Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 12, 2020

Hart v. BHH LLC

Judge
William Pauley
Docket
1:15-cv-04804
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
Class ActionCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Hart v. BHH LLC, Judge Pauley preliminarily approved a revised class settlement and notice plan, leaving final approval for a later hearing.

Who this affects

The order affected Joanne Hart and Sandra Bueno, BHH, LLC, Van Hauser LLC, members of the proposed settlement class, class counsel, the class representatives, and Digital Settlement Group as claims administrator.

What happened

In Hart v. BHH LLC, Joanne Hart and Sandra Bueno renewed their request for preliminary approval of a revised settlement with BHH, LLC and Van Hauser LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The court found that the revised settlement appeared fair, reasonable, adequate, and within the possible range of approval. The revisions removed a quick-payment provision and changed the process for requesting class counsel’s fees.

Judge William H. Pauley preliminarily approved the settlement and notice plan, appointed Digital Settlement Group as claims administrator, and set procedures for claims, exclusions, objections, and a later final-approval hearing. The court did not grant final approval in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hart v. BHH LLC · No. 1:15-cv-04804
Judge
William Pauley
Date
Feb. 12, 2020

Background

Joanne Hart and Sandra Bueno renewed their motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class-action settlement with BHH, LLC, doing business as Bell + Howell, and Van Hauser LLC. The court had denied the plaintiffs’ initial motion. The revised proposal removed a quick-payment provision, provided that the class, class representatives, and counsel would be paid 30 days after final approval, and eliminated arbitration of class counsel’s fee award. Instead, class counsel would ask the court for an award of less than $6,500,000.

The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or describe the settlement’s payment formula. The court explained that preliminary approval asks whether a proposed settlement is likely to satisfy the requirements for final approval. At this stage, the court considers whether the settlement appears to result from informed, non-collusive negotiations, lacks obvious deficiencies, avoids improper preferential treatment, and falls within the possible range of approval.

Ruling on Preliminary Approval

The court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in its entirety, subject to a final approval hearing. It found that the settlement appeared fair, reasonable, adequate, within the possible range of approval, and in the best interests of the settlement class. The court also found that the agreement appeared to result from arm’s-length negotiations, met applicable legal requirements, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act, and warranted notice to the settlement class.

The court approved the form, content, and distribution of the proposed notice plan and found that it was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and satisfied due-process requirements. The court authorized Digital Settlement Group to serve as claims administrator and directed it to implement the notice plan. The defendants were directed to provide the notices required by the Class Action Fairness Act.

Settlement-Class Procedures

Settlement-class members seeking benefits had to submit a timely and valid claim form by July 11, 2020. Members could opt out by submitting an individual written request to the claims administrator by June 15, 2020. Those who opted out would not receive settlement benefits and would not release their claims under the proposed settlement. Members who did not validly opt out would be bound by the proposed settlement and any final judgment, whether or not they submitted a claim or received approval of a claim.

Settlement-class members who did not opt out could appear individually or through separate counsel at their own expense, or could be represented by class counsel. They could also object to the proposed settlement, a possible dismissal with prejudice, class counsel’s requested fees and expenses, or incentive awards for the class representatives. Written objections were due by June 15, 2020, and had to comply with the procedures stated in the proposed settlement and notice.

Further Proceedings and Final Approval

The court scheduled a final approval hearing for September 15, 2020. The hearing was to address whether the settlement should receive final approval, whether a judgment and order dismissing the action with prejudice should be entered, whether to approve attorneys’ fees and expenses, and whether to approve incentive awards for the class representatives. The court stayed further proceedings except those needed to obtain or carry out final approval and retained jurisdiction over matters connected to the proposed settlement.

The order did not itself grant final approval, enter a judgment dismissing the action, approve attorneys’ fees, or approve incentive awards. If the settlement were not finally approved or became terminated, the agreement would become void under its terms and the parties would retain the rights described in the order. Judge William H. Pauley accordingly approved the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval, not final approval of the settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.