclusion from the Settlement).
2.3 Defendants’ Non-Opposition. For purposes of settlement only,
Defendants will withdraw their currently pending motions for reconsideration of
the Court’s order certifying the Class. Defendants shall make no other objection to
certification of the Class. Defendants’ agreement to Class certification is
conditioned on this Court’s approval of the Settlement becoming Final.
45
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2282 Page 12 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
3. Class Notice
3.1 Provision of Class Notice. Upon the Court’s preliminary
approval of this Settlement Agreement and by the date specified by the Court, the
Settlement Administrator will be responsible for providing Class Notice to the Class
Members.
3.2 Contents. The Class Notice will contain a brief description of
the claims advanced by the Class, a summary of the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, information on the attorneys’ fees and costs sought by Co-Lead Class
Counsel, describe the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Fund to the
Class, the estimated settlement allocation for the Class Member, and provide
information about the Fairness Hearing, in the form approved by the Court.
3.3 Method of Providing Class Notice. Class Notice will be
provided to each individual Class Member: (a) by either electronic notification (if
available and approved by the Court) to Class Members, or, if unavailable or not
approved by the Court, by mailing via first class US Mail to all Class Members,
and (b) by posting the Class Notice on websites maintained by Co-Lead Class
Counsel and the Settlement Administrator. Defendants will cooperate with Co-
Lead Class Counsel to facilitate providing Class Notice and other settlement-
related communications by providing any known email addresses and mailing
addresses for all Class Members, to the extent such information is reasonably
46
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2283 Page 13 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
available in the records of Defendants.
3.4 Cooperation with the Settlement Administrator. The Parties
and their counsel will reasonably cooperate with the Settlement Administrator to
facilitate providing Class Notice and other settlement-related communications and
administration.
3.5 Undeliverable Notices. In the event that a Class Notice sent by
U.S. Mail is returned as undeliverable, the Settlement Administrator will make
reasonable efforts to obtain a valid mailing address and promptly resend the Class
Notice to the Class Member by U.S. Mail.
3.6 Class Data. To the extent not already provided, Defendants
will provide Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator with the following:
(a) Within 21 days after this Settlement Agreement is executed, the
name and street mailing address in electronic form for each Class
Member, to the extent such information is reasonably available
in Defendants’ files.
(b) Within 30 days after this Settlement Agreement is executed, the
identifying information, in electronic form if available for the
following: (i) current and former clients of Defendants who
reasonably might be included on a PTCR; (ii) individuals
identified on the same PTCRs as Defendants’ clients; (iii)
47
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2284 Page 14 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
individuals who provided written consent to Defendants for the
disclosure of their Personal Information (as defined by the
DPPA) prior to Defendants obtaining their personal information
from a PTCR; (iv) employees (and attorneys) of Defendants and
members of their immediate families who reasonably might be
listed on a PTCR;
(c) Timely provide other information reasonably requested by Co-
Lead Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator.
3.7 Declaration Regarding Class Notice. Within 30 days after the
date on which Notice is required to be sent, the Settlement Administrator will file a
declaration with the Court confirming that the Notice and related information was
sent in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order.
4. Settlement Fund
4.1 Payment of Cash Settlement Amount into Escrow Account.
As settlement of the Class’ claims, Defendants will pay or cause to be paid the
Class Cash Settlement Amount of $950,000.00 into the Escrow Account in the
name of “Swapp DPPA Litigation Settlement Fund” on the following schedule:
(a) Defendants have previously made a payment of $100,000.00 to
the Escrow Account.
(b) Defendants shall make a payment of $400,000.00 to the Escrow
48
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2285 Page 15 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Account and cause the payment to be received by the Escrow
Agent of the Escrow Account (or in other manner as directed by
Co-Lead Class Counsel Block & Leviton), by no later than 10
days before the Fairness Hearing.
(c) Defendants shall make a payment of $450,000 to the Escrow
Account and cause the payment to be received by the Escrow
Agent of the Escrow Account (or in other manner as directed by
Co-Lead Class Counsel Block & Leviton), by no later than June
1, 2020 or 180 days following the Fairness Hearing, whichever
is earlier.
4.2 Amounts Not Awarded as Attorneys’ Fees: In addition to the
amounts paid in Paragraph 4.1, Swapp Law will pay $1,050,00.00, which subject
to the approval by the Court, will be used to pay attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses
and costs in the amounts awarded by the Court to Co-Lead Class Counsel and
Plaintiff’s Counsel as well as any service award to Plaintiff in the amount ordered
by the Court. In the event that the Court awards an amount for attorneys’ fees,
litigation expenses, costs and service award that is less than $1,050,000, then the
difference between the $1,050,000.00 (or the amount actually paid Defendants
pursuant to the First Year Cashout Option or the Second Year Cashout Option) and
the amount awarded by the Court will paid to and become part of the Settlement
49
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2286 Page 16 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Fund.
4.3 The Settlement Fund. The Settlement Fund will consist of the
monies paid by Defendants into the Escrow Account together with any earnings or
interest thereon. The Settlement Fund held in the Escrow Account will be deemed
to be in the custody of the Court and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the
Court and will be administered in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and
the orders of the Court. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, the
Settlement Fund will not be released from the Escrow Account until the Final
Order and Judgment becomes Final.
4.4 Management of the Settlement Fund. Until the Final Order
and Judgment becomes Final, the Settlement Fund will be held in the Escrow
Account established by Class Counsel, for which the Escrow Agent will act
pursuant to the terms of the respective escrow agreement or as ordered by the
Court. After the Final Order and Judgment becomes Non-Appealable, Class
Counsel will have the sole right and duty to manage the Settlement Fund in
compliance with the terms of the Final Order and Judgment subject only to the
directions and orders of the Court. At no time after the Final Order and Judgment
becomes Non-Appealable will Defendants have any duty or authority to hold,
manage, or invest any portion of the Settlement Fund. Any earnings or interest
earned by the Settlement Fund will become part of the Settlement Fund.
50
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2287 Page 17 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
4.5 Qualified Settlement Fund. The Settlement Fund is intended
by the Parties to be a “qualified settlement fund” for federal income tax purposes
under Treas. Reg. § 1.468B-1 at the earliest date possible
5. Distributions from the Settlement Fund
5.1 Expenses Before the Effective Date. Until the Final Order and
Judgment becomes Final, Class Counsel will be authorized to pay from the
Settlement Fund (a) any actual or estimated taxes on any income earned on the
Settlement Fund, (b) upon notice to Defendants, all costs and expenses related to the
preparation of such tax filings or payments, and (c) upon notice to Defendants costs
and expenses related to providing the Class Notice not to exceed $100,000.00. Any
dispute regarding the reasonableness of any expense incurred, paid or owing will be
adjudicated by the Court, but in no event will the Parties cause or allow the
Settlement Fund to fail to make a tax payment in a timely manner or fail to send
notice to the Class consistent with any Order of the Court.
5.2 Tax & Expense Reserve After the Effective Date. Upon the
Final Order and Judgment becoming Final, Co-Lead Class Counsel will be
authorized to establish a reserve from the Settlement Fund to pay any taxes that are
or will be owed (but not yet due) and for expenses related to payment of taxes or
filing of tax returns or to the extent that there are other costs of administration of the
Settlement.
51
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2288 Page 18 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
5.3 Distributions to the Class. After the deduction of any Court-
approved expenses (limited to expenses for Class Notice or administration of the
settlement) and the payment of any taxes or tax-related expenses and the creation of
the reserve for future expenses, the remaining amount of the Settlement Fund (i.e.
the “Net Class Settlement Fund”) will be distributed to Class Members pursuant to
the Plan of Allocation that will be proposed by Co-Lead Class Counsel and as
approved by the Court.
5.4 Residual Monies in the Settlement Fund. To the extent that
there are additional monies that remain in the Settlement Fund after any Court-
approved administration expenses have been paid, including as a result of any
uncashed distribution checks, any such residual monies will be paid as follows: (a)
to pay all or a portion of the service award, (b) to the extent that there are additional
attorneys’ fees, expenses, or costs that were not paid from the separate payment in
Section 10, Co-Lead Class Counsel can seek permission from the Court to have such
amounts paid, and (c) any remaining monies will be paid to a non-profit charitable
organization recommended by Class Counsel and approved by the Court that has
privacy as a primary or significant goal of the organization.
6. Non-Monetary Settlement Consideration. In addition to and
separate from the Class Cash Settlement Amount and any other monetary amounts
52
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2289 Page 19 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
to be paid under this Settlement Agreement, Defendants agree to do the following:
6.1 Effective on the execution of this Settlement Agreement,
Defendants will refrain from purchasing Police Traffic Collision Reports in or
from the State of Washington for the purpose of acquiring contact information for
potential clients and sending marketing materials to them.
6.2 Effective on the execution of this Settlement Agreement,
Defendants will cease using any Police Traffic Collision Reports obtained from the
State of Washington or any law enforcement within the State of Washington for
either the purpose of acquiring contact information for potential clients or to send
marketing materials to persons who are identified on such PTCRs.
6.3 Within 120 days after the final distribution to the Class
Members, Defendants will destroy all PTCRs involving Class Members in their
possession and certify in writing to the Court that such reports have been
destroyed.
6.4 Within 120 days after the final distribution to the Class
Members, Defendants will destroy all records containing photographs of social
security numbers, driver’s license identification numbers, names, addresses,
telephone numbers, and medical or disability information that they obtained from
police traffic collision reports involving Class Members and certify in writing to
Plaintiff that such records have been destroyed.
53
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2290 Page 20 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
6.5 Wwithin 30 days following entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order, Defendants will identify in writing to Co-Lead Class Counsel any third
parties to whom they provided any of the records referenced in Section 3.6(b)-(c)
that they have been able to reasonably identify.
6.6 Wwithin 30 days following the Effective Date, Defendants will
notify the third parties whom Defendants have been able to reasonably identify as
receiving any of the records referenced in Section 3.6(b)-(c), that Plaintiff and the
Class consider those records to contain information protected by the DPPA and
Defendants will certify in writing to the Court that they have so notified such third
parties.
7. Plan of Allocation
7.1 Proposed Plan of Allocation. Co-Lead Class Counsel will
propose and submit a Plan of Allocation to the Court as to the recommended method
of determining and distributing the proceeds of the Net Class Settlement Fund to
members of the Class.
7.2 Defendants’ Non-Involvement. Defendants shall have no input
and shall take no position on the Plan of Allocation, including the method of
allocation, or the distribution of the Net Class Settlement Fund to Class Members
except to the extent the Plan of Allocation is inconsistent with this Settlement
Agreement or purports to impose duties or requirements upon Defendants other than
54
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2291 Page 21 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
those agreed to in this Agreement.
7.3 Modification of Plan of Allocation. If the proposed Plan of
Allocation is rejected or modified by the Court or on appeal, such rejection or
modification will not constitute a material modification of this Settlement, will not
void this agreement, and will not provide a basis for any party to withdraw from this
agreement.
7.4 No Claim Based on Distribution in Accordance with the
Plan of Allocation. The Class will not have any claim against Plaintiff,
Defendants, or counsel to any of the foregoing, including any of the individuals
involved in the distribution under the Plan of Allocation (e.g. the Settlement
Administrator), based on any distributions of the Settlement Fund made
substantially in accordance with this agreement or as authorized by the Court.
