plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for final approval of ... · for final approval of settlement...
TRANSCRIPT
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC)
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Honorable John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
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.
No. 2:14-cv-01720-JCC
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT
CLASS
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
MARCH 21, 2017
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
COURTROOM: 16206
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - i
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND...................................................... 2
A. Procedural History ................................................................................................ 2
B. Settlement Negotiations ........................................................................................ 4
1. Monetary Consideration............................................................................ 5
2. Non-Monetary Equitable Consideration ................................................... 6
3. Other Equitable Consideration .................................................................. 6
4. Class .......................................................................................................... 7
5. Released Claims ........................................................................................ 7
6. Notice ........................................................................................................ 7
7. Attorneys’ Fees ......................................................................................... 7
D. Reasons for the Settlement.................................................................................... 8
E. Preliminary Approval............................................................................................ 9
F. Notice to the Class and the Lack of Objections to Date ....................................... 9
III. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
SETTLEMENT ............................................................................................................... 10
A. The Settlement Meets the Judicial Standards for Final Approval ...................... 10
1. The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case Supports Settlement ............................ 11
2. The Settlement is Preferable to the Risk, Expense,
Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further Litigation ......................... 11
3. The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout
the Trial Supports Final Approval .......................................................... 12
4. The Amount Offered in Settlement Is Substantial and
Weighs in Favor of Approval ................................................................. 12
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - ii
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5. The Fact that Extensive Investigation and Informal
Discovery Were Completed Before Settlement Favors Final
Approval ................................................................................................. 14
6. The Opinions of Experienced Counsel Weigh in Favor of
Approval ................................................................................................. 15
7. The Presence of a Government Participant Supports
Approval ................................................................................................. 16
8. The Reaction of Absent Members of the Settlement Class .................... 16
9. The Settlement is the Product of Non-Collusive, Arm’s-
Length Negotiations ................................................................................ 17
B. The Form and Methods of Notice Employed Satisfy Rule 23 and
Due Process ......................................................................................................... 18
C. Certification of the Settlement Class Is Appropriate .......................................... 19
1. The Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Easily Satisfied ............................ 20
2. The Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) and
(b)(2) ....................................................................................................... 21
a. Individual Actions Would Create Inconsistent
Adjudications or be Dispositive of the Interests of
Absent Members ......................................................................... 21
b. Defendants Have Acted on Grounds Generally
Applicable to the Class and Relief for the Class as a
Whole is Appropriate .................................................................. 22
3. The Requirements of Rule 23(g) Are Met .............................................. 22
IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 23
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - iii
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Federal Cases
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................................19
Berger v. Xerox Corp. Ret. Income Guarantee Plan,
338 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................22
Churchill Vill. L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec.,
361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................15
Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,
955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ...........................................................................................10, 15
Dennings v. Clearwire Corp.,
No. 10-1859, 2013 WL 1858797 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2013) ................................................17
Dignity Health v. Rollins,
No. 16-258, 2016 WL 4548037 (U.S. Aug. 29, 2016) ..............................................................3
Foe v. Cuomo,
700 F. Supp. 107 (E.D.N.Y. 1988), aff’d, 892 F.2d 196 (2d Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 972 (1990) ....................................................................................................19
G.F. v. Contra Costa Cty.,
No. 13-03667, 2015 WL 7571789 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2015) ................................................17
In re Glob. Crossing Sec. & ERISA Litig.,
225 F.R.D. 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .......................................................................................18, 22
K.M. v. Regence BlueShield,
No. 13-1214, 2014 WL 801204 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2014) .................................................20
Kaplan v. Saint Peter’s Healthcare Sys.,
810 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-86 (U.S. July 18,
2016) ................................................................................................................................4, 8, 11
Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,
151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................14
McCluskey v. Trs. of Red Dot Corp. Emp. Stock Ownership Plan & Tr.,
268 F.R.D. 670 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ............................................................................19, 21, 22
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - iv
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................14, 15
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
339 U.S. 306 (1950) .................................................................................................................18
In re Mut. Funds Inv. Litig.,
MDL No. 1586, 2010 WL 2307568 (D. Md. May 19, 2010) ..................................................22
