Buy This Entire Record For
Hart v. Cf Arcis VII LLC
United States District Court, W.D. Washington
September 9, 2019
LAWRENCE HART, CLYDE STEPHEN LEWIS, JAMES PRESTI, and MICHAEL RALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
CF ARCIS VII LLC d/b/a THE CLUB AT SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, d/b/a TPC AT SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, and d/b/a SNOQUALMIE RIDGE GOLF CLUB, CF ARCIS IV HOLDINGS, LLC, ARCIS EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC, BLAKE S. WALKER, individually and on behalf of the marital community of BLAKE S. WALKER and JANE DOE WALKER, and BRIGHTSTAR GOLF SNOQUALMIE, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND
APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class
Action Settlement comes before this Court and shall be
GRANTED. Dkt. #39. The Court determines and orders as
A. Counsel have advised the Court that the parties have
agreed, subject to approval of this Court following notice to
the Class (as described in Paragraph 2, below) and a hearing,
to settle this action on the terms and conditions set forth
in the Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement
Agreement”), which has been filed with the Court.
B. The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement, as well
as the files, records, and proceedings to date in this
matter. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are hereby
incorporated as though fully set forth in this Order, and
capitalized terms in this Order shall have the meanings
attributed to them in the Settlement Agreement.
C. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement
as being fair, reasonable, and adequate, and for purposes of
settlement, certifies this case as a class action, and
authorizes notice to be transmitted to the Settlement Class.
A final fairness hearing, for purposes of determining whether
the Settlement should be finally approved, shall be held
before this Court on Friday, February 7, 2020, in the
courtroom of the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez at the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
700 Stewart Street, Suite 2310, Seattle, Washington 98101.
on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits thereto, is
preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable and adequate. The
Court finds that the Settlement Agreement resulted from
extensive arm's-length negotiations between experienced
attorneys who are familiar with class action litigation in
general and with the legal and factual issues of this case in
particular, including a lengthy in-person mediation session
and additional settlement negotiations under the auspices of
James A. Smith Jr., of Smith & Hennessy PLLC, an
Class Certification for Settlement Purposes.
Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and for the reasons stated in
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Court,
for settlement purposes, conditionally certifies the
following class (the “Class”):
All persons who, prior to entry of this Order, purchased
refundable Individual Golf Memberships with the Club, as that
membership is defined in the June 30, 2008 Membership and
Operating Policies, but who have not yet received a refund.
(a) The Class is sufficiently numerous to meet the
requirements of Rule 23(a)(1). The Class includes in excess
of 250 people, and joinder of all such persons would be
impracticable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).
(b) The case presents common issues of law and fact for the
Class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The commonality
requirement is satisfied because there are questions of law
and fact common to the Class that center on whether Arcis
breached a uniform membership and operating policy, whether
the Class is entitled to damages and injunctive relief as a
result. Further, the question of the fairness and
reasonableness of the Settlement Agreement presents an issue
common to the class.
(c) Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied because the claims of the
named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the other Class
Members, which are being resolved through the Settlement
(d) Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied because Plaintiffs are capable
of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the
members of the Class, and because Plaintiffs are represented
by qualified and competent counsel who have extensive
experience and expertise in prosecuting class actions.
(e) In addition, the Court finds that “questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(b)(3). The predominance requirement is satisfied for
purposes of settlement because the common and overarching
question in this case is whether Arcis breached its contract
with the Class, entitling Class Members to damages and
injunctive relief. In addition, the resolution of hundreds of
claims through ...