Você está na página 1de 14
 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Civil Action No. 9:16-cv-81992-MARRA
BRANDON LEIDEL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COINBASE, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a, Global Digital Asset Exchange (GDAX), Defendant.  __________________________________________/
ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF CLASS NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING THIS CAUSE
 is before the Court upon
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion For Preliminary
Approval Of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification Of The Settlement Class,
Appointment Of Plaintiff’s Counsel As Class Counsel, Approval Of Notice To Class Members,
And Scheduling Of A Final Approval Hearing [D.E. 143] (collectively,
the “Motion”). The Court
has carefully reviewed the Motion, the
 parties’ Settlement Agreement [D
.E. 143-1] (the
“Settlement Agreement”) and all exhibits
 thereto, the record in this case and applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. It is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
 as follows:
1. Settlement.
 Plaintiff has negotiated with Defendant Coinbase a potential settlement of this action
(the “C
oinbase
Litigation” or the “Action”)
to avoid the expense, uncertainties, and  burden of protracted litigation, and to resolve the Released Claims (as defined herein and in the Settlement Agreement) against Defendant Coinbase.
Case 9:16-cv-81992-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2019 Page 1 of 14
 
2
2. Review.
 
Settlement “has special importance in class actions with their notable
uncertainty, difficulties of proof, and length. Settlements of complex cases contribute greatly to the efficient use of judicial resources, and achieve the speedy resolution of justice
[.]” 
. For these reasons, “[p]ublic policy strongly favors the pretrial settlement of class action lawsuits.” 
 967 F.2d 489, 493 (11th Cir.1992). In addition, in exercising
their discretion to certify classes for settlement and approve class action settlements, “courts should give weight to the parties’ consensual decision t
o settle class action cases, because they and
their counsel are in unique positions to assess the potential risks.”
See Shaw v. Set Enterprises,  Inc.
, 2017 WL 2954675, *1 (S.D.Fla. 2017).
“A
 class may be certified solely for purposes of settlement [if] a settlement is reached
 before a litigated determination of the class certification issue.”
 
Sullivan v. Marinosci Law Group, P.C., P.A
., 2019 WL 3940256 (S.D. Fla. 2019)(citations omitted).
In deciding whether to  provisionally certify a settlement class, a court must consider the same factors that it would consider in connection with a proposed litigation class
 – 
 
i.e.
, all Rule 23(a) factors and at least one subsection of Rule 23(b) must be satisfied
 – 
 except that the Court need not consider the manageability of a potential trial, since the settlement, if approved, would obviate the need for a trial.
 
 Id.
;
 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor 
, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997).
“Approval of a class action se
ttlement is a two-
step process.” 
the first step, requiring the Court to “make a preliminary determination on the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement terms.”
Fresco
, 2007 WL 2330895,*4
.
 In the second step, after notice to the class and time and opportunity for absent class members to object
Case 9:16-cv-81992-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2019 Page 2 of 14
 
3
or otherwise be heard, the court considers whether to grant final approval. 
. “Preliminary approval is appropriate
where the
 proposed settlement is the result of the parties’ good faith negotiations, there are no obvious deficiencies and the settlement falls within the range of reason.”
 Id 
. At the preliminary approval stage, district courts consider whether the proposed settlement
“is fair, adequate, reasonable, and not the product of collusion.”
 830 F.Supp.2d 1330, 1344 (S.D.Fla.2011). Applying this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreement, as well as the files, records, and proceedings to date in this matter. The terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth in this Order, and, unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms in this Order shall have the meanings attributed to them in the Settlement Agreement.
3. Preliminary Approval.
 The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement entered into by the Parties, and the Settlement Agreement appended to the Motion. The Court finds that the Settlement was of informed, good-
faith, arms’
-length negotiations between the Parties and their counsel and was completed with the assistance of the Hon. Howard Tescher (ret.), an experienced mediator with particular expertise in complex commercial and financial disputes. The Court further finds that the Settlement, including the Settlement Agreement appended to the Motion, is within the range of reasonableness and possible judicial approval, such that: (a) a  presumption of fairness is appropriate for the purposes of preliminary settlement approval; and (b) it is appropriate to effectuate notice to the Settlement Class, as set forth below and in the Settlement, and schedule a Final Approval Hearing to assist the Court in determining whether to grant Final Approval to the Settlement and enter Final Judgment.
Case 9:16-cv-81992-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2019 Page 3 of 14

Recompense a sua curiosidade

Tudo o que você quer ler.
A qualquer hora. Em qualquer lugar. Em qualquer dispositivo.
Sem compromisso. Cancele quando quiser.

Avaliar

576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505