8. Settlement Administration
8.1 Appointment of Settlement Administrator. Co-Lead Class
Counsel will propose a Settlement Administrator to be approved by the Court. The
Settlement Administrator will be appointed to administer the Settlement and will
report to Co-Lead Class Counsel and the Court. Any Settlement Administrator will
have experience providing notice to Class Members in consumer or privacy class
action settlements, and in supervising and administering settlement funds.
8.2 Settlement Administrator’s Responsibilities. The Settlement
55
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2292 Page 22 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Administrator will undertake the following tasks to administer this Settlement
consistent with the terms of this Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and the Orders
of the Court and such other procedures required by the Court or as directed by Co-
Lead Class Counsel:
(a) Print and email and/or mail the Class Notice (and any
accompanying documents) to the Class Members in accordance with
this Settlement Agreement and any order of the Court and undertake
to trace and re-mail all undeliverable Class Notices or take other
reasonable steps to locate missing Class Members;
(b) Create and maintain a website until at least 180 days after the
final distribution to the Class that will contain a summary of the action
and the settlement and at least the following information and
documents: the Complaint, Order on Class Certification, Orders on
Motions to Dismiss, this Agreement, Preliminary Approval Order,
Class Notice, Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs
(when filed), the Final Approval Order, Plan of Allocation and any
other information about the Settlement;
(c) Provide Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defendants Counsel with
copies of any request for exclusions from the Class and make
recommendations regarding such requests;
56
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2293 Page 23 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(d) Provide Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel with
copies of any objections to the Settlement (to the extent such
objections are not filed with the Court);
(e) Respond to questions from Class Members and confer with
Class Counsel concerning any questions or, as necessary refer Class
Members to Class Counsel for responses;
(f) Maintain and staff a toll-free phone number until at least six
(6) months after distributions of the Settlement Fund have been made
to Class Members;
(g) File with the Court a declaration confirming compliance with
the procedures approved by the Court for providing notice and
distribution to the Class;
(h) Calculate the amounts to be paid to Class Members, consistent
with instructions from Class Counsel and the court-approved Plan of
Allocation as well as any orders of the Court, as to how the Cash
Settlement Amount is allocated among the members of the Class;
(i) Monitor the Qualified Settlement Fund and file all
informational and other tax returns necessary or advisable with respect
to the Settlement Fund (including without limitations the returns
described in Treas. Reg. Section 1.468B-2(k));
57
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2294 Page 24 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(j) Pay the Net Class Settlement Fund to Class Members,
consistent with instructions from Class Counsel and the court-
approved Plan of Allocation;
(k) To the extent feasible, and as approved by the Court, arrange
for uncashed settlement checks to be escheated; and
(l) Any other responsibilities set forth in this Agreement and any
other responsibilities directed by Co-Lead Class Counsel related to
administration of the Settlement and consistent with the orders of the
Court or any other responsibilities ordered by the Court.
8.3 Request for Exclusion. Any Class Member who wishes to
exclude themselves from the Class must deliver a signed written request to Class
Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel, and the Court. Subject to the approval of or
modification by the Court, the request for exclusion must be postmarked by the
date set by the Court prior to the Fairness Hearing. Subject to the approval of or
modification by the Court, the request for exclusion must include: (1) the name and
case number of the Action; (2) the full name, address, and telephone number of the
person requesting exclusion; (3) a signed written statement clearly setting forth that
the person wants to be excluded from the Class.
8.4 Objections. Any Class Member who wishes to object to the
fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of this agreement must deliver a written
58
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2295 Page 25 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
objection to Class Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel, and the Court. Subject to the
approval of or modification by the Court, the written objection sent to Class
Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel, and the Court must be postmarked at date set by the
Court prior to the Fairness Hearing. Subject to the approval of or modification by
the Court, a written objection must include: (1) the name and case number of the
Action; (2) the full name, address, and telephone number of the person objecting;
(3) a signed written statement detailing the specific reasons, if any, for each
objection, including any legal and factual support the objector wishes to bring to
the Court’s attention and any evidence the objector wishes to introduce in support
of the objection(s); and (4) if the Class Member is represented by an attorney, the
name, firm name, address, telephone and email address of the attorney. If a Class
Member intends to appear at the Fairness Hearing, either with or without counsel,
the Class Member must file and serve a timely objection and any Class Member
who fails to timely file and serve a written objection and notice of his, her, or its
intent to appear at the Fairness Hearing may not be permitted to object to the
approval of the Settlement at the Fairness Hearing and shall be foreclosed from
seeking any review of the Settlement or the terms of this agreement by appeal or
other means.
8.5 Administration Costs. Costs of administering the Settlement,
including payment of the Settlement Administrator, costs of the Escrow Agent,
59
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2296 Page 26 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
costs of Class Notice, and taxes and tax-related expenses, will be paid out of the
Settlement Fund. In the event that the Settlement is not approved or approval is
revised on appeal, the costs and expenses paid or incurred to administer the
Settlement and Settlement Fund will be deducted from any amounts to be returned
to Defendants and will not be reimbursed to Defendants.
9. Approval of the Settlement
9.1 Preliminary Approval. Co-Lead Class Counsel, on behalf of
the Class will move the Court for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Motion”). The Preliminary Approval
Motion will seek an order in a form to be agreed upon by the Parties requesting the
Court as follows:
(a) Preliminarily approve the Settlement on behalf of the Class as
being fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further hearing
and determination under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(e);
(b) Approve the form, manner, and content of the Class Notice and
the manner of distribution and publication which is consistent
with this Agreement, Rule 23 and the requirements of due
process;
(c) Appoint the Settlement Administrator;
(d) Direct that Notice be sent to the Class as set forth herein;
60
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2297 Page 27 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(e) Set the date and time of the Fairness Hearing at least 90
calendar days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order,
subject to the Court’s availability;
(f) Provide that any objections by any members of the Class to the
proposed Settlement, and/or the entry of the Final Order and
Judgment, shall be heard and any papers submitted in support
of said objections shall be considered by the Court at the
Fairness Hearing only if any objector files a written objection
and notice of appearance, within the time set by the Court
consistent with this Agreement;
(g) Establish a date and methods by which any Class Member must
request exclusion consistent with this Agreement;
(h) Establish dates for filing the Final Approval Motion;
(i) Provide that the Fairness Hearing may be continued from time
to time by Order of the Court without further notice;
(j) Preliminarily approve the form of the Final Order and
Judgment;
(k) Require that Defendants produce the Class Data required by
this Settlement and cooperate with the Settlement
Administrator;
61
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2298 Page 28 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(l) Continue the stay all proceedings, other than for purposes of
settlement, until the Court renders a final decision on approval
of the Settlement; and
(m) Enjoin Class Members from commencing or prosecuting, either
directly or indirectly, any action asserting any of the Released
Claims as set forth herein.
9.2 Final Approval of the Settlement. If the Court preliminarily
approves this Settlement, and if Co-Lead Class Counsel has not exercised its right
to withdraw under this Agreement, Co-Lead Class Counsel will file a motion seeking
Final Approval of the Settlement (“Final Approval Motion”). Defendants will
either join in or not oppose the Final Approval Motion. The Final Approval Motion
will seek entry of a proposed Final Approval Order in a form to be agreed-upon by
the Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defendants and will, among other things:
(a) Order Final Approval of the Settlement set forth in
this Settlement Agreement;
(b) Adjudge that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate
to the Class pursuant to Rule 23(e);
(c) Dismiss the Action against Defendants with prejudice;
(d) Provide that the term “Final Disposition” in the Protective
Order (ECF No. 38) will be modified to mean until Defendants
62
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2299 Page 29 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
have paid all monetary amounts required under the Settlement.
(e) Adjudge that Plaintiffs and the Class will be deemed
conclusively to have released and waived any and all Settled
Claims against the Defendants as provided in this Settlement
Agreement;
(f) Bar and permanently enjoin Plaintiffs and the Class from
prosecuting any and all Settled Claims, as provided in this
Settlement Agreement, against the Defendants;
(g) Determine Co-Lead Class Counsel’s request(s) for Fee
Award, Service Awards, and Expense Award;
(h) Retain exclusive jurisdiction, without affecting the finality
of the Order entered, with regard to: (i) implementation of this
Settlement Agreement; (ii) disposition of the Settlement Fund;
and (iii) enforcement and administration of this Settlement
Agreement, including the release provisions thereof; and
(i) Find that notice to the appropriate state and federal
officials has been provided as required by CAFA and that
Defendants have satisfied their obligations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1715.
63
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2300 Page 30 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10. Payment of Amounts for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Service Award
10.1 Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Fees and Expenses & Service Award.
Pursuant to any deadline set by the Court and prior to the deadline for Class Members
to object to the Settlement, Co-Lead Class Counsel will file a motion with the Court
requesting the payment of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses and
costs on behalf of all Plaintiff’s counsel, and/or a service award to Plaintiff. The
10.2 Defendants’ Non-Opposition. Defendants will not contest such
motions so long as the motions do not seek payment that would require Defendants
to pay a total amount for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs to Plaintiff’s counsel
and a service award to Plaintiff that cumulatively exceeds the amount set forth in
this Section 10.
10.3 Payment Schedule. Swapp Law will pay or cause to be paid
$1,050,000.00 into an account designated by Co-Lead Class Counsel and to be
delivered in the manner directed by Co-Lead Class Counsel on the following
schedule:
(a) Swapp Law shall make a payment of $350,000.00 into an
account as directed by Co-Lead Class Counsel Block & Leviton,
by no later than December 1, 2020 or a year following the
Effective Date, whichever is earlier.
(b) Swapp Law shall make a payment of $350,000.00 to into an
64
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2301 Page 31 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
account as directed by Co-Lead Class Counsel Block & Leviton,
by no later than December 1, 2021 or two years following the
Effective Date, whichever is earlier.
(c) Swapp Law shall make a payment of $350,000.00 into an
account as directed by Co-Lead Class Counsel Block & Leviton,
by no later than June 1, 2022 or 30 months following the
Effective Date, whichever is earlier.
10.4 First Year Cashout Option. Defendants will have the option
to make a payment of $900,000.00 to an account designated by Co-Lead Class
Counsel and to be delivered in the manner directed by Co-Lead Class Counsel, by
no later than December 1, 2020 or a year following the Effective Date, whichever
is earlier. If payment of the $900,000.00 is received from Defendants and paid by
December 1, 2020 into an account designated and directed by Co-Lead Class
Counsel Block & Leviton, then Defendants will have no further obligations under
Section 10.2 of this agreement.
10.5 Guarantee by Swapp After December 1, 2020: If Swapp Law
has not fully satisfied its obligations under Section 10.4 by December 1, 2020 (i.e.
by exercising the First Year Cashout Option and making the required payment by
December 1, 2020), James Craig Swapp shall and does personally guarantee the
obligations of Swapp Law under Section 10 of this agreement and will be jointly
65
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2302 Page 32 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
and severally liable to pay any outstanding amounts owed pursuant to Section 10.3.
10.6 Second Year Cashout Option. If Defendants make the
$350,000.00 payment pursuant to Section 10.3(a) by December 1, 2020, but do not
elect to pay the full $900,000.00 pursuant to Section 10.4, Defendants will have the
option to make a payment of $650,000.00 to an account designated by Co-Lead
Class Counsel and to be delivered in the manner directed by Co-Lead Class
Counsel, by no later than December 1, 2021 or two years after the Fairness
Hearing, whichever is earlier. If payment of the $650,000.00 is received from
Defendants and paid by December 1, 2021 into an account designated and directed
by Co-Lead Class Counsel Block & Leviton (and the $350,000.00 pursuant to
Section 10.2(a) was timely paid), then Defendants shall have no further obligations
under Section 10.2 of this agreement upon payment of the $650,000.00.
