CourtListener opinion 10077430

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

1 
2 
3 
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 
7 
8 Case No. 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 

9 IN RE LINKEDIN ERISA LITIGATION ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 
 FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 
10 ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 
 IN PART REQUEST FOR 
11 ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND 
 SERVICE AWARDS 
12 
 Re: ECF No. 148 
13 
 Plaintiffs Douglas G. Bailey, Jason J. Hayes, and Marianne Robinson (collectively, 
14 
 "Plaintiffs") filed this putative class action individually and as participants of the LinkedIn 
15 
 Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust ("the Plan") against Defendants LinkedIn 
16 
 Corporation ("LinkedIn"), LinkedIn Corporation's Board of Directors ("the Board"), and LinkedIn 
17 
 Corporation's 401(k) Committee ("the Committee") asserting breach of their fiduciary duties under 
18 
 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and related 
19 
 breaches of applicable law beginning on or after August 14, 2014 until July 1, 2020 ("the Class 
20 
 Period"). Second Am. Compl. ("SAC"), ECF No. 99. 
21 
 The Court previously granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Class Action 
22 
 Settlement on July 13, 2023. Order Granting Mot. for prelim. Approval of Class Action Settlement 
23 
 ("Prelim. Approval Order"), ECF No. 147. As directed by the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, 
24 
 on October 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion for final settlement approval and for 
25 
 attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. Pls.' Notice of And Unopposed Mot. for Final Approval 
26 
 of Class Action Settlement Awards of Att'ys' Fees, Expenses, and Class Contribution Awards; 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 Mem. of P. & A. ISO ("Mot."), ECF No. 148. The Court heard arguments from the parties on 
2 December 13, 2023. No objectors appeared. 
3 Having considered the motion briefing, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the 
4 arguments of counsel, and the other matters on file in this action, the Court GRANTS the motion for 
5 final approval and GRANTS IN PART the request for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. 
6 The Court finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. The provisional appointments of the 
7 class representatives and class counsel are confirmed. The Court ORDERS that class counsel shall 
8 be paid $2,250,000 in attorneys' fees and $119,386.02 in litigation costs, and Named Plaintiffs 
9 Bailey, Hayes, and Robinson shall each be paid a $6,500 service award. 
10 I. BACKGROUND 
11 A. Procedural History 
12 Plaintiffs—former employees of LinkedIn—filed the putative class action complaint on 
13 August 14, 2020 against Defendants initially alleging two causes of action for breaches of fiduciary 
14 duties of loyalty and prudence and for failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries from on or after 
15 August 14, 2014 until July 1, 2020 ("the Class Period"). See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. The 
16 Plan at issue is a participant-directed 401(k) plan which permits participants to direct the investment 
17 of their contributions into various investment options the Plan offered, including various mutual 
18 funds, a collective investment trust, and a self-directed brokerage account. Id. ¶ 20; SAC ¶ 19. 
19 From August 14, 2014 to the present, Fidelity Management Trust Company ("Fidelity Trust") served 
20 as the Plan trustee for Plan assets. Compl. ¶¶ 23, 56; SAC ¶ 22. 
21 In the initial complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that LinkedIn violated its fiduciary duties by: (1) 
22 offering as investment options certain target date funds in the Fidelity Freedom Fund suite from 
23 Fidelity Management & Research Company, id. ¶¶ 25–41, and acting imprudently by selecting and 
24 retaining the actively managed Freedom Funds ("the Active Suite"), which are riskier and charge 
25 higher fees in comparison to passively managed index funds, id.; (2) by offering the actively 
26 managed American Funds AMCAP Fund Class R4 and R6 ("the AMCAP Fund"), which 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 significantly underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, and did not provide returns to 
2 justify its expense ratio such that the inclusion of the AMCAP Fund was imprudent, id. ¶¶ 42–45; 
3 and (3) by failing to ensure that the Plan's investment options charged only reasonable investment 
4 management fees; instead, the Plan paid management fees that were higher than average compared 
5 to other similarly sized 401(k) plans, id. ¶¶ 46–49. 
