-PAL Leber et al v. Starpoint Resort Group, Inc. et al, No. 2:2009cv01101 - Document 70 (D. Nev. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. (See Order for details.) Clerk shall enter a Final Judgment of Dismissal on 7/27/11, and the Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice as of 7/27/11. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 7/27/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-PAL Leber et al v. Starpoint Resort Group, Inc. et al Doc. 70 Mark R. Thierman, NSB 8285 THIERMAN LAW FIRM 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone (775) 284-1500 Leon Greenberg, NSB 8094 A Professional Corporation 633 South 4th Street - Suite 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone (702) 383-6085 Attorneys for Plaintiffs OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Anthony L. Martin, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8177 Wells Fargo Tower 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1500 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 369-6801 Facsimile: (702) 369-6888 TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA,LLP Darren T. Horvath, Esq. Georgia Bar No. 368205 Admitted pro hac vice (July 23, 2009) 1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Telephone: (770) 434-6868 Facsimile: (770) 434-7376 Attorneys for Defendants RICK BRUNTON and MICHAEL LEBER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No.: 09-cv-01101-RLH-PAL Plaintiffs, v. STARPOINT RESORT GROUP, INC. and GEOHOLIDAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and “John Does”, name fictitious, actual name and number unknown, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Defendants. 1 Dockets.Justia.com On June 23, 2011, the Court heard the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval to Proposed Class Action Settlement and accompanying declarations (Docket No. 62), as set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of Claims (“Stipulation”). The Court has also considered the Supplemental Declaration of Abigail Schwartz of the Settlement Administrator Rust Consulting, Inc., filed with the Court on July 15, 2011. The Court finds and orders as follows: 1. For the purposes of this Order, the Court adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Stipulation, which was previously filed with this Court on March 7, 2011 (Docket Nos. 58 and 58-1). 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and over all parties and Class Members in this litigation. 3. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice of Class Action Settlement, which was carried out pursuant to the Stipulation, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and fully met the requirements of due process. 4. The Court finds that none of the 542 Class Members has objected to the Settlement. Only one Class Member, Greig Cronister, has properly requested exclusion from the settlement and is not subject to any of the provisions of the settlement. 5. The Court finds that 171 Class Members submitted timely and valid claims and are Authorized Claimants, as defined in the Stipulation. Another 18 individuals submitted untimely and/or invalid claims, but the parties have requested, pursuant to paragraph 91 of the Stipulation, that these 18 claims be honored and be deemed timely and valid and that the Class Members making these claims be Authorized Claimants for all purposes related to this settlement. The parties’ request is granted, and all 18 untimely and/or invalid claims identified by the Settlement Administrator are 2 hereby deemed to also be timely and valid claims and that the Class Members making these claims are deemed to be Authorized Claimants for all purposes related to this class action settlement, including for all purposes under the Stipulation, the Orders of this Court, and Final Judgment. 6. The total of 189 Class Members who have been found to have submitted valid claims represent approximately 35% of the Class Members and under the terms of the Stipulation collectively would be entitled to receive cash payments totaling $121,545.24, if they had all elected to receive a cash award. However, 11 of these 189 class members have elected to receive an Alternative Settlement Option in the form of ownership of a timeshare membership and/or vacation certificates for accommodations at a qualifying resort in lieu of their otherwise available cash payments, as provided for under the terms of the Stipulation. These 11 Class Members who have elected to receive an Alternative Settlement Option in lieu of a Cash Award have been or will be identified by the Settlement Administrator, so the applicable Alternative Settlement Option can be processed in accordance with the Stipulation. 7. The Court finds that the Stipulation was the product of protracted, arm’s length negotiations between experienced counsel. After considering Defendants’ potential exposure, the likelihood of success on the class claims, the risk, expense, complexity and delay associated with further litigation, the risk of maintaining class certification through trial, the experience and views of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and the reaction of the Class to the Settlement, as well as other relevant factors, the Court finds that the settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation, is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class. 3 8. As counsel for the Class, Mark Thierman of the Thierman Law Firm and Leon Greenberg of Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation, shall be paid a fees payment of $114,711.00 and a costs payment of $1,944.51 from the Settlement Fund for their services on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Class. The two representative plaintiffs, Rick Brunton and Michael Leber, shall each receive a payment of $6,000 from the Settlement Fund to compensate them for their service on behalf of the Class and in settlement of their individual claims, such payments constituting their sole recoveries in this case as provided for in the Stipulation. 9. The Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc. shall be paid from the Settlement Fund for their services rendered in administering the Settlement, in accordance with the Stipulation and as provided in this paragraph. Pursuant to the declaration of Caryn Donly, Senior Project Administrator, submitted to this Court, Rust Consulting’s costs for administration of the settlement of this matter is $21,344.00. (Docket No. 62, Ex. B, Declaration of Caryn Donly, ¶ 15; Docket No. 67, Supplemental Declaration of Abigail Schwartz, ¶ 8). Payment of costs to Rust Consulting in that amount from the Settlement Fund is approved. 10. The Court has reviewed the Declaration of Darren T. Horvath Regarding Service of CAFA Notices, which was filed with the Court on May 31, 2011, and finds that Defendants have provided notice of the proposed class action settlement to the appropriate federal and state officials in accordance with all of the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715. No federal or state official has indicated any objection or opposition to the settlement. The Court further finds that all of the 4 CAFA Notices were delivered no later than April 25, 2011, and this Order granting final approval of the settlement has been issued more than 90 days after service of the CAFA Notice, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d). 11. The Court hereby grants final approval of the class action settlement, and the parties are ordered to carry out the settlement as provided in the Stipulation, except as otherwise modified by this Order. Thus, except as stated in this Order, all other terms of the settlement will remain as stated in the Stipulation and accompanying documents and the Orders of this Court. This Order is to take effect on July 27, 2011. 12. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment of dismissal on July 27, 2011, and the Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice as of July 27, 2011. 13. The Court will retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing this settlement, addressing settlement administration matters, and addressing such postjudgment matters as may be appropriate under court rules or applicable law. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 27, 20112011 JULY _____, 20, 2011. Honorable Roger L. Hunt UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JUDGE 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
