Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Griffith v. Providence Health & Services

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

March 21, 2017

LINDA GRIFFITH and JEANETTE WENZL, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of the Providence Health & Services Cash Balance Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs,
v.
PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE; ELLEN WOLF; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-20, inclusive, MEMBERS OF THE RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE; JOHN or JANE DOE 21, PLAN DIRECTOR; HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; JOHN and JANE DOES 22-40, inclusive, MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; ROD HOCHMAN; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; MICHAEL HOLCOMB; CHAUNCEY BOYLE; ISIAAH CRAWFORD; MARTHA DIAZ ASZKENAZY; PHYLLIS HUGHES; SALLYE LINER; KIRBY McDONALD; DAVE OLSEN; AL PARRISH; CAROLINA REYES; PETER J. SNOW; MICHAEL A. STEIN; CHARLES WATTS; BOB WILSON; JOHN and JANE DOES 41-50, inclusive, Defendants.

          ORDER FINALLY APPROVING CLASS SETTLEMENT

          JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This litigation involves the claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq., set forth in Plaintiffs' class action complaint dated November 7, 2014, with respect to the Providence Health & Services Cash Balance Retirement Plan (the Plan).[1] The parties entered into a class action settlement agreement dated October 20, 2016 (the Settlement).

         On December 6, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the class action settlement agreement, preliminarily certifying the putative class in this action for settlement purposes, ordering a class notice to be mailed and published on the internet, scheduling a fairness hearing (the Hearing) for March 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., and providing those persons with an opportunity to object to the Settlement. (See Dkt. No. 52.)

         This Court held the Hearing on March 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. to determine whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Due and adequate notice having been given to the settlement class (the Class) as required, and the Court having considered the Settlement, all objections thereto, all papers filed and proceedings held, and good cause appearing therefore, hereby ORDERS and FINDS as follows:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and all parties to the action, including all members of the Class.
2. The Class preliminarily certified by this Court consists of: All Persons who are or were participants, whether vested or non-vested, in the Plan on or after January 1, 2008, and their beneficiaries.
3. The Class meets all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for certification of the class claims alleged in the complaint, including: (a) numerosity; (b) commonality; (c) typicality; and (d) adequacy of the class representatives and class counsel.

         4. The prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(1) have been satisfied, because the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of (i) inconsistent or varying adjudication that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and (ii) adjudications with respect to individual Class members, which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.

         5. The prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(2) have been satisfied, because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

         6. The Class is finally certified for settlement purposes under Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2).

         7. Pursuant to Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs Linda Griffith and Jeanette Wenzl are members of the Class, their claims are typical of those of the Class, and they fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Class throughout these proceedings. Accordingly, Griffith and Wenzl are appointed as Class Representatives.

         8. Pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1), counsel have fairly and adequately represented the Class for purposes of entering into and implementing the Settlement. Thus, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC are appointed as Class Counsel to represent the members of the Class.

         9. The appointment of Class Counsel and the appointment of Griffith and Wenzl as Class Representatives are fully and finally confirmed.

         10. Class Counsel is hereby awarded attorney fees pursuant to Rule 23(h), in the fair and reasonable amount of $6, 425, 877.27, as well as $54, 122.73 in reimbursement of Class Counsel's reasonable expenses incurred in prosecuting this action. The attorney fees and expenses so awarded shall be paid from the $6, 500, 000.00 fund for Class Counsel pursuant to the terms of the Settlement. All fees ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.