6 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Plaintiffs had not adequately 
7 alleged Article III standing and for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 44. The Court granted in part 
8 and denied in part Defendants' motion, finding that: (1) Plaintiffs lacked standing because they 
9 failed to plead facts demonstrating that Plaintiffs' suffered a concrete injury—i.e., that Bailey, 
10 Hayes, and Robinson personally invested in the Freedom Active Suite or the AMCAP Fund; and (2) 
11 dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of prudence claim to the extent it is premised on the inclusion and 
12 retention of the AMCAP Fund but that Plaintiffs adequately pled a claim for breaches of the duties 
13 of prudence and loyalty based on the Freedom Fidelity Active Suite allegations. ECF No. 96 ("MTD 
14 Order"). The Court granted leave to amend, and shortly thereafter Plaintiffs filed the operative 
15 complaint for: (1) breach of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security 
16 Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., (2) failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary 
17 breaches under ERISA; and, in the alternative, (3) knowing breach of trust. See generally SAC. In 
18 the SAC, Plaintiffs added specific allegations that Bailey, Hayes, and Robinson maintained an 
19 investment through the Plan in the Fidelity Freedom 2010 Fund, the 2050 Fund, and the 2030 Fund, 
20 respectively, during the Class Period. SAC ¶¶ 9–11. Plaintiffs also removed allegations regarding 
21 the AMCAP Fund. See ECF No. 99-1. 
22 Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC and a hearing was set for June 9, 2022. ECF No. 107. 
23 Before the hearing, Plaintiffs moved to certify the class, which was scheduled to be heard August 11, 
24 2022. ECF No. 121. On May 27, 2022, the Court took the motion to dismiss under submission. 
25 However, the Court never ruled on either motion; the following month, the Parties moved to stay the 
26 proceedings pending mediation, which the Court granted. ECF Nos. 124, 125. On September 23, 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 2022, the parties engaged in mediation with the assistance of an experienced mediator Robert A. 
2 Meyer, Esquire of JAMS. The Parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action on 
3 October 12, 2022, prior to class certification. 
4 The "Settlement Class" is defined as: 
5 All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time during the 
 Class Period (August 14, 2014, through July 1, 2020), including any 
6 beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at 
 any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payees, in the 
7 case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 
 ("QDRO") who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the 
8 Class Period. The Class shall exclude all Defendants, including the 
 individual members of the Board of Directors of LinkedIn 
9 Corporation, and the LinkedIn Corporation 401(k) Committee, and 
 their beneficiaries, during the Class Period. 
10 
 Mot. 2; see Decl. of Kolin C. Tang ISO Pls.' Unopposed Mot. for Prelim. Approval of Class 
11 
 Action Settlement and Approval of Class Notice ("Tang Decl."), ECF No. 139-2, Ex. 1 
12 
 ("Settlement Agreement") § 1.49. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally 
13 
 certified the Settlement Class and provisionally appointed Bailey, Hayes, and Robinson as Class 
14 
 Representatives for the Settlement Class, Strategic Claims Services ("SCS") as the Settlement 
15 
 Administrator, and Miller Shah LLP ("Miller Shah") and Capozzi Adler, P.C. ("Capozzi Adler ") 
16 
 as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Prelim. Approval Order at 3, 7. 
17 
 B. Terms of the Settlement Agreement 
18 
 Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants will pay a gross settlement amount 
19 
 of $6,750,000 into a common, interest-bearing Qualified Settlement Fund to be allocated on a pro 
20 
 rata basis to Current Participants, Former Participants, Beneficiaries, and Alternate Payees of the 
21 Plan pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, without admitting liability.1 Settlement Agreement §§ 1.27, 
22 
 4.5, 5.3, 10.1–10.2; Tang Decl., Ex. B ("Plan of Allocation"). This amount includes attorneys' fees 
23 
 and costs, the cost of class notice, the cost of settlement administration, the cost of the Independent 
24 
25 
26 
 1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Order are defined in the Settlement Agreement. 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 Fiduciary subject to a $25,000 cap, taxes due on the fund, and the class representatives' case 
2 contribution awards. Settlement Agreement §§ 1.27, 1.4, 4.5, 5.1.1–5.1.4, 6.1, 8.1. 
3 1. Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Case Contribution Awards 
4 Under the Settlement Agreement, the Parties agreed that Class Counsel will seek to recover 
5 no more than one-third of the gross settlement amount in attorneys' fees and case contribution 
6 awards not to exceed $12,500 per Class Representative as an incentive award in exchange for a 
7 general release of all claims against Defendants. Settlement Agreement § 6.1. The Settlement 
8 Agreement does not limit the amount of litigation costs Class Counsel may seek to recover. 
9 2. Class Relief 
10 The Settlement Agreement solely provides monetary relief via a non-reversionary common 
11 fund; it does not provide injunctive relief. Nor is there a cy pres recipient. After the payments have 
12 been issued to the Class members, any amount remaining in the Settlement Fund from uncashed 
13 checks after 180 days will be distributed back to the Settlement Fund to be utilized for the benefit of 
14 the Plan. See Plan of Allocation. 
