Nakamura v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

          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 ...