MWS Wire Indus., Inc. v. Cal. Fine Wire Co.,
797 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................10
Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................................11, 14, 15
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n,
688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ...................................................................................................10
Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser,
255 F.R.D. 537 (W.D. Wash. 2009) ......................................................................12, 13, 15, 16
Rollins v. Dignity Health,
59 F. Supp. 3d 965 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .........................................................................................3
Rollins v. Dignity Health,
830 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................................3, 11
Rollins v. Dignity Health,
No. 13-1450 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2013) ...............................................................................3, 4, 8
Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network,
817 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-74 (U.S. July 15,
2016) ....................................................................................................................................4, 11
Thorkelson v. Publ’g House of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am.,
No. 10-1712 (D. Minn. Apr. 21, 2010) ....................................................................................15
Villegas v. United States,
963 F.Supp.2d 1145 (E.D. Wash. 2013) ..................................................................................18
Wilson v. Venture Fin. Grp., Inc.,
No. 09-5678, 2011 WL 219692 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2011) ...........................................19, 20
Federal Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1715 ..............................................................................................................................2
29 U.S.C. § 1002(33) .......................................................................................................................2
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - v
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) .......................................................................................................................22
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ...............................................................................................................20, 21, 22
Other Authorities
Pension and Employee Benefit Law 187-88 (6th ed. 2015) ...........................................................13
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 1
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Linda Griffith and Jeanette Wenzl, by and through their attorneys, respectfully
move the Court for an Order: (1) granting final approval of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement1 (“Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”) described herein and preliminarily
approved by the Court on December 6, 2016 (Dkt. # 52); and (2) granting final certification of
the Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and/or 23(b)(2).2 Defendants do
not oppose the relief sought herein but do not endorse all averments stated in this pleading.
The Settlement is an excellent result for the proposed Settlement Class, participants and
beneficiaries of the Providence Health & Services Cash Balance Retirement Plan (“Plan”): it
provides for $351.9 million in monetary relief, including a $350 million contribution to the Plan
and a cash payment of $500 to each of the 3,7993 former participants who terminated with
insufficient years of service to vest under the current Plan terms, but who would have been
entitled to vested benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended (“ERISA”). In addition to these payments, Providence will continue to make minimum
contributions to the Plan with the present intent to fully fund the Plan by December 31, 2029,
and will guarantee that there are sufficient assets in the Plan’s trust to pay participants’ accrued
benefits for as long as the Plan is in existence. The Settlement also includes significant
provisions that will enhance the retirement security of the members of the Settlement Class.
These protections are comparable to some of ERISA’s key provisions and will enable Plan
1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this memorandum have the same meaning as ascribed to them in the
Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (“Ex. 1”). 2 Plaintiffs file the instant Motion contemporaneously with their Motion for Awards of Attorneys’ Fees and
Expenses, and Incentive Fees to the Named Plaintiffs. 3 In connection with the Class Notice process, the Parties identified three participants who had been listed on
Schedule A to the Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 hereto, but upon further inspection of relevant information, the
Parties determined these individuals were not properly included in Group II, which consists of former participants
who terminated service at Providence with more than three, but less than five, years of service under the terms of the
Plan. Accordingly, Class Notice was mailed to 3,799 people in Group II, rather than the 3,802 individuals originally
identified in Schedule A to the Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1. See Joint Declaration of Lynn Lincoln Sarko and
Michelle C. Yau in Support of (1) Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and
Certification of Settlement Class; and (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Awards of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and
Incentive Fees to the Named Plaintiffs (“Joint Decl.”) ¶ 4 n.2, filed contemporaneously herewith. See also Affidavit
of Abigail Schwartz for Rust Consulting, Inc. (“Rust Aff.” or “Rust Affidavit”), filed contemporaneously herewith.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 2
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
participants and beneficiaries to receive important notices and disclosures concerning the Plan
and their benefits.
The Settlement was reached only after vigorous arm’s-length negotiations by experienced
counsel with the assistance of a third-party mediator who has had significant experience
mediating ERISA and church plan cases.
The Parties have fully complied with the terms of the Order Preliminarily Approving
Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Preliminary Approval Order”), Dkt. # 52, including
providing notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class4 and mailing the Class Action Fairness
Act (“CAFA”) notices to the requisite officials pursuant to the CAFA statute.5 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
Under the governing standards for evaluating class action settlements in this Circuit, this
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and therefore Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the
Court approve it.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
On November 7, 2014, Plaintiffs Griffith and Wenzl filed a putative class action
Complaint in this Court against Providence—a large, non-profit healthcare provider—and
various other defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”) alleging violations of ERISA. See
Complaint, Dkt. # 1. The Complaint alleges that Defendants denied ERISA protections to the
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, a defined benefit pension plan sponsored by
Providence, by incorrectly claiming that the Plan qualifies as an ERISA-exempt “church plan.”