10.7 Acceleration in the Event of Breach. If either Defendant
breaches any obligation under Section 10 of this Agreement or Section 4 of this
Agreement:
(a) All outstanding obligations under Section 4 and Section 10 shall
be immediately due and payable, notwithstanding any date.
(b) As to any breach that occurs prior to December 1, 2020, Plaintiff
and/or Co-Lead Class Counsel will be entitled to enter judgment
against Swapp Law and Swapp Law will confess and will not
66
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2303 Page 33 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
contest judgment as to any outstanding amounts owed under the
Settlement Agreement and Plaintiff and/or Co-Lead Class
Counsel will be entitled to collect on the amount of the judgment
as against Swapp Law.
(c) To the extent that one or more Defendants remain in breach as of
December 1, 2020 and/or any pre-December 1, 2020 breaches
have not been cured or remedied, or as to any breach that occurs
on or arise out of an obligation on or after December 1, 2020,
Plaintiff and/or Class Counsel will be entitled to amend the
judgment as against both Swapp Law and James Craig Swapp,
authorize Plaintiff to confess judgment on behalf of the Class
against James Craig Swapp for the full amount of any
outstanding obligations under Section 10 of this agreement
without stay of execution or right of appeal, and expressly waive
relief from the immediate enforcement of a judgment.
(d) The remedies listed herein for any breach are in addition to any
other remedies that Plaintiff or Class Counsel may be entitled to
seeking, including interest on the past-due amounts and
attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with
collection of any overdue amounts or breaches of any obligations
67
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2304 Page 34 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
under this Agreement.
10.8 Surety. If Swapp Law is sold or dissolved, James Craig Swapp
ceases involvement in Swapp Law, James Craig Swapp suffers partial or total
disability, James Craig Swapp is diagnosed with an illness carrying with it a
substantial risk of temporary or permanent disability or death, or James Craig
Swapp is divorced, James Craig Swapp shall designate Co-Lead Class Counsel (for
the benefit of the Class) as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy in the amount
of the outstanding obligations under Section 10 as surety for those obligations.
10.9 Payment of Amounts for Attorneys’ Fees & Expenses in the
Event of an Appeal. In the event that there is an appeal of the Settlement or the
Final Order and Judgment, such appeal will not suspend Defendants obligations to
make payments under this Section by the dates specified in the Agreement; rather,
in the event of such an appeal, Defendants will continue to be obligated to and will
make the payments required in this Section and Co-Lead Class Counsel will not
disburse those amounts, but will arrange to hold any amounts in Escrow until the
appeal is resolved. In the event that any such appeal is limited only to the award of
attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of expenses or any service award, Co-Lead be
entitled to disburse from the Escrow Account of such amount of attorneys’ fees
and/or expenses/costs as to which there is no challenge on appeal.
10.10 Defendants’ Attorneys’ Fees & Expenses. Defendants and
68
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2305 Page 35 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Defendants’ Counsel will bear their own attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs.
11. Notice Under Class Action Fairness Act
11.1 CAFA Notice. Pursuant to CAFA, Defendants, at their own
expense, will prepare and provide the CAFA Notice, including the notices to the
United States Department of Justice and to the Attorney Generals of all states in
which the Class Members reside, as specified by 28 U.S.C. § 1715, within ten (10)
days of the execution of this Settlement Agreement.
11.2 CAFA Notice Provided to Class Counsel. Defendants will
provide Co-Lead Class Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Counsel with a copy of the CAFA
Notice and materials that the Defendants sent to the Appropriate Officials within
three (3) business days after such notices have been sent. The CAFA Notice and
materials will be provided automatically and without further request by Class
Counsel.
12. Releases. Upon the Final Order and Judgment becoming Final and
provided that each Party has performed all of the respective obligations under this
Settlement Agreement to be performed on or prior to such date by each respective
Party:
12.1 Release of Defendants by the Class. Plaintiff and the Class
Members will release, acquit, and forever discharge Defendants from all claims
arising out of Defendants’ acquisition and use of PCTRs that Defendants have
69
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2306 Page 36 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
identified as involving Class Members (the “Released Claims”), and will dismiss
with prejudice their claims asserted in the Action.
12.2 Release of Plaintiffs and the Class by Defendants.
Defendants shall release, acquit, and forever discharge all claims against Plaintiffs,
each Class Member or Class Counsel that could have been asserted in this Action
related to the filing of this Action including any claims for attorneys’ fees, costs,
expenses or sanctions, that relate to the filing, commencement, prosecution or
settlement of this Action.
12.3 Non-released Claims. Notwithstanding the foregoing or any
other language in this agreement, the Parties are not releasing claims to enforce
this agreement or claims concerning the validity of this agreement (including any
conditions or representations upon which the Settlement and/or this Agreement
was based).
13. No Admission of Wrongdoing
13.1 This agreement reflects the parties’ compromise and Settlement
of the Released Claims. Its provisions, and all related drafts, communications, and
discussions, cannot be construed as or deemed to be evidence of an admission or
concession of any point of fact or law (including, but not limited to, matters
respecting class certification) by any person or entity and cannot be offered or
70
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2307 Page 37 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
received into evidence or requested in discovery in the Action or any other action
or proceeding as evidence of an admission or concession.
13.2 Neither this Settlement Agreement nor the Agreement in
Principle is, or may be deemed to be, or may be used as an admission of, or evidence
of any infirmity in the claims asserted by Plaintiff or Class Members.
13.3 This Settlement Agreement may be used in such proceedings as
may be necessary to consummate or enforce this Settlement Agreement or the
Final Order, and any Party may file this Settlement Agreement and/or the Final
Order in any action that may be brought against it or any of the Released Parties to
support a claim, a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar, or reduction or
any other theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or
counterclaim, or in any action that may be brought to enforce any claim assigned
pursuant to this Settlement Agreement.
14. Conditions of Settlement
14.1 Court Approval. Each of the following is an express condition
of Settlement: (a) this Action remains certified as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a Class substantially
similar to the Class defined in this Agreement; (b) the Court enters a Preliminary
Approval Order substantially in the form as required by this Agreement; and (c)
71
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2308 Page 38 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the Court enters the Final Order, substantially in the form as required by this
Agreement. In the event that any of these conditions are not met, Co-Lead Class
Counsel and Defendants will each have the right to withdraw from this Settlement
so long as notice of the exercise of such right is provided within 14 days after
issuance of the order on which the right to withdraw is based.
14.2 Material Correctness of Defendants’ Class Information. It is
an express condition of Settlement that Defendants purchased no more than 9,000
PTCRs that contain the personal information of Class Members. In addition to
other remedies that Plaintiff, the Class or Class Counsel may have, if Defendants
purchased than 9,000 PTCRs which include Class Members’ personal information
during the Class Period, Class Counsel will have the unilateral right up to (7) days
prior to the Settlement becoming Final to withdraw from Settlement and resume
the litigation.
14.3 Material Correctness of Defendants’ Financial Information.
It is an express condition of Settlement that the information about Defendants
financial position provided by Defendants to Co-Lead Class Counsel is materially
correct. In addition to other remedies Plaintiff, the Class or Class Counsel may
have, if the information about Defendants’ financial position that Defendants
provided to Co-Class Counsel is not materially correct, Co-Lead Class Counsel
will have the unilateral right up to (7) days prior to the Settlement becoming Final
72
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2309 Page 39 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
to withdraw from Settlement and resume the litigation.
14.4 Non-conditional Matters. Court approval of the Fee Award,
Service Awards, Expense Award, or the Plan of Allocation are not conditions of
the Settlement. No action by the Court or any courts of appeal related to the Fee
Award, the Service Awards, the Expense Award, or the Plan of Allocation will
prevent the Final Order allowing the approval of the Settlement from becoming
Final.
15. Effect of Disapproval, Cancellation or Termination
15.1 Termination Notice. In the event that one of the conditions of
this Settlement set forth in Section 14 is not met and the Final Order and Judgment
has not become Final, the Party in Section 14 entitled to withdraw based on this
condition may void the Settlement within the time period specified in Section 14.
To exercise the right of withdrawal under this paragraph, counsel for the party
exercising this right must notify Defendants’ Counsel in writing via mail or at the
e-mail addresses listed under their names and signatures on this Agreement.
15.2 Effectiveness of Termination Notice. The Termination Notice
will become effective to void this Agreement only if and after Co-Lead Class
Counsel and Defendants have failed to reach a written agreement within thirty (30)
days of the event triggering the Termination Notice to modify this agreement to
resolve the issue.
73
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2310 Page 40 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
15.3 Effect of Withdrawal. In the event that the Court refuses to
grant Preliminary Approval or enter the Final Order and Judgment, or such
approval is reversed on appeal and one of the Parties exercises its right to withdraw
from this Agreement within the time specified above, or any other circumstance
which causes the Final Order and Judgment to not become Final and the Parties
have not entered into a written modification of this Agreement within thirty (30)
days of such occurrence: (a) the monies in the Escrow Account (including any
interest or earnings accrued while in Escrow, but less any amount paid or owing
for taxes or other expenses incurred by Co-Lead Class Counsel or the Settlement
Administrator while in Escrow in connection with administering the Settlement
Agreement, including any amounts necessary to prepare tax returns or monies paid
or owing to the Settlement Administrator) will be returned to each payor, pro rata
according to the amount of its/his respective payment(s) into the Settlement Fund
upon written request within ten (10) business days of such written request; (b) the
Parties will not be released from the claims asserted in this Litigation; (c) both this
Agreement and the Agreement in Principle will be void ab initio; and (d) the
Parties’ positions, rights and responsibilities will be deemed to have reverted to
their respective status in this Action as of May 22, 2019, and, except as may
otherwise be expressly provided herein, the Parties will proceed in all respects as if
this Agreement and the Agreement in Principle never existed.
74
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2311 Page 41 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 Destruction of Confidential Information. The Protective
Order will be modified so that the Final Disposition for purposes of destroying any
confidential materials will be the date on which Defendants make the last monetary
payment under this Settlement Agreement.
16.2 Continuing Jurisdiction. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the
Class, and Defendants agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court to resolve
any disputes about the terms of this Settlement, implementation and enforcement
of the Settlement as set forth in this Agreement. The Final Order and Judgment
will include a provision that the Court retains jurisdiction over the Parties
concerning the Settlement and to enforce the terms of this Agreement. However,
no additional Court approval will be necessary to effectuate the Settlement or
distribute the Settlement proceeds consistent with this Agreement and any orders
entered prior to or in the Final Order and Judgment.
16.3 Enforcement of this Agreement. In the event that any Party to
this Agreement believes that another Party to this Agreement has breached the
terms of this Agreement, that Party will notify the alleged breaching Party and
Counsel in writing setting forth the nature of the breach and the requested method
to cure the breach at least 14 days prior to filing any litigation to enforce the terms
of the Settlement Agreement (and if the allegedly breaching party is a Class
75
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2312 Page 42 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Member regardless of whether that Class Member has separate counsel,
Defendants must also notify Co-Lead Class Counsel in writing). In the event that
the allegedly breaching Party fails to cure the alleged breached as set forth in the
written notification after 14 days, the other Party may then file an action to enforce
the Settlement Agreement. In addition to any other remedies that may be available
for a breach (including under a provision of this Agreement) a Party who
demonstrates that a breach occurred, which could have been reasonably cured
within 14 days (or another time set forth in the written notification) and was not
cured within that time, will be entitled to attorneys’ fees and expenses consistent
with the standards of the DPPA, 18 USC § 2724(b)(3).
