Exhibit A - [Proposed] Order — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 185.1)

Summary

Exhibit A, Document 185-1 filed July 22, 2022 in In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: a proposed order for final judgment and dismissal. The order would dismiss the action against Plaid Inc. with prejudice, certify the class for purposes of the approved settlement only, and approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. It states that the court previously granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement dated July 30, 2021. While the court retains jurisdiction over implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, the order would direct entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The date line above the signature line for Honorable Donna M. Ryu is blank.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 185-1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 1 of 6




     Exhibit A
     Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 185-1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 2 of 6



 1   HERRERA KENNEDY LLP                       COOLEY LLP
     Shawn M. Kennedy (SBN 218472)             Michael G. Rhodes (SBN 116127)
 2   skennedy@herrerakennedy.com               rhodesmg@cooley.com
     4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500           Whitty Somvichian (SBN 194463)
 3   Newport Beach, CA 92660                   wsomvichian@cooley.com
     Tel: (949) 936-0900                       Kyle C. Wong (SBN 224021)
 4   Fax: (855) 969-2050                       kwong@cooley.com
                                               Lauren J. Pomeroy (SBN 291604)
 5   LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &                  lpomeroy@cooley.com
     BERNSTEIN, LLP                            Ellie Barczak (SBN 329180)
 6   Rachel Geman (Pro Hac Vice)               ebarczak@cooley.com
     rgeman@lchb.com                           Cameron J. Clark (SBN 313039)
 7   250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor              cclark@cooley.com
     New York, NY 10013-1413                   101 California Street, 5th Floor
 8   Tel: (212) 355-9500                       San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
     Fax: (212) 355-9592                       Tel: (415) 693-2181
 9                                             Fax: (415) 693-2222
     BURNS CHAREST LLP
10   Christopher J. Cormier (Pro Hac Vice)     Attorneys for Defendant PLAID INC.
     ccormier@burnscharest.com
11   4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
12   Tel: (202) 577-3977
     Fax: (469) 444-5002
13
     Co-Lead Class Counsel
14

15                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16                           NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17                                     OAKLAND DIVISION
18

19                                               Case No. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
20   IN RE PLAID INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION         [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FINAL
                                                 JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL
21   ______________________________________
22   THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
23
                             ALL ACTIONS
24

25

26

27

28
                                                               [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FINAL JUDGMENT
                                                                                      AND DISMISSAL
                                                                              NO. 4:20-CV-3056-DMR
     Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 185-1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 3 of 6



 1   It is hereby ADJUDGED and DECREED THAT:
 2          1.      This Court previously granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement
 3   Agreement in this consolidated action, dated July 30, 2021 (the “Settlement Agreement”). Terms
 4   and phrases in this Judgment have the same meanings as used in the Settlement Agreement.
 5          2.      The Court hereby dismisses the Action against Plaid Inc. (the “Action”) with
 6   prejudice, without fees or costs to any party except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement
 7   or any other orders of this Court relating to the Settlement Agreement.
 8          3.      This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over all
 9   parties to the Action, including all members of the Class, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because
10   the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and at least one
11   Class member is a citizen of a state different from Plaid.
12          4.      The Court certifies, for purpose of the approved settlement only, the Action as a
13   class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf
14   the Class, defined in the Settlement Agreement as “all natural persons who reside in the United
15   States and who own or owned one or more Financial Accounts at the time such persons resided in
16   the United States from January 1, 2013 to date preliminary approval of the settlement is granted.”
17   Excluded from the Class are: (1) Plaid and any and all of its predecessors, successors, assigns,
18   parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and
19   attorneys, and any and all of the parents’, subsidiaries’, and affiliates’ present and former
20   predecessors, successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and
21   attorneys, (2) any judicial officer presiding over the Action, or any member of his or her
22   immediate family or of his or her judicial staff, and (3) any Class Member who has timely
23   exercised their right to be excluded from the Class.
24          5.      The persons on the attached Addendum have submitted a valid, timely request for
25   exclusion from the Class and are hereby excluded.
26          6.      Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3), all persons within the Class,
27   other than those excluded above, are bound by this Judgment.
28
                                                                            [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FINAL JUDGMENT
                                                        2                                          AND DISMISSAL
                                                                                           NO. 4:20-CV-3056-DMR
     Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 185-1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 4 of 6