See id. ¶¶ 1-9; 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33). It further alleges that, by improperly claiming this
exemption, Defendants deny Plan participants the protections of ERISA, including minimum
funding, vesting, notices, and disclosures.
On January 26, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. Dkt. # 32.
That motion focused mainly on the issue of whether, in order to claim the church plan
4 See Rust Aff. ¶ 10 and Exs. 1 and 2 thereto. 5 See Declaration of Benjamin Saper (“Saper Decl.”), submitted contemporaneously herewith.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 3
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
exemption, the plan must be established by a church; however, it also raised other factual and
legal disputes, such as constitutional arguments and issues concerning whether Providence is
“controlled by” or “associated with” a church under ERISA. See Dkt. ## 32, 37. Class Counsel
responded in detail to that motion and the arguments raised by Defendants. See Dkt. # 35; see
also Joint Decl. ¶ 15.
While the motion to dismiss briefing was in progress, the Parties engaged in informal
discovery. Plaintiffs propounded detailed discovery requests on Defendants, and Defendants
produced approximately 2,100 pages of documents in response to those requests, including Plan
documents, trust agreements, and communications with the Internal Revenue Service and
Department of Labor. See id. ¶ 16.
During this time period, another case concerning the church plan exemption, Rollins v.
Dignity Health (“Dignity”), No. 13-1450 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 1, 2013), was appealed to the
Ninth Circuit after the District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and held, on summary
judgment, that only a church could establish an ERISA-exempt church plan. See Rollins v.
Dignity Health, 59 F. Supp. 3d 965, 971 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Recognizing that a Ninth Circuit
ruling would have a substantial influence on the course of this litigation, the Parties stipulated to
a stay of this case until the Ninth Circuit ruled in the Dignity matter. See Dkt. # 38. A few days
after briefing on the motion to dismiss was complete, this Court granted the stay and ordered the
Parties to submit a joint status report within 21 days after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Dignity.
Dkt. # 39.
The Parties attended their first formal mediation on July 22, 2016. Joint Decl. ¶ 19.
Shortly thereafter, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in the Dignity case and held that: (1) a
church plan must be established by a church, and (2) a church plan must be maintained either by
a church or by a principal-purpose organization. Rollins v. Dignity Health, 830 F.3d 900, 905
(9th Cir. 2016). The Dignity defendants then petitioned for review of the Ninth Circuit’s
decision in the Supreme Court. See Dignity Health v. Rollins, No. 16-258, 2016 WL 4548037
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 9 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 4
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(U.S. Aug. 29, 2016). Around the same time, two other appellate court decisions relating to the
church plan exemption were likewise appealed to the Supreme Court—one from the Third
Circuit and one from the Seventh Circuit—both of which similarly held that a “church plan”
must be established by a church. Kaplan v. Saint Peter’s Healthcare Sys. (“St. Peter’s”), 810
F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-86 (U.S. July 18, 2016); Stapleton v.
Advocate Health Care Network (“Advocate”), 817 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 2016), petition for cert.
filed, No. 16-74 (U.S. July 15, 2016). (As discussed in more detail below, certiorari has now
been granted in all of these cases.)
The Parties continued mediating after the Dignity decision was issued by the Ninth
Circuit. On August 16, 2016, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report with the Court and stipulated
to continue the stay of this matter so that they could continue to engage in extensive settlement
negotiations. Dkt. # 43.
B. Settlement Negotiations
The settlement negotiations in this matter took place over the course of several months
and were overseen by a third-party JAMS mediator, Robert Meyer, Esq., who has substantial
experience mediating cases concerning ERISA and retirement plan issues, including cases
involving the church plan exemption in ERISA. Ex. 1 at § 2.7; Joint Decl. ¶ 22. These
negotiations included an in-person mediation session in Seattle, Washington, as well as
numerous calls and meetings. Joint Decl. ¶ 23. Both sides provided the mediator with their
respective mediation statements and also exchanged multiple proposals and counter-proposals
with each other concerning potential settlement terms. Id.
Prior to and during the course of these negotiations, Class Counsel investigated the facts,
circumstances, and legal issues associated with the allegations and defenses in the action. The
investigation included, inter alia: (a) inspecting, reviewing, and analyzing documents produced
by or otherwise relating to the Defendants, the Plan, and the administration and funding of the
Plan, including documents that Defendants produced for settlement purposes; (b) researching the
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 10 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 5
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
applicable law with respect to the claims asserted in the case and the possible defenses thereto;
(c) consulting with experts; and (d) researching and analyzing governmental and other publicly-
available sources concerning Defendants, the Plan, and the industry. Ex. 1 at § 2.10; Joint Decl.