16.4 Waiver. The waiver by one party of any breach of this
Settlement Agreement by any other party will not be deemed a waiver of any other
breach of this Settlement Agreement. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement
may not be waived except by a writing signed by the affected party, or counsel for
that party, and as to Plaintiff and the Class only by Co-Lead Class Counsel or
orally on the record in court proceedings by Co-Lead Class Counsel or
Defendants’ Counsel.
16.5 Change of Time Periods. The time periods and dates described
in this Agreement, except for the due dates on which the monetary payments must
be made or the dates on which the non-monetary relief must take effect, may be
76
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2313 Page 43 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
modified by the Court. These time periods and dates may be changed by the Court
or by the parties’ written agreement without notice to the Class and a change to any
of the dates and time periods, except the due dates on which the monetary
payments must be made or the dates on which the non-monetary relief must take
effect do not constitute material modifications of the Settlement.
16.6 Voluntary Agreement. The Parties executed this agreement
voluntarily and without duress or undue influence. All of the Parties warrant and
represent that they are agreeing to the terms of this agreement based upon the legal
advice of their respective attorneys, that they have been afforded the opportunity to
discuss the contents of this agreement with their attorneys and that the terms and
conditions of this document are fully understood and voluntarily accepted.
16.7 Binding Effect. This Agreement binds and benefits the Parties’
respective successors, assigns, legatees, heirs, and personal representatives,
provided, however that no assignment by any Party will operate to relieve that
Party of its obligations under this Agreement.
16.8 Parties Represented by Counsel. The Parties acknowledge
that: (a) they have been represented by counsel of their own choosing during the
negotiation of this Settlement and the preparation of this Agreement; (b) they have
read this agreement and are fully aware of its contents; and (c) their respective
counsel fully explained to them this agreement and its legal effect.
77
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2314 Page 44 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
16.9 Authorization. Each signatory to this Agreement that he or she
is authorized to enter into this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the respective
party that he or she represents.
16.10 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement between Plaintiff on behalf of the Class and Defendants and constitute
the complete, final, and exclusive embodiment of their agreement with respect to
the Action and supersedes the Agreement in Principle entered into on May 23,
2019. In the event of any conflict between this Settlement Agreement and the
Agreement in Principle, this Settlement Agreement will control. This Agreement is
executed without reliance on any promise, representation, or warranty by any party
or any party’s representative except those representations and conditions described
in this Agreement (including the Recitals).
16.11 Construction and Interpretation: No Party is the Drafter.
No Party nor any of the Parties’ respective attorneys will be deemed the drafter of
this agreement for purposes of interpreting any provision in this agreement in any
judicial or other proceeding that may arise between them. This Agreement has
been, and should be construed to have been, drafted by all the parties to it, as a
result of arm’s-length negotiations among the Parties and their Counsel so that any
rule that construes ambiguities against the drafter will have no force or affect.
78
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2315 Page 45 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
16.12 Modifications and Amendments. This Settlement Agreement
may be amended or modified only by written instrument signed by Co-Lead
Counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class and only by Defense Counsel on
behalf of Defendants or by Defendants or their respective successors in interest.
16.13 Extensions. The Parties reserve the right, subject to the Court’s
approval, to request any reasonable extensions of time that might be necessary to
carry out any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
16.14 Headings. The headings in this Settlement Agreement are used
for purposes of convenience and ease of reference only and are not meant to have
any legal effect, nor are they intended to influence the construction of this
Settlement Agreement in any way.
16.15 Governing Law. All terms of this Settlement Agreement and
any disputes about this Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of
Washington, without giving effect to its principles of conflicts of law.
16.16 Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in
one or more original or photocopied counterparts. All executed counterparts will
be deemed an original and all counterparts together will constitute one instrument.
16.17 Evidentiary Effect. This Agreement (whether approved or not
approved, revoked, or made ineffective for any reason) and any proceedings or
discussions related to this agreement (a) will not be used as admission of or
79
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2316 Page 46 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
evidence of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever in any Court or tribunal in any
state, territory, or jurisdiction, and (b) will not be used as admission or evidence of
any infirmity of the Complaint or claims asserted by the Class . However, this
Settlement Agreement may be used in such proceedings as may be necessary to
consummate or enforce this Settlement Agreement, the Settlement, or the Final
Order; and any Settling Party may file this Settlement Agreement and/or the Final
Order in any action to support a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res
judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar, or
reduction or any other theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar
defense or counterclaim.
[signature page follows]
80
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2317 Page 47 of 49
25
81
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2318 Page 48 of 49
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Additional Counsel for Plaintiff
82
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-2 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2319 Page 49 of 49
Exhibit B
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2320 Page 1 of 13
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT & HEARING in
Wilcox v. Swapp
Case No. 2:17-cv-275-RMP (E.D. Wash.) A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
If you were involved in a motor vehicle collision between September 1, 2013
and June 23, 2017, in the State of Washington you may be a member of the
Class entitled to benefits under this Proposed Class Action Settlement if
Swapp Law purchased your Police Traffic Collision Report
• The lawsuit alleges that Swapp Law, PLLC, and James Craig Swapp purchased
thousands of Police Traffic Collision Reports (“PTCRs”) from the Washington State
Patrol for the purpose of marketing legal services, and that this practice violated the
Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq.
• The Court has determined that this lawsuit can proceed as a class action on behalf of all
drivers identified in PTCRs whose Personal Information in such PTCR was derived from
a Washington Department of Licensing record and the report was obtained or used by the
Swapp Law Firm or Mr. Swapp between September 1, 2013 and June 23, 2017 (the
“Class”).
• The parties in this lawsuit have agreed to settle the case. Under the proposed Settlement
with Swapp Law, PLLC, and James Craig Swapp the Defendants have agreed to pay $2
million of which at least $950,000 will be distributed to the Class, plus other prospective
and remedial relief.
• The Court has preliminarily approved the Settlement. The Settlement will not become
final unless and until the Court issues final approval after a hearing, which is currently
scheduled for [DATE]. Your legal rights may be affected.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE
CLASS, THIS SETTLEMENT WILL AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.
THESE RIGHTS AND OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE DEADLINES BY WHICH TO
EXERCISE THEM, ARE EXPLAINED IN THIS NOTICE.
A SUMMARY OF YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
Do Nothing
If you have already been identified by the parties as a Class Member
and you do nothing, you will receive the payment that you may be
entitled to receive under the Settlement.
Exclude Yourself
If you do not want to participate in the Settlement, you must send a
letter requesting exclusion postmarked no later than [DATE], or else
you will be bound by the settlement.
Object
If you wish to object to the settlement or the request for attorneys’
fees and reimbursement of expenses, you must follow the directions
in this notice and submit your objection by [DATE].
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2321 Page 2 of 13
WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS
BASIC INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 1 1. Why Did I Get This Notice? .................................................................................. 1
2. What Is This Lawsuit About? ................................................................................ 1 3. What Is a Class Action? ......................................................................................... 1 4. What has Happened in This Case? ......................................................................... 1 5. Who is in the Class in this Class Action and how do I know if I am a Class
Member? ................................................................................................................ 2
6. Why Is There a Settlement? ................................................................................... 3 7. How Do I Know If I Am Part of the Settlement? .................................................. 3 THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT – ESSENTIAL TERMS ............................................ 3 8. What are the Terms of the Proposed Settlement? .................................................. 3
9. How Can I Receive Compensation Under the Settlement and How Much
Compensation Can I Receive? ............................................................................... 4
A. Payments from the $950,000 Settlement Fund .......................................... 4 B. Payment of Service Award. ....................................................................... 4
10. What Am I Giving up as a Result of This Settlement? .......................................... 5
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU AND THE CLASS ....................................... 5 11. Do I Have a Lawyer in this Case? ......................................................................... 5
12. How Will The Lawyers Be Paid? .......................................................................... 5 HOW TO PROCEED ........................................................................................................ 6 13. What Are My Options? .......................................................................................... 6
14. How Do I Remain in the Class? ............................................................................. 6 15. Who Should Opt Out of the Class? ........................................................................ 6
16. How Do I Opt Out of the Class? ............................................................................ 7 17. How Do I Tell the Court That I Don’t Like the Settlement? ................................. 7
18. What is the Difference Between Objecting and Opting Out? ................................ 7 THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING ........................................................................... 8 19. When and Where Will the Court Decide Whether to Approve the
Settlement? ............................................................................................................. 8 20. Do I Have To Come To The Fairness Hearing? .................................................... 8 21. May I Speak at the Hearing? .................................................................................. 8
SETTLEMENT NOT YET FINAL ................................................................................... 8 22. Can the Settlement be Terminated? ....................................................................... 8 GETTING MORE INFORMATION ................................................................................. 8 23. Where Can I Get More Information? ..................................................................... 8
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2322 Page 3 of 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions?
Contact
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
[-1-]
BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why Did I Get This Notice?
You received this Notice because the Court in charge of this class action lawsuit has ordered this
Notice be sent to persons who are members of the Class and you were identified by the Defendants
as a member of the Class. The Court in charge of this case is the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington, and the case is called Wilcox v. Swapp, Case No. 2:17-cv-275-
RMP (E.D. Wash.).
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about this lawsuit, the certification of a Class, the terms
of the proposed Settlement, and your rights in connection with the proposed Settlement and a
hearing to be held before the Court on [DATE] to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the proposed Settlement and related matters.
2. What Is This Lawsuit About?
The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”) prohibits obtaining, using, or disclosing personal
information from a motor vehicle record (such as a driver’s license or a vehicle registration) except
for certain authorized purposes.
Defendants in this case are a law firm, Swapp Law, PLLC, and an attorney, James Craig Swapp.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants purchased thousands of Police Traffic Collision Reports
(“PTCRs”) from the Washington State Patrol for the purpose of marketing legal services. These
PTCRs are prepared by police officers responding to a traffic collision and frequently contain
personal information taken from the driver’s licenses and vehicle registrations of persons involved
in collisions. This suit alleges that Defendants’ practice of acquiring this personal information and
using it to market legal services violated the DPPA. All of the claims in this lawsuit are brought
under the DPPA and are described in detail in the Amended Complaint in this lawsuit, which is
available at www.___________.com.
3. What Is a Class Action?
In a class action, one or more people called class representatives (in this case, Jade Wilcox) sue on
behalf of people who have similar claims. If the Court “certifies” the class (i.e., approves the case
for class treatment), the Court resolves the issues for all class members except for those who
“exclude” themselves from the Settlement Class (otherwise known as “opting out” of the class and
the class action settlement).
4. What has Happened in This Case?
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 9, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
Court denied. Thereafter, Defendants filed answers to the Complaint, in which they denied that
they violated the DPPA and asserted numerous defenses. During the lawsuit, Plaintiff engaged in
substantial discovery (a process through which the documents exchange information). As part of
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2323 Page 4 of 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions?
Contact
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
[-2-]
the process, Class Counsel sought, obtained, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents
related to Plaintiff’s claims, the PTCRs provided by the Washington State Patrol and purchased
by Defendants, the methods by which PTCRs are prepared by police in Washington State, and
drivers whose personal information was purchased by Defendants. Class Counsel also took four
depositions. Defendants’ counsel took the deposition of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 20, 2018. Defendants again filed a motion to
dismiss, which the Court again denied. The Court entered an order certifying the Class on January
25, 2019 over Defendants’ opposition.