 1          7.      The Court finds and concludes that the Class Representatives have standing under
 2   Article III of the United States Constitution.
 3          8.      The Court finds that the Notice provided to the Class pursuant to the Settlement
 4   Agreement and the order granting Preliminary Approval (i) constitutes the best practicable notice
 5   under the circumstances; (ii) constitutes notice that is reasonably calculated, under the
 6   circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the Action, their right to object to
 7   the Settlement or exclude themselves from the Class, and to appear at the Final Approval
 8   Hearing; (iii) is reasonable and constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons
 9   entitled to receive notice; and (iv) meets all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
10   Procedure, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and the rules of the Court.
11          9.      The Court approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best
12   interests of the Class Members under Rule 23(e). The Court has specifically considered the
13   factors relevant to class settlement approval and finds and concludes that:
14                  a.      the Class Representatives and Class Counsel have adequately represented
15                          the Class;
16                  b.      the Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arms’ length and without
17                          collusion;
18                  c.      the relief provided for the Class is adequate, taking into account (i) the
19                          costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of
20                          distributing relief to the class; (iii) the terms of fees and expenses proposed
21                          by Class Counsel in their accompanying Motion for Attorneys’ Fees,
22                          Reimbursement of Expenses, and Plaintiff Service Awards; and (iv) the
23                          absence of any relevant agreement made in connection with the Settlement;
24                          and
25                  d.      the Settlement Agreement treats Class Members equitably relative to each
26                          other.
27          10.     The Court has also considered factors including, inter alia, the strength of
28   Plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of
                                                                             [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FINAL JUDGMENT
                                                        3                                           AND DISMISSAL
                                                                                            NO. 4:20-CV-3056-DMR
     Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 185-1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 5 of 6



 1   maintaining class action status throughout trial; the relief provided for in the Settlement; the
 2   extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of Class
 3   Counsel and the involvement of a respected mediator in the negotiation of the Settlement; and the
 4   reaction of Class Members to the proposed settlement, and finds and concludes that these factors
 5   weigh in favor of approving the Settlement. See Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec., 361
 6   F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004).
 7          11.     The Court has also scrutinized the Settlement and negotiation history for any signs
 8   of potential collusion (see, e.g., In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th
 9   Cir. 2011)), and finds that the Settlement is not the product of collusion. This finding is supported
10   by, among other things: the fact that the Settlement was negotiated by experienced, well-qualified
11   counsel with the help of an experienced mediator; the Settlement provides substantial benefits to
12   Class Members; the benefits provided to Class Members are appropriate under the circumstances
13   of this case; and the parties have made no “clear sailing” arrangement regarding attorneys’ fees.
14          12.     Accordingly, the Court directs the Parties to consummate the Settlement
15   Agreement according to its terms. Plaid is ordered to effectuate the injunctive relief agreed to in
16   the Settlement Agreement in accordance with the timetables set forth in the Settlement
17   Agreement.
18          13.     Upon the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties, and each of them, shall be deemed
19   to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have fully, finally, and forever released,
20   relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against the Released Parties. These releases of
21   claims and the Settlement Agreement will be binding on Class Members and Releasing Parties.
22   All Class Members are hereby permanently barred and enjoined from filing, commencing,
23   prosecuting, intervening in, or participating (as class members or otherwise) in any lawsuit or
24   other action in any jurisdiction based on or arising out of any of the Released Claims against the
25   Released Parties.
26          14.     Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court hereby
27   retains continuing jurisdiction as to all matters relating to administration, consummation,
28
                                                                           [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FINAL JUDGMENT
                                                       4                                          AND DISMISSAL
                                                                                          NO. 4:20-CV-3056-DMR
     Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 185-1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 6 of 6



 1   implementation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment,
 2   and for any other necessary purpose.
 3            15.The Court hereby directs entry of this Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
 4   Procedure 58 based upon the Court’s finding that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement
 5   or appeal of this Judgment notwithstanding the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to oversee
 6   implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.
 7            IT IS SO ORDERED
 8

 9

10   Dated:
                                                                  Honorable Donna M. Ryu
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                                                         [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FINAL JUDGMENT
                                                      5                                         AND DISMISSAL
                                                                                        NO. 4:20-CV-3056-DMR


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.185.1.pdf

Size

134,093 bytes

SHA-256

bf76c92ac530c9aa4c7d832fa3369b2705b49a4f5fa5745a45e2585ce8ead550

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.185.1.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com