¶ 24. Class Counsel reviewed information from Providence’s actuary to confirm and verify the
schedule of former participants who accrued more than three, but less than five, years of vesting
service under the Plan and who were thus entitled to the Vesting Payment set forth in the
Settlement Agreement (“Group II”). See Ex. 1 at § 8.1.3; Joint Decl. ¶¶ 4 n.2, 25.6
After intensive negotiations, the Parties finally reached an agreement in principle to settle
the case. Joint Decl. ¶ 27. On September 29, 2016, the Parties filed a status report informing the
Court they had signed a Term Sheet containing the preliminary terms resolving this matter. Dkt.
# 48. They requested that the Court lift the stay in order to carry out settlement approval
proceedings, which the Court granted on September 29, 2016. Dkt. # 49.
Thereafter, the Parties drafted and finalized a comprehensive Settlement Agreement
based on the Term Sheet, which was executed by all Parties on October 20, 2016. See Ex. 1.
The Settlement is the result of lengthy and contentious arm’s-length negotiations between the
Parties. Joint Decl. ¶ 30. The process was thorough, adversarial, and professional. Id.
C. Terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The following summarizes the principal terms of the Settlement:7
1. Monetary Consideration
The monetary consideration provided under this Settlement is substantial, totaling $351.9
million. Providence will contribute $350 million to the Plan. Ex. 1 at § 8.1.2. This payment
will be made by annual contributions to the Plan for seven years. Id. Providence will also pay
$1.9 million in the aggregate (or $500/person) to the 3,799 individuals who left covered service
6 As discussed in n.3, supra, the Settlement Agreement originally identified 3,802 former participants who were in
Group II and entitled to the Vesting Payment. See Ex. 1 at Schedule A. However, upon further investigation, the
Parties determined that three individuals were improperly included in this Group II. Accordingly, Class Notice was
mailed to 3,799 Group II members. See Rust Aff. ¶ 10; Joint Decl. ¶ 4 n.2. 7 See Ex. 1.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 11 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 6
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
under the Plan after completing at least three, but less than five, years of vesting service but who
are not fully vested under the Plan’s terms. Id. at § 8.1.3. In addition to these payments,
beginning eight years after the Effective Date, Providence will make minimum contributions to
the Plan, as recommended by the Plan’s actuary, with the present intent to fully fund the Plan by
December 31, 2029. Id. at § 8.1.4.
2. Non-Monetary Equitable Consideration
In addition to contributing hundreds of millions of dollars into the Plan over the next
seven years, Providence also guarantees—for the duration of the Plan’s existence—that the
Plan’s trust will have sufficient funds to pay participants’ accrued benefits as they come due.
Ex. 1 § 9.1. Under the Settlement, Plan participants’ accrued benefits cannot be reduced if this
Plan is ever amended or terminated. Id. § 9.2. Additionally, if the Plan is ever merged with or
into another Plan, participants will be entitled to the same or greater benefits as they enjoyed
before the event. Id. § 9.3. As explained in more detail in section III(A)(4), these commitments
are crucial because, as it stands now, the Plan’s promise to pay is “fund-specific,” meaning that
the Plan’s financial responsibility for benefits is limited solely to the amount of assets held in the
Plan’s trust fund. Because of this Settlement, if the assets in the Plan’s trust are ever insufficient
to pay accrued benefits, Providence must make sufficient contributions to the trust to ensure all
accrued benefits are paid. Id. § 9.1.
3. Other Equitable Consideration
Plan participants also receive many other protections under this Settlement that are
comparable to key ERISA provisions. For example, Plan participants will be entitled to
summary plan descriptions describing the Plan, summaries of any material modifications to the
Plan, pension benefit statements, and claims procedures. Id. § 9.5. Plan participants and
beneficiaries may also request annual reports containing financial information about the Plan.
Id. § 9.5.2.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 12 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 7
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4. Class
The Settlement contemplates that the Court will certify a non-opt-out class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) or (b)(2). Ex. 1 § 3.2.2(a). The Settlement Class is defined as:
All persons who are or were participants, whether vested or non-vested, in the Plan, on or after
January 1, 2008, and their beneficiaries. Id. § 1.31.
