United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DANIEL
D. CRABTREE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter comes before the court on plaintiff Jin Nakamura's
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (Doc. 136).
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer
Services, Inc., has agreed to the Settlement in full. The
court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion on May 15,
2019. The court has considered the parties' papers,
relevant legal authority, the arguments made by the parties
in favor of the settlement, and the record in this case. The
court grants plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval based
on the following findings and factors:
Plaintiff,
on behalf of himself and on behalf of the proposed Settlement
Class, and Defendant have agreed, subject to court approval,
to settle the above-captioned litigation on the terms set
forth in the August 25, 2018, Settlement Agreement;
This
court has reviewed and considered the Settlement
Agreement[1] the parties have entered into, as well as
all exhibits to it, the record in this case, the briefs and
arguments of counsel, and supporting exhibits;
Plaintiff
has moved for an order granting final approval of the
Settlement Agreement and final certification of the
Settlement Class;
This
court finds that the action meets all the prerequisites of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; and
All
defined terms contained in this Memorandum and Order have the
same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
IT
THEREFORE IS ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT:
1. The
court has personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff and all
Class Members and subject matter jurisdiction to approve this
Settlement Agreement;
2.
Under Rule 23, and solely for purposes of this Settlement,
the court certifies the Class, finding that questions of law
and fact common to all members of the Settlement Class
predominate over questions affecting only individual members,
and certification of the Settlement Class for purposes of
settlement is superior to other available methods for the
fair and efficient resolution of this controversy, satisfying
Rule 23(b)(3);
3. The
court grants the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement
and fully and finally approves the Settlement Agreement,
incorporating into this Order and Final Judgment the
Settlement Agreement. All terms used in this Memorandum and
Order shall have the same meaning as set forth in the
Agreement. The court finds the settlement's terms to be
fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, and directs its
consummation under its terms and conditions;
4. The
Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order and
Judgment are binding upon, and have res judicata and
preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or
other proceedings encompassed by the Released Claims
maintained by or on behalf of the Releasors;
5. The
court finds that the notice given to the Class Members under
the Notice Plan: (a) constituted the best notice practicable
under the circumstances; (b) constituted notice that was
reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise
Class Members of the pendency of the Action, of their right
to object to or exclude themselves from the proposed
Settlement as applicable, of their right to appear at the
final approval hearing, and of their right to seek relief;
(c) constituted reasonable, due, adequate, and sufficient
notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (d)
complies in all respects with the requirements of Rule 23,
due process, and all other applicable law;
6.
Class Counsel and the named plaintiff have represented the
Class Members adequately for purposes of entering into and
implementing this Agreement and Settlement, and, under Rule
23, the court makes final appointment of Rex A. Sharp, Ryan
C. Hudson, and Scott B. Goodger of Rex A. Sharp, P.A.; Bryce
B. Bell and Mark W. Schmitz of ...