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.

Nugussie v. HMSHost North America

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

February 22, 2018

BEREKET NUGUSSIE, an individual; PAUL ROMOLINO, an individual, MOHAMED ABDI. an individual, and INDIRA MOHAMED, an individual, Plaintiffs,
v.
HMSHOST NORTH AMERICA, a foreign business entity, and AUTOGRILL, S.p.A., a foreign corporation, Defendants.

          CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT

          Hon. Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge.

         The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed class settlement (the "Settlement"). The Court has considered all papers filed and proceedings in this matter and is fully informed regarding the facts surrounding the proposed Settlement. Based upon this information, the Court approves the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court hereby enters this Class Action Settlement Order and Final Judgment ("Final Judgment"), which constitutes a final adjudication on the merits of all claims of the Settlement Class.

         On October 31, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant HMSHost North America ("HMSHost"). The proposed Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class Members' claims against HMSHost in exchange for HMSHost's agreement to provide certain monetary and non-monetary relief to Settlement Class Members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims ("Agreement"). On February 22, 2018, the Court held a Settlement Hearing to consider whether to grant final approval to the Settlement and to consider Class Counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees and costs ("Fee and Cost Application''), and a Service Award to Plaintiffs. The Court heard argument from counsel and allowed others to appear to voice their support for, or objection to, the Settlement, the Fee Application, or both.

         Having read, reviewed, and considered the papers filed in support of and any in opposition to final approval of the Settlement, including supporting declarations; oral arguments of counsel and presentations by any Settlement Class Members who appeared at the hearing; Class Counsel's Fee and Cost Application; the Agreement; and the pleadings, the Court finds and concludes as follows:

1. Definitions. The definitions and provisions of the Agreement are fully incorporated into this Final Judgment.
2. Jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Agreement with respect to and over all parties to the Agreement, including Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members.
3. Settlement Approval. The Court hereby grants final approval to the Settlement and finds the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Court finds the Settlement is within the authority of the Parties and the result of extensive arm's length negotiations.
4. Exclusion from Settlement Class. No members of the Class have timely and validly requested to be excluded from the Class and the Settlement.
5. Objections. No objections have been brought to the Court's attention.
6. No Admission. Neither this Final Judgment nor the Agreement is an admission or concession by HMSHost of the validity of any claims or of any liability or wrongdoing or of any violation of law. This Final Judgment and the Agreement do not constitute a concession and shall not be used as an admission or indication of any wrongdoing, fault, or omission by HMSHost or any Other person in connection with any transaction, event, or occurrence, and neither this Final Judgment nor the Agreement nor any related documents in this proceeding, nor any reports or accounts thereof, shall be offered or received in evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to consummate or enforce this Final Judgment, the Agreement, and all releases given thereunder, or to establish the affirmative defenses of res judicata or collateral estoppel barring the pursuit of claims released in the Agreement.
7. Dismissal with Prejudice. The Court hereby dismisses with prejudice all claims of members of the Settlement Class against HMSHost and other released parties as described in the Agreement.
8. Release. The Settlement Class members and Plaintiffs, themselves and as the representative of the Settlement Class and on behalf of each Settlement Class Member, and each of their respective agents, successors, heirs, assigns, and any other person who can claim by or through them in any manner, fully, finally, and forever irrevocably release, relinquish, and forever discharge with prejudice all claims released under the Settlement against the released parties.
9. Injunction Against Asserting Released Claims. Plaintiffs, all Settlement Class Members, and any person or entity allegedly acting on behalf of Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members, either directly, representatively, or in any other capacity, are permanently enjoined from commencing or prosecuting against those released via the Agreement any action or proceeding in any court or tribunal asserting any claim released in the Agreement. This injunction is necessary to protect and effectuate the Settlement, this Order, and the Court's flexibility and authority to effectuate the Settlement and to enter judgment when appropriate, and is ordered in aid of the Court's jurisdiction and to protect its judgments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
10. Class Notice. The Settlement Administrator completed the delivery of Class Notice according to the terms of the Agreement. The Class Notice given by the Settlement Administrator to the Class, which set forth the principal terms of the Agreement and other matters, was the best practicable notice under the circumstances. The Class Notice program prescribed by the Agreement was reasonable and provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the terms of the Agreement, to all parties entitled to such notice. The Class Notice given to the Class Members satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the requirements of constitutional due process. The Class Notice was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise Class Members of the pendency of this Action, all material elements of the Settlement, and their opportunity to exclude themselves from, object to, or comment on the ...

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.