15 3. Independent Fiduciary 
16 Section 11 of the Settlement Agreement provides that, prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, 
17 an Independent Fiduciary must approve an authorize the settlement. Settlement Agreement § 11.4. 
18 "If the Independent Fiduciary disapproves or otherwise does not authorize the Settlement or 
19 refuses to execute the release on behalf of the LinkedIn Plan, then the Settling Parties may 
20 mutually agree to modify the terms of this Settlement Agreement as necessary to facilitate 
21 approval by the Independent Fiduciary." Id. 
22 C. Class Notice and Claims Administration 
23 The Settlement Agreement is being administered by SCS, which has administered more than 
24 525 class actions since its inception in 1999. Decl. of Cornelia Vieira Concerning the Mailing of 
25 Settlement Notice and Former Participant Claim Form ("Vieira Decl.") ¶ 1, ECF No. 148-2. 
26 Following the Court's preliminary approval and conditional certification of the settlement, the Class 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 Administer received 17,353 entries identified as Class Members with a positive balance in the Plan 
2 during the Class Period, or as Beneficiaries, or Alternate Payees from Defendants. Id. ¶ 4. 
3 SCS disseminated the Settlement Notice via electronic and/or first-class mail to Class 
4 Members with an active account and the Former Participant Claim Form to each Class Member 
5 without an active account: a total of 15,727 Class Members for whom a valid email address existed 
6 received notice via email and the remaining 1,659 Class Members were sent notice via first-class 
7 mail. Suppl. Decl. of Cornelia Vieira Concerning the Mailing of the Settlement Notice and Former 
8 Participant Claim Form ("Vieira Supp. Decl.") ¶ 3, ECF No. 151-2. 
9 Specifically, of the 17,353 entries, SCS identified 12,676 as active accounts and 4,677 as 
10 non-active accounts. Id. Former Participants, Beneficiaries, and Alternate Payees who no longer 
11 have active accounts must submit a Former Participant Claim Form by November 10, 2023 to be 
12 eligible to receive Settlement Funds. Mot. 3. Class Members with active accounts received only the 
13 notice, since they are currently participants in the Plan and therefore not required to submit a claim 
14 form. Vieira Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. With respect to these Class Members with active accounts, 11,385 
15 received email notice and 1,291 received notice via mail. Vieira Decl. ¶ 4. With respect to Class 
16 Members who do not have active accounts, 4,342 received notice and the claim form via email and 
17 the remaining 335 non-active individuals received the notice and claim form via first-class mail. Id. 
18 A total of 17,357 active and non-active class members received notice by August 28, 2023. Vieira 
19 Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. 
20 Of the 4,677 non-active Class Members, 54 emailed and/or mailed notice and claim forms 
21 were returned as undeliverable. Id. ¶ 4. SCS was able to procure an updated mailing address and 
22 mail or re-mail notices and claim forms to 40 of these individuals. Id. of the active Class Members, 
23 44 of the emailed and/or mailed notices were returned as undeliverable. Id. ¶ 5. SCS was able to 
24 procure an updated mailing address and mail or re-mail notices to 34 of these individuals. Id. 
25 SCS also established a settlement website at www.strategicclaims.net/LinkedIn401K, which 
26 contains the current status of the case and important dates, as well as the settlement notice—which 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 provided Class Counsel's contact information—the claim form, the Preliminary Approval Order, the 
2 Settlement Agreement with exhibits, the SAC, and the toll-free number (866-274-4004) operated by 
3 SCS to which Class Members can direct questions about the settlement. Vieira Decl. ¶¶ 5–6. 
4 Non-active Class members were given until November 10, 2023, to submit claim forms. Id. 
5 ¶ 12. As of November 9, SCS had reportedly received 813 Former Participant Claim Forms, in 
6 addition to the 12,676 Class Members with active accounts who will automatically receive the 
7 benefit of the settlement. Vieira Supp. Decl. ¶ 9. 
8 All Class Members had until October 17, 2023 to postmark objections to the settlement. 
9 Vieira Decl. ¶ 11. To date, no Class Members objected to the settlement. Vieira Supp. Decl. ¶ 8; 
10 see Mot. at 5. 