5. Released Claims
Section 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement generally defines the Released Claims as claims
brought by Plaintiffs, or claims that could have been asserted by Plaintiffs, arising out of the
allegations in the instant action. However, there is a significant carve out from the Released
Claims. Namely, the Settlement Agreement provides that Defendants will not be released
prospectively in the event of certain developments in the law, such as the Internal Revenue
Service issuing a written ruling that the Plan does not qualify as a church plan, or ERISA is
amended eliminating the church plan exception. See Ex. 1 § 4.1.4.
6. Notice
The Preliminary Approval Order provided for the following notices: (a) a mailed notice,
sent to the last known address of members of the Settlement Class, including an additional
enclosure with the Notice for each individual who terminated with more than three, but less than
five, years of “vesting service” in the Plan on or after January 1, 2008, and who was entitled to
the $500 payment (members of Group II); and (b) internet publication of the Settlement
Agreement and Class Notice on www.kellersettlements.com and
www.cohenmilstein.com/providence-settlement. Defendants paid the cost for notice, and the
notice was sent out on January 19, 2017. See Ex. 1 § 3.2.3; Rust Aff. ¶ 10.
7. Attorneys’ Fees
By separate application, Class Counsel seeks an award of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and a
class representative incentive award for the Named Plaintiffs (Linda Griffith and Jeanette
Wenzl),8 in an amount not to exceed $6.5 million. The Settlement Class was notified of these
8 As discussed in more detail in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Awards of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and Incentive Fees
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 13 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 8
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
details in the Class Notice. The attorneys’ fees are separate from the $350 million contribution
to the Plan and the $1.9 million pro rata payment to individuals who terminated with more than
three, but less than five, years of vesting service (Group II). Importantly, the attorneys’ fees,
expenses, and class representative Incentive Fees to the Named Plaintiffs will not reduce the
$351.9 million Class Settlement Amount. Ex. 1 § 8.1.5.
D. Reasons for the Settlement
Plaintiffs have entered into this proposed Settlement with an understanding of the risks
associated with continued litigation, which takes into account the strengths and weaknesses of
their claims. This understanding is based on: (1) the motion practice undertaken by the Parties in
the district court; (2) investigation and research; (3) the range of possible recovery; (4) the
substantial complexity, expense, and duration of litigation necessary to prosecute this action
through appeal, and if successful there, through trial, post-trial motions, and likely additional
appeals, and the significant uncertainties in predicting the outcome of this complex litigation;
(5) Defendants’ determination to fight and contest every aspect of the case; and (6) the pendency
of the proceedings in the United States Supreme Court concerning the scope and meaning of the
church plan exemption to ERISA. As noted in section II(A), since Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Approval, Dkt. # 50, was filed, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in all three
of the church plan cases cited above—Dignity, Advocate, and St. Peter’s. See Advocate Health
Care Network v. Stapleton, Saint Peter’s Healthcare Sys. v. Kaplan, Dignity Health v. Rollins,
Nos. 16-74, 16-86, 16-258 (cert. granted Dec. 2, 2016) (hereinafter, “Advocate, Saint Peter’s,
Dignity, Nos. 16-74, 16-86, 16-258”). The scope of the church plan exemption will now be
decided by the highest court in the country, and the uncertain outcome of those proceedings
raises risks for both sides in continuing this litigation. Having undertaken an analysis of all of
to the Named Plaintiffs, filed contemporaneously herewith, Plaintiffs seek an award of $10,000 for each of the two
Named Plaintiffs for their services in this litigation and on behalf of the Class. This amount will be paid out of the
$6.5 million being requested pursuant to section 8.1.5 of the Settlement Agreement, and will in no way reduce the
relief to the Settlement Class.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 14 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 9
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
these factors, Class Counsel have concluded that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and that it should be approved. Moreover, to date Class Counsel have not received any
objections to the proposed Settlement.
E. Preliminary Approval
Class Counsel moved for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement on October
20, 2016, Dkt. # 50, and the Court entered the Preliminary Approval Order on December 6,
2016. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court found that the proposed Class met all the
requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b), and preliminarily certified the Class defined above pursuant
to Rules 23(b)(1) and/or (2) and 23(e). Id. at 3. The Court further appointed Linda Griffith and
Jeanette Wenzl, the Named Plaintiffs, as the Class representatives for the Settlement Class, and
appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, as Class Counsel
for the Settlement Class. Id.