After the Court certified the Class, Plaintiff, and Defendants agreed to explore settlement. As part
of that process, Defendants produced thousands of pages of additional documents related to
Defendants’ financial situation, which revealed Defendants would not be unlikely to satisfy a
judgment of the full amount of damages of the Class, and Class Counsel hired a financial expert
to assist in that analysis.
After receiving Defendants’ financial disclosures, Plaintiff, Class Counsel and Defendants
participated in an in-person mediation with the Hon. Lonny R. Suko on Mar. 6, 2019. Based in
part on those disclosures, the parties arrived at a settlement in principle that same day and
subsequently negotiated a final Settlement Agreement, which was executed on [DATE].
On [DATE], the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement with Defendants and has scheduled
a Final Approval Hearing to evaluate the fairness and adequacy of the Settlement.
5. Who is in the Class in this Class Action and how do I know if I am a Class Member?
On January 25, 2017, the court overseeing this lawsuit—the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington—certified a Class in this case. The Class is defined as follows:
All drivers identified in Police Traffic Collision Reports whose Personal
Information, as defined by the DPPA, was derived from a Department of Licensing
record (e.g. license, registration or database) and the Report was obtained or used
by the Swapp Law Firm (d/b/a Craig Swapp & Associates) or Mr. Swapp from the
Washington State Patrol between September 1, 2013 and June 23, 2017.
Excluded from the Class are (a) current and former clients of Defendants; (b)
individuals identified on the same PTCRs as Defendants’ clients; (c) individuals
who provided written consent to Defendants for the disclosure of their Personal
Information (as defined by the DPPA) prior to Defendants obtaining their personal
information; (d) employees (and attorneys) of Defendants and members of their
immediate families; and (e) the presiding judge and anyone working in the
presiding judge’s chambers and the members of their families.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2324 Page 5 of 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions?
Contact
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
[-3-]
Based on data from the Washington State Patrol and Defendants, Class Counsel has identified
approximately 32,300 Class Members who meet the definition of the Class certified by the Court.
For purposes of settlement, the Class is limited to those identified in those records. If you received
this Notice in the mail (without requesting that the Notice be mailed to you), you are one of the
Class Members who has been identified. If you would like to confirm that you are a Class Member,
please contact at the Settlement Administrator at the contact information provided in Section 23.
6. Why Is There a Settlement?
The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or the Defendants. Instead, both sides agreed to the
proposed Settlement to avoid a trial and to provide compensation to the Class Members. In
deciding to settle the lawsuit, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel considered, among
other things, (a) the strength of the Class’s claims as determined from a review of the law and
an investigation of the facts; (b) the potential monetary recovery, including the financial ability of
Defendants to satisfy a judgment; (c) the expense and length of continued proceedings, including
possible trial and post-trial proceedings and appeals, necessary to prosecute the lawsuit; (d) the
risks arising from the existence of unresolved questions of law and fact; (e) the nature and strength
of defenses asserted by and available to Defendants; and (f) the risks and uncertainties of continued
class action litigation of this nature. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel believe that the
proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Class.
7. How Do I Know If I Am Part of the Settlement?
If you are a member of the Class described in Section 5, above, and were identified in the records
produced by the Washington State Patrol or Defendants, you are part of the proposed Settlement.
If you aren’t sure about your status as a Class Member, then you can contact the Settlement
Administrator at the address identified in Section 16.
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT – ESSENTIAL TERMS
8. What are the Terms of the Proposed Settlement?
The proposed Settlement requires Defendants to pay a total of $2 million plus other prospective
and remedial relief.
Defendants will pay $950,000 into a Settlement Fund that, other than amounts used to pay the
Settlement Administrator to administrate the settlement, will compensate Class Members for the
unlawful acquisition and use of their personal information from PTCRs purchased by Defendants
from the Washington State Police in violation of the DPPA. The payment that each eligible Class
Member will receive from the $950,000 settlement fund will be determined by a Plan of
Allocation that Class Counsel has recommended and must be approved by the Court. The
proposed Plan of Allocation is described in the Appendix to this Notice.
Defendants have also agreed to cease using any PTCRs obtained from the State of Washington
for the purposes of acquiring contact information for potential clients or to send marketing
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2325 Page 6 of 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions?
Contact
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
[-4-]
materials to persons who are identified on such PTCRs, to destroy any such PTCRs, to notify
third parties to whom they provided such PTCRs and personal information derived from such
PTCRs that Class Counsel views such information as protected by the DPPA, and to refrain from
purchasing PTCRs for marketing purposes in the future.
In addition to the $950,000 into the Settlement Fund, Defendants have agreed to pay between
$900,00 and $1,050,000 over the course of the next two and a half years. Out of this amount,
Class Counsel is entitled to apply to the Court for the payment of attorneys’ fees and out of
pocket costs and also a service award to the Plaintiff. If the amount that the Court approves for
attorneys’ fees, expenses and the service award does not equal the amount that Defendants have
agreed to pay then the excess will be distributed to the Class, if administratively feasible, or
distributed to a non-profit organization chosen by the Court.
COMPENSATION FOR CLASS MEMBERS
9. How Can I Receive Compensation Under the Settlement and How Much Compensation Can I Receive?
Class Members who have previously been identified from the records of the Washington State
Patrol or of Defendants do not need to do anything in order to receive compensation under the
proposed Settlement. (If you received this Notice, you have been identified as a Class Member. If
you are not certain, you can contact the Settlement Administrator to confirm that you were
previously identified as a Class Member).
Eligible Class Members will be compensated in the following manner.
A. Payments from the $950,000 Settlement Fund
Class Members will receive payments from the Settlement Fund. The Settlement Fund will be
distributed based on the Court-approved Plan of Allocation. The proposed Plan of Allocation can
be found on the Settlement Administrator’s web site at www._____________.com and is described
in the Appendix to this Notice.
B. Payment of Service Award.
Class Counsel will ask the Court to award a service award to Plaintiff Jade Wilcox in the amount
of $ ____. The proposed service award recognizes the service that Plaintiff provided in this case,
including appearing for a deposition, attending hearings and attending a mediation. Other than this
service award, Plaintiff will receive payments like other Class Members according to the Plan of
Allocation.
RELEASE
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2326 Page 7 of 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions?
Contact
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
[-5-]
10. What Am I Giving up as a Result of This Settlement?
If the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and the Settlement becomes effective, then all
Class Members who do not opt out of the settlement on a timely basis will give up – in legal terms,
release – their right to sue Defendants acquiring and using PTCRs containing their personal
information (as defined by the DPPA) from September 1, 2013 to June 23, 2017. Unless you opt
out of the lawsuit, you will be covered by the Release. The full details of the Release are contained
in Section 12 of the Settlement Agreement, which can be found on the Settlement Administrator’s
web site at www.______.com.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU AND THE CLASS
11. Do I Have a Lawyer in this Case?
Yes. The Court has appointed Block & Leviton LLP and the Law Offices of Thomas G. Jarrard
to represent the Class Members. Together, the lawyers are called Class Counsel. Unless you elect
to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will be represented by Class Counsel in the
litigation including with the implementation of the Settlement throughout the duration of the
terms of the Settlement. Although it is not necessary, you have the right, if you wish to do so,
retain your own attorney at your own expense.
If you have questions about the terms of the proposed Settlement you may contact Class Counsel
at the addresses below:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Block & Leviton LLP
1735 20th Street NW
Washington, DC, 20009
(202) 734-7046
Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
Law Office of Thomas Jarrard
1020 N. Washington Street
Spokane, WA 99201
(425) 239-7290
If you have questions about issues regarding Notice you should contact the Settlement
Administrator. Their contact information is below.
12. How Will The Lawyers Be Paid?
Class Counsel will ask the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, from an amount of
between $900,000 and $1,050,000 (separate from the $950,000, minus settlement administration
expenses, to be paid to the Class). This amount will be paid by Defendants in three equal payments
over the course of two and a half years. Class Counsel will also ask the Court to approve the
reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs, which are approximately $___, ____. Class Counsel
will be paid from these payments in an amount approved by the Court and not from the Settlement
Fund on which compensation for Class Members will be drawn. The fees will pay Class Counsel
for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating and implementing the settlement.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2327 Page 8 of 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions?
Contact
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
[-6-]
Class Counsel do not intend to seek more than the actual lodestar (i.e. hours times the hourly rate)
that they have incurred in investigating and litigating this case. To date, Class Counsel has
collectively spent __ hours litigating the case which currently has a value of $ _____ (and Counsel
will continue to incur time and expenses to finalize the settlement). The Court may award less than
these requested amounts to Class Counsel. The Court will examine the request for fees and
reimbursement of expenses of Class Counsel at the Fairness Hearing, as well as any objections to
that request, and determine the amount of fees and expenses to award.
HOW TO PROCEED
13. What Are My Options?
After reviewing the terms of the proposed Settlement set forth in this Notice, you have two options.
You must decide at this stage whether you want to: (1) remain a Class Member and retain an
opportunity to participate in the Settlement; (2) opt-out and exclude yourself from participating in
the Settlement.
OPTION #1: REMAIN A CLASS MEMBER
14. How Do I Remain in the Class?
If you are a member of the Class and you do not request to be excluded, you will remain a part of
the Class and all Released claims will be barred by this Settlement.
If you have previously been identified as a Class Member by the parties and you do not request to
be excluded, you will receive the payment that you may be entitled to receive under the Settlement
based on the Plan of Allocation described in the Appendix to this Notice. If you have not been
previously identified as a Class Member, you will not receive a payment from the Settlement, and
you will not give up any right to pursue claims against the Defendants separately about the claims
covered by the Settlement.
If your contact information changes after you receive this Notice, you should contact Class
Counsel at the addresses in Section 11.
OPTION #2: OPTING OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT
15. Who Should Opt Out of the Class?
If (1) you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue any of the Defendants regarding their
acquisition and use of PTCRs containing your personal information from September 1, 2013 to
June 23, 2017, or (2) you do not want to be bound by the Settlement of this lawsuit, then you
should take steps to exclude yourself from the Settlement. This is called “opting out” of the
Settlement. If you opt out, you will receive no benefits under this Settlement. You will be able to
assert your claim on your own, but Defendants will retain the right to assert any and all defenses
your claim, including the defense that your claim is untimely.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2328 Page 9 of 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions?
Contact
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
[-7-]
16. How Do I Opt Out of the Class?
To opt out of the Settlement, you must mail a written, signed statement that you are opting out of
the Settlement to the Settlement Administrator at the address below:
Settlement Administrator
_____________________
_____________________
To be effective, the opt-out statement must (1) contain your name, address, email(s), and telephone
number(s); (2) contain the title of the lawsuit, Wilcox v. Swapp, Case No. 2:17-cv-275-RMP (E.D.
Wash.), (3) include a written statement stating “I wish to be excluded from the Class”; and (4) be
signed and dated. To be effective, this opt-out statement must be mailed via First Class United
States Mail, postage prepaid, to the Settlement Administrator, and must be postmarked on or before
[DATE].
Please note that if you submit a timely and valid request for exclusion you will have no right to
object to the Settlement in Court and will no longer be represented by Class Counsel.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
17. How Do I Tell the Court That I Don’t Like the Settlement?
The Court must assess the overall fairness and reasonableness of the Settlement to the Class. If
you are a Class Member and you do not opt out, then you can object to the Settlement if you don’t
like any part of it, and the Court will consider your views. To object to the Settlement and have
your objection considered by the Court, you must submit a written objection to the Settlement
which must be postmarked on or before [DATE]. Your objection needs to contain (1) your name,
address, email(s), and telephone number(s) and an appearance on behalf of any counsel
representing you (if any); (2) the title of the lawsuit, Wilcox v. Swapp, Case No. 2:17-cv-275-RMP
(E.D. Wash.), (3) a written statement of the grounds for your objection, including any evidence
supporting your objection; (4) a statement of whether you intend to appear at the Final Approval
Hearing, and, if you will appear through counsel, the identity of your counsel, and (6) your
signature and the date.
