Zayas v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department
- Joseph Spero
- 3:18-cv-06155
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Zayas v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department, Chief Magistrate Judge Spero approved a class settlement, certified the settlement class, approved fees and costs, and dismissed Johnson plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice.
The approximately 2,591 members of the certified settlement class, the named class representatives, class counsel, the settlement administrator, the Johnson plaintiffs, and Novell Taylor were directly affected. The defendants were required to implement the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Zayas v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department, the court reviewed a proposed settlement after more than a year and a half of litigation involving claims about sewage events and jail policies. The court had previously certified the class and considered the parties’ filings, objections, supplemental materials, and a fairness hearing held on September 3, 2021.
The court found that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. It certified a settlement class of approximately 2,591 people, approved the named representatives and class counsel, found that proper notice had been provided, rejected the objections, and approved Novell Taylor’s request to leave the class.
Chief Magistrate Judge Spero granted final approval of the settlement, approved up to $145,000 for the settlement administrator, awarded $660,000 in attorneys’ fees and $35,000 in litigation costs, and ordered the parties to carry out the agreement. The claims of the Johnson plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, while those plaintiffs remained members of the settlement class and subclasses.
The detailed version
- Zayas v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department · No. 3:18-cv-06155
- Joseph Spero
- Oct. 4, 2021
Background
The court considered the plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a class-action settlement, objections from class members, supplemental materials, the case record, and related cases. It also held a final fairness hearing on September 3, 2021. The court found that the parties had litigated for more than one and a half years, including investigation, discovery, motion practice, and settlement negotiations. The plaintiffs had obtained class certification before the settlement was presented for final approval.
Settlement and Class Findings
Applying the factors used to evaluate class settlements, including the strength of the case, the risks and costs of continued litigation, the risk of maintaining class status through trial, and the amount of completed discovery, the court found the settlement “fair, adequate, and reasonable.”
For settlement purposes, the court found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) were met. The class contained approximately 2,591 members, making it impractical to join everyone in one case. The court found common questions concerning the timing, location, and causes of sewage events and the jail’s responses to those events. It also found that the class representatives’ claims were typical, that they and their lawyers could adequately represent the class, and that common issues predominated over individual issues for settlement purposes.
The court certified the settlement class and appointed Candido Zayas, Ruben Soto, Alfredo Ruiz, Jose Poot, Milton Leclaire, Ralph Dominguez, Matthew Brugman, Michael Brown, and Kishawn Norbert as class representatives. It appointed Yolanda Huang, Fulvio Cajina, and Stanley Goff as class counsel, with Huang as lead counsel for the settlement. The court noted that Nigel Henry had been mistakenly approved earlier as a class representative, but he was deceased and had already been dismissed from the case.
Notice, Objections, and Opt-Out
The court found that the notice provided to class members was proper and sufficient, including notice of the settlement, the right to object, the right to appear at the fairness hearing, and the right to opt out. The court identified objections from Edward Blanche, Federico Freeman, the individuals identified by the claims administrator as B.G. and N.A., Alfonzo Williams, Adrian Gordon, Matthew Vidor, Barry Gilton, and the individual identified as C.S. The court concluded that the objections did not warrant denying the settlement.
The court approved Novell Taylor’s request to opt out even though the request may not have been timely under the court’s schedule. The parties represented that Taylor and the defendants had entered into a separate settlement agreement in principal, and the defendants waived a provision that otherwise made final approval of this class settlement depend on dismissal of Taylor’s related case. Taylor’s previously assigned $5,713.04 share was to be included in unclaimed funds for the second-round distribution.
Fees, Costs, and Administration
The court approved payment of up to $145,000 from the gross settlement amount to Greenfire Law, PC, as settlement administrator. Any unused portion was to be included in unclaimed funds for the second-round distribution.
The court found the requested attorneys’ fees and litigation costs fair, reasonable, and adequate. It awarded $660,000 in attorneys’ fees jointly to Stanley Goff and Fulvio Cajina and approved an additional $35,000 in litigation costs for the Law Office of Yolanda Huang.
Disposition
The court granted the motion for final approval of the class-action settlement. It approved the settlement agreement on a final basis under Rule 23(e) and ordered the parties to comply with and implement its terms. As provided in the stipulation of dismissal in the related Johnson case, the Johnson plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice, while all Johnson plaintiffs remained members of the defined class and subclasses.
This is classified as a procedural order because the court approved and administered a class settlement rather than deciding the underlying claims after trial or dispositive merits proceedings.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.