Czarnionka v. The Epoch Times Association, Inc.

Background

Lawrence Czarnionka brought this putative class action against The Epoch Times Association, Inc. The proposed settlement addressed allegations that the defendant disclosed the personally identifiable information of Czarnionka and other class members without consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The opinion does not decide whether those allegations were true or whether the defendant was liable.

The parties presented an amended class settlement agreement and an unopposed motion for final approval. The settlement class was defined as all individuals residing in the United States who, during the class period, were Facebook account holders and subscribers to the defendant’s digital services and requested or obtained videos on an Epoch Times website while active Facebook account holders. The court excluded the defendant and its parents, subsidiaries, officers, and directors, as well as the assigned judge and court staff.

Class Certification and Settlement Approval

The court certified the settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2), solely for purposes of entering judgment on the settlement. It found that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy were satisfied. It also found that the defendant had allegedly acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, making class-wide injunctive relief appropriate.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. It considered the factors required by Rule 23 and the relevant factors concerning the complexity, cost, risks, duration, and likely outcomes of continued litigation. The court found that class counsel and the class representative adequately represented the class, that negotiations were conducted at arm’s length and included an all-day mediation, and that the settlement provided meaningful non-monetary benefits. It also found no evidence of collusion.

The court approved the notice program as reasonable and sufficient under Rule 23(c). No objections were filed. The court reaffirmed the appointment of Kroll Settlement Administration as notice administrator and directed class counsel and the administrator to carry out the settlement according to its terms.

Fees, Costs, Service Award, and Judgment

The court approved $695,624.49 in attorneys’ fees and $34,375.60 in reimbursement of litigation costs. It also approved a $2,500 service award for Czarnionka as class representative. The payments were to be made as provided in the settlement agreement.

The court ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. Upon the settlement’s effective date, the releasing parties would release the defined released claims against the released parties. The order expressly stated that released claims did not include claims for damages or other monetary relief, or claims to enforce the settlement’s terms.

The court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to oversee implementation and enforcement of the settlement and the order. It directed entry of final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and ordered the clerk to close the case. The order also stated that if it were reversed on appeal or did not become final, it would be vacated and the action would proceed as provided in the settlement agreement.

Disposition

The court approved the class settlement, approved the specified attorneys’ fees, costs, and service award, certified the settlement class for settlement purposes, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The settlement and judgment were not an admission of liability or of the truth of the allegations.