Your objection needs to be addressed to the Settlement Administrator:
__________________
__________________
18. What is the Difference Between Objecting and Opting Out?
Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like or disagree with an aspect of the
Settlement. You can object to the Settlement only if you do not exclude yourself from the
Settlement. Excluding yourself from the Settlement is telling the Court that you do not want to
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2329 Page 10 of 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions?
Contact
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
[-8-]
be part of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you cannot object to the
Settlement because you will not be bound by the Settlement.
THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING
19. When and Where Will the Court Decide Whether to Approve the Settlement?
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing (called a Fairness Hearing) at _____ a.m./p.m. on
[DATE], in the courtroom of the Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, at 920 W Riverside Ave.,
Rm. 840, Spokane, WA 99201.
At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. If there are any objections, then the Court will consider them. The Court
will also consider whether the motion of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved, whether Plaintiffs’ motion for service award for
the Class Representative should be approved, and whether, in accordance with the Settlement, a
final order and judgment should be entered bringing the litigation to a conclusion.
20. Do I Have To Come To The Fairness Hearing?
No. Class Counsel and the Defendants’ counsel will answer questions that the Judge may have. If
you send an objection, then you don’t have to come to Court to talk about it, but you are entitled
to if you want to. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it.
21. May I Speak at the Hearing?
You may speak at the Fairness Hearing only if you have filed an objection. You may appear either
in person or through a lawyer hired at your own expense. You may withdraw your objections at
any time.
SETTLEMENT NOT YET FINAL
22. Can the Settlement be Terminated?
At the Fairness If there is no final Court approval of the proposed Settlement in this case, or if
Class Counsel or Defendants withdraw from the Settlement in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, or if the Settlement is not consummated for any other reason, the Settlement
Agreement will become null and void, and the parties will resume their former positions in the
lawsuits.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
23. Where Can I Get More Information?
This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are in the Settlement Agreement.
You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and other
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2330 Page 11 of 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions?
Contact
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
[-9-]
relevant documents by visiting the case web site, www.___________________.com, or by
contacting the Settlement Administrator or Class Counsel. If you have further questions or are
still not sure whether you are included, you can get free help at
www.___________________.com, by calling the Settlement Administrator at (___) ___-____,
or by calling or writing to Class Counsel in this case at the contact numbers/address listed in
Section 11.
Again, the important deadlines are:
Last Day To “Opt-Out” Of The Class: [DATE]
Last Day To Object To The Settlement: [DATE]
Final Approval Hearing: [DATE]
PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR CONTACT THE COURT, THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
OF COURT, OR DEFENDANT WITH QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
Dated: [DATE]
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2331 Page 12 of 13
APPENDIX – DESCRIPTION OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION
1. The Net Class Settlement Fund. The Net Class Settlement Fund shall consist of
(a) $950,000 paid by Defendants into the Escrow Account under Section 4.1 of the Settlement
Agreement, less any amounts used to pay Court approved settlement administration expenses,
and (b) any amount of the $900,000 (or additional amount of up to $1,050,00 if not paid in 2020)
paid by Defendants under Section 10.3 of the Settlement Agreement that is not approved by the
Court as attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, other costs of settlement
administration or a service award to Plaintiff and which is then paid into the Settlement Fund
under Section 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement.
2. Authorized Claimants. An Authorized Claimant will be any individual who both
(a) appeared on PTCRs purchased by Defendants during the Class Period as reflected by the data
produced by Defendants to Class Counsel, and (b) falls within the Class definition (and is not
excluded from the Class definition), but (c) has not opted out of the Class.
3. Allocating the Net Class Settlement Fund. The Net Class Settlement Fund will
be initially allocated among Authorized Claimants on an equal basis as calculated by dividing the
total dollar value of the Net Class Settlement Fund by the number of Authorized Claimants.
4. Initial Distributions to Authorized Claimants. Unless otherwise modified by
the Court, an initial distribution of the Net Class Settlement Fund (the “Initial Distribution”) will
be issued to Authorized Claimants within 90 days of the later of either (a) the time that
Defendants have fully paid $950,000 into the Escrow Fund as provided by Section 4.1 of the
Settlement Agreement or (b) the date on which the Settlement is Final. The check for the Initial
Distribution will state that it is void 90 days from the date of issuance. On either the check or a
document accompanying the check will bear the following:
By endorsing this check, you declare under penalty of perjury that all of the
following information is true and correct: (1) You had a drivers license between
2013 and June 2017; (2) You were involved in an automobile accident in
Washington State sometime between 2013 and June 2017; (3) You are not a
current or former client of the Swapp Law firm or Craig Swapp; (4) You did not
provide consent to the Swapp Law Firm or Craig Swapp to obtain your personal
information; (5) You are not a current or former employee of the Swapp Law
Firm (or a relative of such employee).
If ALL of the following is not true, you should NOT endorse this check, but
should contact the Settlement Administrator at [INSERT PHONE & EMAIL]
5. Second Distributions to Authorized Claimants. A second distribution will be
made to those Authorized Claimants who endorsed their Initial Distribution checks within 90
days after issuance from the Initial Distribution only if after the Initial Distribution: the Net
Settlement Fund contains or subsequently has sufficient monies to pay the costs of administering
a second distribution to Authorized Claimants; a second distribution is economically feasible;
and the amount to be distributed to those Authorized Claimants (after expenses) would be $5 or
more. The check for the second distribution will state that it is void 90 days from the date of
issuance.
6. Residual Funds. After any second distribution to Authorized Claimants or if
there are not sufficient funds to make a second distribution to the Authorized Claimants pursuant
to Paragraph 5 of this Plan of Allocation, any residual funds in the Net Class Settlement Fund
will be distributed consistent with Section 5.4 of the Settlement Agreement.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-3 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2332 Page 13 of 13
Exhibit C
96
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-4 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2333 Page 1 of 4
SECOND SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE: Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JADE WILCOX, on behalf of herself,
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs
SWAPP LAW, PLLC, DBA CRAIG
SWAPP AND ASSOCIATES; and
JAMES CRAIG SWAPP, individually,
Defendants.
Case No. CV 17-275-RMP
Related to Case No. CV 17-00122-
RMP
PLAN OF ALLOCATION
1. The Net Class Settlement Fund.1 The Net Class Settlement Fund
shall consist of (a) $950,000 paid by Defendants into the Escrow Account under
Section 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement, less any amounts used to pay Court
approved settlement administration expenses, and (b) any amount of the $900,000
(or additional amount of up to $1,050,00 if not paid in 2020) paid by Defendants
under Section 10.3 of the Settlement Agreement that is not approved by the Court
as attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, other costs of settlement
administration or a service award to Plaintiff and which is then paid into the
Settlement Fund under Section 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement.
1 All capitalized terms have the meaning provided by the Settlement Agreement if
not otherwise defined by this Plan of Allocation.
97
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-4 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2334 Page 2 of 4
SECOND SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE: Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2. Authorized Claimants. An Authorized Claimant will be any
individual who both (a) appeared on PTCRs purchased by Defendants during the
Class Period as reflected by the data produced by Defendants to Class Counsel,
and (b) falls within the Class definition (and is not excluded from the Class
definition), but (c) has not opted out of the Class.
3. Allocating the Net Class Settlement Fund. The Net Class Settlement
Fund will be initially allocated among Authorized Claimants on an equal basis as
calculated by dividing the total dollar value of the Net Class Settlement Fund by
the number of Authorized Claimants.
4. Initial Distributions to Authorized Claimants. Unless otherwise
modified by the Court, an initial distribution of the Net Class Settlement Fund (the
“Initial Distribution”) will be issued to Authorized Claimants within 90 days of the
later of either (a) the time that Defendants have fully paid $950,000 into the
Escrow Fund as provided by Section 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement or (b) the
date on which the Settlement is Final. The check for the Initial Distribution will
state that it is void 90 days from the date of issuance. On either the check or a
document accompanying the check will bear the following:
By endorsing this check, you declare under penalty of perjury
that all of the following information is true and correct: (1) You
had a drivers license between 2013 and June 2017; (2) You were
involved in an automobile accident in Washington State sometime
between 2013 and June 2017; (3) You are not a current or former
client of the Swapp Law firm or Craig Swapp; (4) You did not
98
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-4 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2335 Page 3 of 4
SECOND SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE: Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
provide consent to the Swapp Law Firm or Craig Swapp to obtain
your personal information; (5) You are not a current or former
employee of the Swapp Law Firm (or a relative of such employee).
If ALL of the following is not true, you should NOT endorse this
check, but should contact the Settlement Administrator at
[INSERT PHONE & EMAIL]
5. Second Distributions to Authorized Claimants. A second
distribution will be made to those Authorized Claimants who endorsed their Initial
Distribution checks within 90 days after issuance from the Initial Distribution only
if after the Initial Distribution: the Net Settlement Fund contains or subsequently
has sufficient monies to pay the costs of administering a second distribution to
Authorized Claimants; a second distribution is economically feasible; and the
amount to be distributed to those Authorized Claimants (after expenses) would be
$5 or more. The check for the second distribution will state that it is void 90 days
from the date of issuance.
6. Residual Funds. After any second distribution to Authorized
Claimants or if there are not sufficient funds to make a second distribution to the
Authorized Claimants pursuant to Paragraph 5 of this Plan of Allocation, any
residual funds in the Net Class Settlement Fund will be distributed consistent with
Section 5.4 of the Settlement Agreement.
99
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-4 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2336 Page 4 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JADE WILCOX, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SWAPP LAW, PLLC, D/B/A
CRAIG SWAPP AND
ASSOCIATES, AND JAMES
CRAIG SWAPP, individually,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-275-RMP
Related to Case No. 2:17-cv-00122-
RMP
DECLARATION OF COLIN M.
DOWNES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-5 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2337 Page 1 of 4
Decl. of Colin M. Downes in Support of Pls’ Unopposed Mo. for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I, Colin M. Downes, hereby declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of
the United States as follows:
1. I am an attorney and an associate with the law firm of Block &
Leviton, LLP. I am supervised by counsel for Plaintiff and Co-Lead Counsel for
the Class in this case, R. Joseph Barton. I am an active member of the bars of the
State of New York and the District of Columbia.
2. Block & Leviton solicited bids for class notice and settlement
administration services through a competitive process. On February 7, 2019,
following certification of the Class, Block & Leviton circulated a request for
proposals for class notice services to six prominent providers of class
administration services. Four of these service providers submitted bids: RG/2,
Angeion Group, Rust Consulting, Inc., and RSM US LLP.
3. Before Class Counsel was to move for appointment of a class notice
service provider and approval of class notice, this case was stayed to allow for
mediation. In advance of mediation, Block & Leviton invited the four service
providers that had responded to the initial request for proposals to provide class
notice services to update their proposals to include administration services.
