Common use of Directive to Issue Notice to Settlement Class Clause in Contracts

Directive to Issue Notice to Settlement Class. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Court finds that it has sufficient information to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposed Settlement to the Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass. The Court further finds that the proposed Settlement and Notice Plan meet the requirements of Rule 23(e) and that the Court will likely be able to certify the Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass for purposes of judgment on the Settlement. The Court finds that the Settlement Class Representatives and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Classes. The Court further finds that the Settlement was negotiated at arm’s length by informed and experienced counsel, who were overseen by a retired United States Magistrate Judge acting as mediator. The relief provided to the Settlement Classes under the Settlement is adequate. There would be substantial costs, risks and delay associated with proceeding to trial and potential appeal. The method proposed for distributing relief to the Settlement Classes and processing claims, including the Consumer Settlement Benefits Plan, is adequate and effective. The proposed award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, including the timing of such payment, is reasonable, subject to the Court’s review of a timely filed fee application. The Court further finds that the Settlement is adequate in light of the separately filed agreement providing a right for T-Mobile to terminate the Settlement Agreement if a significant number of Settlement Class Members opt out of the Settlement. Finally, the Court finds that the proposed Settlement treats Settlement Class Members equitably relative to each other. For these reasons, the Court concludes and determines that it will likely be able to certify the proposed Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as it finds that: (a) the Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass certified herein comprise millions of persons, and joinder of all such persons would be impracticable, (b) there are questions of law and fact that are common to the Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass, and those common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting any individual Settlement Class Member; (c) the claims of the Settlement Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class and, as applicable, California Settlement Subclass, they seek to represent for purposes of the Settlement;

Directive to Issue Notice to Settlement Class. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Court finds that it has sufficient information to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposed Settlement settlement to the Settlement Class and California Settlement SubclassClass. The Court further finds that the proposed Proposed Settlement and Notice Plan meet meets the requirements of Rule 23(e) and that the Court will likely be able to certify the Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass for purposes of judgment on the Settlementproposal. The Court finds that the Settlement Class Representatives class representatives and Class Counsel class counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Classesclass. The Court further finds that the Settlement settlement proposal was negotiated at arm’s length by informed and experienced counsel, who were overseen by a retired United States Magistrate Judge acting as mediator. The relief provided to the Settlement Classes class under the Settlement settlement proposal is adequate. There would be substantial costs, risks and delay associated with proceeding to trial and potential appeal. The method proposed for distributing relief to the Settlement Classes class and processing claims, including the Consumer Settlement Benefits Plan, class member claims is adequate and effective. The proposed award of Attorneysattorneys’ Fees fees and Expensescosts, including the timing of such payment, is reasonable, subject to the Court’s review of a timely filed fee application. The Court further finds concludes that the Settlement settlement is adequate in light of the separately filed agreement providing a right for T-Mobile to terminate the Settlement Agreement if a significant number of Settlement Class Members opt out of the Settlementagreements. Finally, the Court finds that the proposed Settlement settlement treats Settlement Class Members class members equitably relative to each other, and that the relief provided to the class is adequate taking into account the costs risk. For these reasons, the Court concludes finds and determines that it will likely be able to certify the proposed Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as it finds and that: (a) the Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass certified herein comprise millions of personsnumbers approximately three million people, and joinder of all such persons would be impracticable, (b) there are questions of law and fact that are common to the Settlement Class and California Settlement SubclassClass, and those common questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting any individual Settlement Class Member; (c) the claims of the Settlement Class Representatives Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class and, as applicable, California Settlement Subclass, they seek to represent for purposes of settlement; (d) a class action on behalf of the Settlement;Class is superior to other available means of adjudicating this dispute; and (e) as set forth below, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel are adequate representatives of the Class. Defendants retain all rights to assert that this action may not be certified as a class action, other than for settlement purposes.