United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Hon.
Roslyn O. Silver, Senior United States District Judge
The
Court has reviewed and considered: (i) the Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, dated July 12, 2019, and
the Declaration of Mark Rapazzini of Heffler Claims Group in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement (as well as the supplemental Declaration of
Mark Rapazzini filed on July 31, 2019); (ii) the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement, dated December 20,
2018; (iii) the application of Settlement Class Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and
service awards dated April 24, 2019; (iv) the fact that there
were no responses or objections to these submissions; and (v)
the Declaration of Mailing of CAFA Notice, dated July 10,
2019, relating to compliance with the requirements of the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715
(“CAFA”).
In
addition, on August 1, 2019, the Court held a Final
Settlement Hearing and is satisfied that notice to the
Settlement Class, which is defined below in Paragraph 2 of
this Final Order and Judgment (“Order”), was
provided in accordance with the Court's Order
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement,
conditionally certifying the settlement class, setting form
and content of notice to members of the settlement class, and
scheduling final settlement hearing, entered on January 25,
2019 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). The
Court also has taken into account the fact that no objections
were submitted prior to the Final Settlement Hearing in
accordance with the provisions of the Preliminary Approval
Order and the presentations and other proceedings at the
Final Settlement Hearing, and has considered the Settlement
in the context of all prior proceedings conducted in this
litigation. Based on the submissions and proceedings
referenced above, the Court makes the following findings:
A. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.
B. Capitalized terms used in this Order that are not
otherwise defined herein have the meaning assigned to them in
the Settlement Agreement.
C. Notice to Settlement Class Members was provided in
accordance with the notice requirements specified by the
Court in the Preliminary Approval Order. Such notice
constituted the best means of notice to Settlement Class
Members that was practicable under the circumstances and was
due and sufficient notice of the Settlement and the Final
Settlement Hearing to all persons affected by and/or entitled
to participate in the Settlement or the Final Settlement
Hearing. Further, such notice was in full compliance with the
requirements of due process, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and CAFA.
D. The Court held a Final Settlement Hearing to consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, and
has been advised that there are no objections to the
Settlement.
E. The Settlement is the product of good-faith,
arm's-length negotiation between Settling Plaintiffs and
Settlement Class Counsel and Defendants and their counsel.
F. In view of the monetary and non-monetary settlement
consideration, the Court finds that the Settlement, as
provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is in all respects
fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interest of the
Settlement Class. The amount of formal and informal discovery
and independent investigation by the attorneys, and the
factual record compiled, sufficed to enable the Parties to
make an informed decision as to the fairness and adequacy of
the Settlement. In determining that the Settlement is in all
respects fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interest
of the Settlement Class, the Court has considered all of the
factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
G. The Release and Injunctions provisions of this Order,
which prohibit the assertion of claims against any Released
Parties, as set forth below, are conditions of the Settlement
and a significant component of the consideration afforded to
Defendants in the Settlement Agreement, and the provisions
are reasonable under the circumstances.
On the
basis of the foregoing findings and the submissions and
proceedings referenced above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
Certification
Of Settlement Class And Approval Of Settlement
1. The
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc.
837) is GRANTED and the Settlement is hereby
approved as fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class in light of the complexity,
expense, and likely duration of the litigation, and the risks
involved in establishing liability, damages, and in
maintaining a class action through trial. The Court further
finds that the requirements of due process and Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. There
were no objections made based upon due process,
constitutionality, procedures, substance, and compliance with
the law, including, but not limited to, the adequacy of
notice and the fairness of the Settlement.
2. The
Court finds that, for the purposes of the Settlement only,
each of the elements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied. Accordingly, pursuant
to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court unconditionally certifies a class (the
“Settlement Class”) composed of: (i) all
Decompression Therapy service providers that provided
Out-of-Network Decompression Therapy Services to a Plan
Member, submitted a claim for reimbursement of those
Decompression Therapy Services pursuant to an assignment of
benefits received from that Plan Member, and received a
Complete Claim Denial from any of the Released Parties during
the period from March 7, 2002 through April 24, 2019; and
(ii) all Plan Members who received Out-of-Network
Decompression Therapy Services, submitted a claim for
reimbursement of those ...