4. Class Counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel conducted analysis of data
produced by Defendants in this case that set out information for each person listed
on a police traffic collision report (“PTCR”) purchased by Defendants during the
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-5 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2338 Page 2 of 4
Decl. of Colin M. Downes in Support of Pls’ Unopposed Mo. for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
class period. Class Counsel ran searches over this data to remove duplicative
entries that appeared because the same individual had appeared on multiple PTCRs
or because purchases of PTCRs by Defendants had resulted in the same PTCR
being downloaded multiple times.
5. Class Counsel also ran searches over this data to eliminate entries that
referred to government or business entities: entries containing the text strings
“City”, “State”, “Inc.”, “Corp.”, “County,” or “LLC” in the name field. Likewise,
Class Counsel ran searches over this data to eliminate entries that bore indicia of
having not been populated using information from a motor vehicle record: entries
containing the text strings “UNK”, “UNKNOWN”, “TRANSIENT”,
“HOMELESS”, or “STATE MOTOR POOL” in the “Street1” (address) field
rather than containing an address taken from a driver’s license or vehicle
registration.
6. Based on review and analysis of this data, Class Counsel adjusted its
assumption of the class size and sought updated proposals for settlement
administration services from the four bidders. Class Counsel then engaged in
extended discussions with each bidder and analysis of their proposals, in an effort
to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison of the proposals.
7. The two lowest priced bids were submitted by Angeion Group and
RG/2 Claims Administration. True and correct copies of their proposals are
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-5 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2339 Page 3 of 4
Decl. of Colin M. Downes in Support of Pls’ Unopposed Mo. for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
attached hereto as follows:
Exhibit A Proposal for Settlement Administration Services Submitted by
Angeion Group; and
Exhibit B Proposal for Settlement Administration Services Submitted by
RG/2 Claims Administration.
Executed this 25th day of October, 2019, in Washington, D.C.
Colin M. Downes
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-5 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2340 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit A
104
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-6 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2341 Page 1 of 2
Case/Project Name: Jade Wilcox v. Swapp Law, et al.
Type of Case: Consumer
Submission Date: August 28, 2019 -- REVISED 10.23.19
Firm(s) Submitted to: Block & Leviton LLP
Firm(s) Contact: Ming Siegel, R. Joseph Barton, Esq. & Colin Downes, Esq.
Angeion Representative:
TOTAL ($)
4,890.00
38,161.75
VOLUME RATE ($) TOTAL ($)
30,332.38
1,984.64
75,369
78,500
** NOT TO EXCEED is contingent upon a class size of 32,200
Other Relevant Costs
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
Distribution and Post Distribution
NOT TO EXCEED TOTAL**
Case Management and ReportingIncludes case set-up costs, data management fees, reporting and other applicable fees
Notification Fees & Costs
Includes mailing to class members, processing undeliverable notices, processing notice requests,
processing opt-outs, website, telephone support and other correspondence.
Angeion Group Project Proposal Schedule of Fees and Charges
Christian Clapp, Esq., Steven Weisbrot, Esq. & Christopher Chimicles, MBA
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL (PAGE 1)105
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-6 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2342 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit B
106
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-7 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2343 Page 1 of 5
Presented by: Dominique Fite, Esquire
Vice President, Business Development and Client Relations
(619)[email protected]
www.rg2claims.com
Page 1 CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSAL-NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 10/23/2019
Estimate of Costs for Notice and Administration Services related to: Jade Wilcox v. Swapp Law, et al.
Assumptions Used in Estimate Preparation
RG/2 Claims Administration LLC’s proposal relies upon the assumptions set forth herein. Any services not discussed but required by counsel, the Orders of the Court, or Settlement Agreement will be billed at addition rates.
Estimated Class Size: Notice Type:
32,300 Long-form notice - direct mail12-pagesNotice and Claim Packet Length:
Retruned Notice Mailings: Forwarded Notice Mailings: Publication Notice: Toll-Free Automated System: Live Operator or Call Back: Average Call Time: Case Specific Website: Online Claim Portal: Claims Rate: Distribution Type:
10% or 3,230 2,132 No Yes – assumes 1,615 calls (5%) Live Operator 3 minutes Yes No No claims process Check
Mailing & Damage Data This estimate assumes mailing list and damage data will be provided in useable electronic format. Data in useable electronic format includes mailing data, social security numbers, and finalized damage data required for settlement payment calculation. Where damage data requires analysis of multiple or duplicative records per settlement class member or requires the consolidation or accumulation of data, additional time beyond that contemplated by this estimate may be required and will be charged in addition to the estimate above by RG/2 staff at their preferred rates. RG/2 accepts data in all standard file formats including excel files (.xls), text files (.txt), comma separated value files (.csv), and access databases (.mdb). Requests to process data from proprietary databases or paper records, or other sources not identified above can be performed by RG/2 staff at their preferred rates.
Cost Estimate Summary Setup Cost $ 3,588 Notification Cost $ 37,222 Processing Costs $ 28 Telephone & Email Support $ 5,271 Fund Distribution & Tax Reporting $ 49,698 Project Management $ 8,870 Total Estimated Cost $ 104,676
Courtesy Discount $ 6,000
Total Revised Estimate $ 98,676
Offered Cap $ 100,000*
*Proposed cap contingent on assumptions provided herein.
107
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-7 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2344 Page 2 of 5
Presented by: Dominique Fite, Esquire
Vice President, Business Developm ent and Client Relations
(619)[email protected]
www.rg2claims.com
Estimate of Costs for Notice & Administration Services related to: Jade Wilcox v. Swapp Law, et al.
Page 2 CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSAL-NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 10/23/2019
Quantity (hours/pieces) Rate Amount
Design & Development Start Up - Development of Case-Specific Notice and Administration Plan 6 $ 260.00 $ 1,560
Case Intake Review Notice, Design and Typeset Forms 3 $ 176.00 $ 528
Case Website Develop Static website with Case documents 6 $ 175.00 $ 1,050 Monthly Maintenance 6 $ 75.00 $ 450
Subtotal: Setup Cost $ 3,588
Claimant Identification & Notification $ 32,081 Print 12 page notice package 32,300 $ 0.540 $ 17,442 NCOA and Mail $ 750 Postage 32,300 $ 0.430 $ 13,889
Notice Follow Up (not required at this time) $ 5,141 Returned Notices - Process Mail & Update Database 3,230 $ 0.350 $ 1,131 Process Forwarding Requests 485 $ 0.550 $ 266 Skip Trace Returned Notices 2,746 $ 0.323 $ 888 Re-Mail Notices 2,132 $ 0.790 $ 1,684 Postage 2,132 $ 0.550 $ 1,172
Subtotal: Notification Cost $ 37,222
Opt-Out Processing Input Opt-Outs into Proprietary Database and Report 25 $ 1.10 $ 28
Subtotal: Processing Cost $ 28
108
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-7 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2345 Page 3 of 5
Presented by: Dominique Fite, Esquire
Vice President, Business Developm ent and Client Relations
(619)[email protected]
www.rg2claims.com
Estimate of Costs for Notice & Administration Services related to: Jade Wilcox v. Swapp Law, et al.
Page 3 CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSAL-NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 10/23/2019
Quantity (hours/pieces) Rate Amount
Telephonic Database Support Telephone Calls 1,615 Min Per Call 3
Total Minutes 4,845 $ 0.12 $ 581 Telephone Calls Requiring Live Support* 3,392 $ 1.25 $ 4,239 Emails *min $100 per month
100 $ 4.50 $ 450
Subtotal: Telephone and Email Support $ 5,271
Distribution $ 47,848 Check Printing including w-2/1099 32,275 $ 0.85 $ 27,434 Postage 32,275 $ 0.43 $ 13,878 Reissue Checks 1,614 $ 3.50 $ 5,648 Postage 1,614 $ 0.55 $ 888
Tax Preparation $ 1,850 QSF Tax Return Prep & Filing (1 yr) $ 1,200 State tax filings (1 state) 1 $ 650.00 $ 650
Subtotal: Distribution $ 49,698
Case Management, Data Management, Data Warehousing, Fraud Detection and Prevention, Quality Assurance, Technical Support and Reporting to Counsel and the Court.
$ 8,870
Subtotal: Project Management $ 8,870
Postage $ 28,940 Other Fees/Costs $ 75,737
*RG/2 reserves the right to modify this estimate to reflect changes in assumption and/or terms. Please note, this estimate requires RG/2 to rely on certaininformation provided by Counsel as well as making a number of significant assumptions. Accordingly, these estimates are not intended to limit RG/2's actual fees and expenses, which due to the scope of actual services or changes to the underlying facts or assumptions, may be less or more thanestimated.
Estimated Notice and Administration Costs and Expenses * $ 104,676
109
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-7 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2346 Page 4 of 5
CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSAL-NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 10/23/2019
www.rg2claims.com
Jade Wilcox v. Swapp Law, et al.
Terms and Conditions All notice and claims administration services to be provided by RG/2 Claims Administration LLC (“RG/2 Claims”) to Client shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. Subject to the terms hereof, RG/2 Claims agrees to provide the Client with the notice and/or claims administration services (“Notice/Claims Services") as specified in the Proposal provided to Client to which these Terms and Conditions are attached. Anyservices not described herein but required by counsel, the Orders of the Court, or Settlement Agreement will be billed in addition to this proposal.
2. Charges to the Client for Notice/Claims Services shall be on a time and materials basis at our preferred regular rates, which are updated on a regular basis. Any fee estimates set forth in the proposal are estimates only, based on information provided by Client to RG/2 Claims and subject to the assumptions set forth above. Actual fees charged by RG/2 Claims to Client may be greater orless than such estimate, and Client shall be responsible for the timely payment of all such charges andexpenses.
3. RG/2 Claims does not convey nor does the Client obtain any right in the programs, system data, or materials utilized or provided by RG/2 Claims in the ordinary course of business in the performance of this Agreement.
4. To the extent performance by RG/2 Claims of any of its obligations hereunder is substantially prevented by reason of ForceMajeure, any act of God, or by reason of any other matter beyond RG/2 Claims’ reasonable control, then such performance shall beexcused and this Agreement, at RG/2 Claims’ option, be deemed suspended during the continuation of such condition and for areasonable time thereafter.
5. The terms of this agreement will remain in effect until completion of the Notice/Claims Services, unless earlier terminated inaccordance with Section 7 hereof.
6. Unless directed otherwise in writing by Client, RG/2 Claims will retain and destroy all records including documents, reports,electronics record, and other materials in accordance with its Record Retention and Destruction Policy.
7. The Notice/Claims Services to be provided under this Agreement may be terminated, at will by the Client upon at least 30calendar days prior written notice to RG/2 Claims . The Client's obligation to pay for services or projects in progress at the time of notice of withdrawal shall continue throughout that 30 day period. RG/2 Claims may terminate this Agreement (i) with 10calendar days prior written notice, if the Client is not current in payment of charges or (ii) in any event, upon at least 3 months prior written notice to the Client. In the event Client terminates this agreement, RG/2 Claims shall have no obligation to release orprovide any data, report, or other information relating to the applicable case until Clients’ payment obligation for RG/2 Claims services has been satisfied in full.
8. Any notice required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally, by, or sent by registered mail,postage prepaid, or overnight courier service to the responsible officer or principal of RG/2 Claims or the Client, as applicable, and shall be deemed given when so delivered personally, or, if mailed, five days after the date of deposit in United States mail, or, if sent by courier, one business day after delivery to such courierservice.
9. No failure or delay on the part of a party in exercising any right hereunder will operate as a waiver of, or impair, any such right.No single or partial exercise of any such right will preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right.No waiver of any such right will be effective unless given in a signedwriting.