11 II. FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
12 A. Legal Standard 
13 A court may approve a proposed class action settlement of a certified class only "after a 
14 hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate," and that it meets the requirements 
15 for class certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). In reviewing the proposed settlement, a court need 
16 not address whether the settlement is ideal or the best outcome, but only whether the settlement is 
17 fair, free of collusion, and consistent with plaintiff's fiduciary obligations to the class. See Hanlon v. 
18 Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d at 1027. The Hanlon court identified the following factors relevant to 
19 assessing a settlement proposal: (1) the strength of the plaintiff's case; (2) the risk, expense, 
20 complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status 
21 throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and 
22 the stage of the proceeding; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a 
23 government participant; and (8) the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement. Id. at 
24 1026 (citation omitted); see also Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 
25 2004). 
26 Furthermore, class settlements reached prior to formal class certification require a 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 "heightened fairness inquiry." In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., 50 F.4th 769, 783 (9th 
2 Cir. 2022) (quoting Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1049 (9th Cir. 2019)). When 
3 reviewing such a pre-certification settlement, the district court must not only explore the Churchill 
4 factors but also "look[] for and scrutinize[] any subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit 
5 of their own self-interests . . . to infect the negotiations." Roes, 944 F.3d at 1043 (internal quotation 
6 marks omitted). 
7 B. Discussion2 
8 1. The Settlement Class Meets the Prerequisites for Certification. 
9 As the Court found in its order granting preliminary approval and conditional certification of 
10 the settlement class herein, the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied for purposes of 
11 certification of the Settlement Class. To restate the Court's findings: 
12 • Numerosity: Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1), the Settlement Class of over 17,000 
13 individuals is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 
14 • Commonality: Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requires "questions of fact or law common 
15 to the class." Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Here, the interests of the Class 
16 Representatives and the nature of the alleged claims are consistent with those of the 
17 Settlement Class Members, and there appear to be no conflicts between or among the 
18 Class Representatives and the Settlement Class. 
19 • Typicality: Rule 23(a)(3) requires that Plaintiffs show that "the claims or defenses of 
20 the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Here, 
21 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties as to every Plan 
22 participant and that "they have all been injured in the same way," making Plaintiffs' 
23 claims typical of class members. Foster v. Adams & Assocs., Inc., No. 18-CV-02723-
24 
 2 The Court notes that the Parties provided the required notice to federal and state attorneys 
25 general under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). Decl. of Laurie 
 Rubinow ISO Mot. for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Awards of Att'ys' Fees, 
26 Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards ("Rubinow Decl.") ¶ 22, ECF No. 148-1. Notice 
 occurred more than 90 days before the date of this order, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d). 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 JSC, 2019 WL 4305538, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2019). 
2 • Adequacy: With respect to Rule 23(a)(4), the Class Representatives and Class 
3 Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Class. Class 
4 Counsel have prosecuted the action vigorously on behalf of the class; they have 
5 identified and investigated potential claims and are experienced in handling ERISA 
6 class actions. Furthermore, no conflicts of interest appear as between Plaintiffs and 
7 the members of the Settlement Class. 
8 • Finally, the Settlement Class further satisfies Rule 23(b)(1). "Rule 23(b)(1)(A) 
9 prevents the prosecution of separate actions that would create the risk of inconsistent 
10 or varying adjudications . . . that would establish incompatible standards of conduct 
11 for the party opposing the class." Moyle v. Liberty Mut. Ret. Ben. Plan, 823 F.3d 948, 
12 965 (9th Cir. 2016), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc (Aug. 18, 2016) 
13 (quotations omitted). "Certification under Rule 23(b)(1) is particularly appropriate in 
14 cases involving ERISA fiduciaries who must apply uniform standards to a large 
15 number of beneficiaries." Foster v. Adams & Assocs., Inc., No. 18-CV-02723-JSC, 
16 2019 WL 4305538, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2019) (citation omitted). Separate, 
17 individual prosecutions of Plaintiffs' ERISA action would create a risk inconsistent or 
18 varying adjudications as to individual Settlement Class Members and, as a practical 
19 matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the 
20 individual adjudications, or substantially impair or impede the ability of such persons 
21 to protect their interests. 
22 See Prelim. Approval Order. ¶¶ 2(a)–(f). 
23 2. Adequate Notice Was Provided. 
24 A court must "direct notice [of a proposed class settlement] in a reasonable manner to all 
25 class members who would be bound by the proposal." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). The notice must 
26 be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." In re Apple 
2 Device Performance, 50 F.4th at 779. However, "neither Rule 23 nor the Due Process Clause 
3 requires actual notice to each individual class member." Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 
4 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 2017). 