10. All accrued payment obligations hereunder, any remedies for breach of this Agreement, this Section and Section 3 regarding rights in data will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement.
11. The retention or appointment of RG/2 Claims to perform Notice/Claims Services constitutes the Client’s agreement to be bound by these Terms and Conditions for the applicable matter.
12. These Terms and Conditions and Proposal provided to Client to which these Terms and Conditions are attached shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and agreements related thereto, either written or oral, except to the extent they are expressly incorporated herein.No addition to, waiver, or modification of any provision of these Terms and Conditions shall be binding unless in writing andsigned by a duly authorized representative of RG/2 Claims and Client.
13. RG/2 may be eligible for rebates or volume-based credits from vendors and/or financial institutions. These rebates are the property of RG/2 and will not be passed through to individual matters.
14. This estimate is valid for ninety (90) days from the date of issuance.
Page 4
110
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-7 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2347 Page 5 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Jade Wilcox, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Swapp Law, PLLC, d/b/a Craig
Swapp and Associates, and James
Craig Swapp, individually,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-275-RMP
Related to Case No. 2:17-cv-00122-
RMP
[PROPOSED] ORDER
GRANTING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2348 Page 1 of 11
[Proposed] Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The above-captioned matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, ECF No. __. Based upon the
Court’s review of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Approval and the Declaration of Joseph R. Barton (“Barton Decl.”)
and the exhibits attached thereto, the Court grants preliminary approval of the
settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement attached to the Barton
Declaration as Exhibit 1 and finds as follows:
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
1. Preliminary approval is the first step in the class settlement process.
The request for preliminary approval only requires an “initial evaluation” of the
fairness of the proposed settlement. Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.632 (4th
ed. 2004). The purpose of preliminary approval is to determine “whether to direct
notice of the proposed settlement to the class, invite the class’s reaction, and
schedule a fairness hearing.” William B. Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class
Actions § 13:10 (5th ed. 2013).
2. In granting preliminary approval, the Court considers “whether the
Settlement Agreement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-
collusive negotiations; has no obvious deficiencies; does not grant preferential
treatment to class representatives, and falls within the range of possible approval.”
Hall v. L-3 Commc'ns Corp., No. 15 CV 231, 2019 WL 3845462, at *3 (E.D.
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2349 Page 2 of 11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wash. Jan. 25, 2019); Scott v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, No. 11 CV 1422, 2013
WL 12251170, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2013) (same); Gabriel v. Nationwide
Life Ins. Co., No. 09 CV 508, 2010 WL 11684279, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 17,
2010) (same).
3. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is the result of serious,
informed, and non-collusive negotiations. The Settlement Agreement is the result
of arm’s length negotiations by counsel well-versed in the prosecution of class
actions. The assistance of a professional mediator reinforces that the Settlement
Agreement is non-collusive. Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 14 CV
175, 2019 WL 1966112, at *3 (E.D. Wash. May 2, 2019) (finding no collusion
where “the Settlement Agreement was achieved under the supervision of a trusted
third-party mediator following extensive settlement negotiations”).
4. The proposed Settlement provides substantial relief to the Class. The
monetary component of the Settlement Agreement provides for payment of at least
$950,000 to a settlement fund for the benefit of the Class. This result is in line with
class settlements approved by other courts in DPPA cases. E.g. Wiles v. Sw. Bill
Tel. Co., No. 09 CV 4236, 2011 WL 2416291, at *1 (W.D. Mo. June 9, 2011)
(finding a $900,000 settlement reasonable for a class of all drivers licensed in
Missouri). This result is particularly appropriate given that Class Counsel has
determined through analysis of financial records produced by the Defendants that
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2350 Page 3 of 11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the Defendants do not have the capacity to pay anything more than a fraction of the
judgment that Plaintiff might realize on behalf of the Class at trial. Barton Decl. ¶
__. This factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval. Rinky Dink, Inc. v. World
Bus. Lenders, LLC, No. 14 CV 268, 2016 WL 4052588, *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3,
2016).
5. The Settlement Agreement also provides that the Defendants will
make changes to their business practices, including refraining from acquiring
Police Traffic Collision Reports for the purpose of soliciting clients and destroying
the protected information of Class members in their possession. These non-
monetary forms of relief accomplish the privacy purposes of the DPPA. See
Roberts v. Source for Pub. Data, LP, No. 08 CV 4167, 2010 WL 2195523, at *3
(W.D. Mo. May 28, 2010).
6. The Settlement Agreement does not suffer from any obvious
deficiencies, such as preferential treatment of the Class representative. The Ninth
Circuit has advised courts to be concerned (a) “when counsel receive a
disproportionate distribution of the settlement, or when the class receives no
monetary distribution but class counsel are amply rewarded”; (b) “when the parties
negotiate a ‘clear sailing’ arrangement providing for the payment of attorneys' fees
separate and apart from class funds, which carries ‘the potential of enabling a
defendant to pay class counsel excessive fees and costs in exchange for counsel
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2351 Page 4 of 11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
accepting an unfair settlement on behalf of the class’”; and (c) “when the parties
arrange for fees not awarded to revert to defendants rather than be added to the
class fund.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th
Cir. 2011). Such signs do not necessarily mean that a settlement is improper, but
only that it is supported by an explanation of why the fee is justified and does not
betray the class's interests. Id. at 949.
7. Here, the Class will receive a monetary distribution and counsel’s
distribution will not be disproportionate. While the Settlement Agreement includes
a “clear sailing” provision, under which attorneys’ fees will be paid from a
separate fund, these monies will come from payments to be made by Defendants
over time, and only after an initial monetary distribution has been made to the
Class. The Settlement Agreement provides that any amounts not awarded from this
separate fund will revert to the Class, and the amounts that will be paid are those
that Plaintiff or Class Counsel would be entitled to under the statutory fee
provision under the DPPA. Barton Decl. ¶ __; see Dennings v. Clearwire Corp.,
No. 10 CV 1859, 2013 WL 1858797, at *9 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2013) (holding
clear sailing provision non-collusive where amounts not awarded will revert to the
Class).
8. No class member or group of Class members will receive unduly
favorable treatment under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Plan of
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2352 Page 5 of 11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Allocation proposes that the Settlement Fund will be equally divided among all
Class Members and without the need for a claim form or claims process. This Plan
of Allocation is reasonable given that Class Members would each be entitled to
seek liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500 if they succeeded on the merits of
their respective claims. See 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(1).
9. The Court finds that there are no grounds to doubt the fairness of the
Settlement Agreement and concludes that the proposed Settlement Agreement is
within the range of possible settlement approval, such that notice to the class is
appropriate.
Class Notice
10. The Court approves the Proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement
(“Class Notice”) which is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Barton Declaration and
directs its distribution to the Class.
11. The content of the Class Notice fully complies with due process and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
12. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), a notice must
provide:
the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including
individual notice to all members who can be identified through
reasonable effort. The notice must concisely and clearly state in plain,
easily understood language: the nature of the action; the definition of
the class certified; the class claims, issues, or defenses; that a class
member may enter an appearance through counsel if the member so
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2353 Page 6 of 11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
desires; that the court will exclude from the class any member who
requests exclusion, stating when and how members may elect to be
excluded; and the binding effect of a class judgment on class members
under Rule 23(c)(3).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Notice sent by first class mail is sufficient when the
names and addresses of the class members are known. Eisen v. Carlisle &
Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173-77 (1974); Peters v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 966
F.2d 1483, 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1992); De La O v. Arnold-Williams, No. 04 CV 192,
2008 WL 11426817, at *5 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 12, 2008). Here, the names and
addresses of the Class members are known, and thus notice to the Class by first
class mail is appropriate.
13. Rule 23(c)(3) requires that the notice inform class members of the
following: “(i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii)
the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an
appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will
exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and
manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on
members under Rule 23(c)(3).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The proposed notice to
the Class meets these requirements.
14. A proper notice should (1) describe the facts underlying the action and
the class, (2) describe the terms of the settlement, (3) disclose any benefits
provided to class representatives, (4) provide information regarding attorney’s fees,
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2354 Page 7 of 11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(5) state the time and place of the final hearing, (6) provide counsel’s contact
information and instructions on how to object and/or make inquiries, and (7)
explain the procedure for allocation. Manual for Complex Litigation, supra, §
21.312; Burnett v. W. Customer Mgmt. Grp., LLC, No. 10 CV 56, 2011 WL
13290339, at *4 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2011) (approving notice that provided such
information). Here, the proposed notice to the Class provides information on these
subjects and informs class members about their rights under the Settlement as well
as their right to be heard at the final fairness hearing.
15. The Court appoints _____________________ as the Settlement
Administrator for providing Class Notice and otherwise assisting in administration
of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall provide notice to the Class
no later than ______________________. The Settlement Administrator will file a
declaration with the Court confirming that the Class Notice was sent in accordance
with this Order by __________________.
Class Action Settlement Procedures
16. Any Class Member who wishes to object to this Settlement or
otherwise to be heard concerning this Settlement shall timely inform the District
Court in writing of his or her intent to object to this Settlement and/or to appear at
the Fairness Hearing by following the procedures set forth in the Class Notice
(“Objection”). To be considered timely, the Objection must bear a postmark that is
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2355 Page 8 of 11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
no later than __________2020. The Objection must set forth at least the following:
(a) the full name, address and contact information for the Objector and the name
and address of counsel (if represented by counsel); (b) a written statement of any
and all objections to this Settlement and include any supporting papers and
arguments; (c) the signature of the Objector (or his attorney).
17. Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from this Settlement
shall timely inform the District Court in writing of his or her intent to be excluded
from this Settlement following the procedures set forth in the Class Notice
(“Exclusion”). To be considered timely, the Exclusion must bear a postmark that is
no later than no later than _______________, 2020. The Exclusion must set forth
at least the following: (a) the full name, address and contact information for the
person seeking exclusion; and (b) the signature of the person seeking exclusion (or
their attorney).
18. Any Class Member or other person who fails to make his, her or its
Objection or Exclusion in the manner provided shall be deemed to have waived
such objection or Exclusion and shall forever be foreclosed from making any
objection to the fairness or adequacy of the proposed settlement as incorporated in
the Settlement Agreement, to the Judgment, to the Plan of Allocation, to the award
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel, unless
otherwise ordered by the Court. To the extent that any objections or comments are
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2356 Page 9 of 11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
transmitted to Settlement Administrator, or the Parties' counsel, but are not filed
with the Court, those persons are hereby directed to file such objections with the
Court.
19. The Settlement Fund will be deemed and considered to be in custodia
legis of the Court and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court until such
time as such funds will be distributed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and/or
the order of the Court.
20. Class Counsel will file any Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and
any motion for Class Representative Service Award by _______________, 2020.
21. Neither Defendants nor Defendants’ counsel will have any
responsibility for the Plan of Allocation or will make any application for or take
any position on attorneys’ fees or reimbursement of expenses submitted by Co-
Lead Class Counsel.
22. Class Counsel shall file a Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement
by __________________, 2020.
23. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on __________, 2020 at
____am/pm at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington, 920 West Riverside Ave., Rm. 901, Spokane, Washington. The
Court may continue the date of the final fairness hearing if necessary without
further notice to the Class, but any such continuance will be publicized on the
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2357 Page 10 of 11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
settlement website.
It is so ORDERED this _________ day of __________, 2019.
Hon. Rosanna Malouf Peterson
United States District Judge
Case 2:17-cv-00275-RMP ECF No. 139-8 filed 10/25/19 PageID.2358 Page 11 of 11