5 On July 13, 2023, the Court approved the Notice Plan subject to certain revisions described 
6 at the preliminary approval hearing on June 29, 2023. See ECF Nos. 144, 145. At the further 
7 hearing on July 13, 2023, the Court approved the revised notice and found the parties' proposed 
8 notice procedures provided the best notice practicable and reasonably calculated to apprise Class 
9 members of the settlement and their rights to object or exclude themselves. ECF Nos. 146, 147; 
10 Prelim. Approval Order 6–7. 
11 Pursuant to those procedures, SCS provided direct notice to 17,357 Class Members. Vieira 
12 Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. The most recently filed declaration indicates that approximately 24 Class Members 
13 with active and non-active accounts did not receive notice and/or a claim form because the 
14 Settlement Administrator lacked a valid email address or home address for these individuals. See 
15 Vieira Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. Only 10 Class Members with non-active accounts did not receive a 
16 notice and claim form because they were returned as undeliverable. Despite SCS's efforts, it was 
17 unable to obtain an updated mailing addresses from the U.S. Postal Service or locate their updated 
18 information by "skip-tracing." Id. ¶ 4. In sum, SCS was able to provide notice to more than 99% of 
19 the class. 
20 Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the Settlement Class has been provided 
21 adequate notice. 
22 3. The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate. 
23 "Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) requires the district court to determine whether a proposed 
24 settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable." Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 
25 959 (9th Cir. 2003). To determine whether a settlement satisfies Rule 23(e), a court must consider 
26 the following "Hanlon" factors: "the strength of plaintiffs' case; the risk, expense, complexity, and 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; 
2 the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the 
3 proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and 
4 the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement." Id. (quotations and citation 
5 omitted). As the Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order, the Hanlon factors 
6 indicate the settlement here is fair and reasonable and treats class members equitably relative to 
7 one another. See Prelim. Approval Order. 3–4. 
8 "The first and second [Hanlon] factors require the Court to consider the strength of the 
9 Plaintiffs' case on the merits balanced against the amount offered in the settlement and the risks of 
10 further litigation." Foster, 2022 WL 425559, at *4 (quotations and citation omitted). Although 
11 Plaintiffs believe there is a strong legal and factual basis for their claims, they recognize the 
12 inherent risks of continued litigation, particularly for complex ERISA claims. Mot. 7. Indeed, 
13 "ERISA is an enormously complex statute, and many ERISA matters also involve facts that are 
14 exceedingly complicated." Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506, 509 (2010) (quotation marks 
15 omitted). At the time the Parties reached settlement, motions to dismiss and certify the class were 
16 pending which required substantial continued litigation. Had plaintiffs prevailed, the Parties likely 
17 would have filed additional dispositive, expert exclusion, and other pretrial motions, culminating 
18 with a trial and potential appeal. Mot. 8. Moreover, the third factor looks to the risk of 
19 maintaining the class certification if litigation were to proceed. Since the Parties settled prior to a 
20 certification ruling, there was a risk that a class would not be certified. Even if Plaintiffs prevailed 
21 on their certification motion, the Court cannot conclude that there would be no risk of 
22 decertification. Settlement avoids these risks to the benefit of the Class. Thus, the first, second, 
23 and third Hanlon factors favor final approval. 
24 Fourth, the amount offered in settlement is within the range of reasonableness. "[I]t is 
25 well-settled law that a proposed settlement may be acceptable even though it amounts to only a 
26 fraction of the potential recovery that might be available to the class members at trial." Nat'l 
27 
 Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 
1 Rural Telecommunications Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 527 (C.D. Cal. 2004); see 
2 Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City & Cnty. of S.F., 688 F.2d 615, 628 (9th Cir. 
3 1982). According to Plaintiff's calculations, the settlement provides monetary relief of 
4 approximately 68%, of the midpoint, or $9,941,637.25, of the most likely range of losses from 
5 $3,943,017 million to $15,940,213 million. Mot. 9. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this 
6 recovery is in a range consistent with the median settlement recovery in class actions. 
7 The fifth and sixth factors—the extent of discovery and the stage of the proceedings—also 
8 favors final approval. "[E]xtensive review of discovery materials indicates [Class Counsel] had 
9 sufficient information to make an informed decision about the Settlement . . . . [which] favors 
10 approving the Settlement." In re: Volkswagen \Clean Diesel\" Mktg.