F. Notice to the Class and the Lack of Objections to Date
In paragraph 5 of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court approved the form of the
proposed Notice and set deadlines for mailing and publishing the Notice and for posting the
Notice on the settlement websites created and maintained for this litigation. Id. at 4–5. In
accordance with the Court’s Order, Defendants issued the Court-approved Notice on January 19,
2017. The Rust Affidavit, submitted contemporaneously herewith, demonstrates compliance
with this Court’s Order for Class Notice. The Rust Affidavit attests to the mailing of 75,505
individual Notices to the Settlement Class (71,706 notices to Group I and 3,799 notices to Group
II), wherein February 21, 2017 was established as the deadline for objecting to the proposed
Settlement and Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and other relief. Rust Aff. ¶ 10. Further,
Rust created a dedicated telephone line for the Settlement Class. Id. ¶ 14. As of January 31,
2017, Rust had received approximately 207 phone inquiries. Id. ¶ 14.
By January 20, 2017, as required by the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Counsel also
posted and linked the Complaint, the Settlement Agreement, the Class Notice, the Preliminary
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 15 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 10
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Approval Motion, and the Preliminary Approval Order on www.kellersettlements.com and
www.cohenmilstein.com/providence-settlement, the dedicated Settlement websites through
which the Settlement Class could access Settlement-related information and materials. See Joint
Decl. ¶¶ 34-35. As of February 1, 2017, these sites had recorded 573 visitor sessions and Class
Counsel have responded to 110 email and phone inquiries. Id. ¶ 36.
III. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT
A. The Settlement Meets the Judicial Standards for Final Approval
Courts consistently favor the settlement of disputed claims, see MWS Wire Indus., Inc. v.
Cal. Fine Wire Co., 797 F.2d 799, 802 (9th Cir. 1986), particularly in class actions and other
complex matters, where the inherent costs, delays, and risks of continued litigation might
otherwise overwhelm any potential benefit the class could hope to obtain. See Class Plaintiffs v.
City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). Now that the Court has preliminarily
approved the settlement and caused notice to issue to Settlement Class members consistent with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) (see also section III(B), infra), the Court must decide
whether final approval is warranted. Ultimately, the Court should finally approve the settlement
if it determines that the settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Officers
for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). The Ninth Circuit has
articulated eight factors for courts to consider in this analysis, which are:
the strength of plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration
of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial;
the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed, and the stage
of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a
governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed
settlement.
Id.
When examined under the applicable criteria, each and every factor supports final
judicial approval of the Settlement, which is an excellent result for the Class.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 16 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 11
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1. The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case Supports Settlement
Plaintiffs’ case is strong and they have pursued it vigorously, but the litigation is not
without risk or uncertainty. To date, Plaintiffs’ arguments that only churches may establish
ERISA-exempt church plans have been upheld by the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts
of Appeals. See Dignity, 830 F.3d at 905; St. Peter’s, 810 F.3d at 183; Advocate, 817 F.3d at
523. However, the United States Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari in all three of
those cases, and will be deciding whether, as Plaintiffs contend, church plans must be established
by churches; or whether, as Defendants contend, organizations “controlled by” or “associated
with” churches may establish their own church plans. See Advocate, Saint Peter’s, Dignity, Nos.
16-74, 16-86, 16-258 (certiorari granted Dec. 2, 2016). The pendency of proceedings in the
Supreme Court on the fundamental issues in this case—the meaning and scope of the “church
plan” exemption in ERISA—poses risks for both sides in continuing with this litigation.
First, the pendency of such proceedings means that this case could potentially be delayed
for months. Second, a decision from the Supreme Court will not necessarily resolve all the
issues in the litigation. The parties will still need to litigate how the Supreme Court’s ruling
applies to the facts of this case, as well as continue with fact and expert discovery, class
certification, preparation of witnesses and exhibits for trial, pre-trial memoranda and procedures,
presentation of witnesses and evidence at trial, and a near-certain appeal of any judgment.
Plaintiffs believe they would be successful, but are nevertheless conscious that continued
litigation comes with substantial risk and could result in non-recovery for the Class.
Given the potential risks and delays, a Class Settlement of $351.9 million, along with
significant other administrative and equitable protections, should be regarded as a highly
favorable recovery that warrants final approval. See Ex. 1 §§ 8.1–9.5.4.
2. The Settlement is Preferable to the Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely
Duration of Further Litigation
“[U]nless the settlement is clearly inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable
to lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain results.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 17 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 12
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 526–27 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Class Counsel believe strongly in
their claims and have vigorously pursued them, but there is risk in any litigation, and especially
here, where the area of the law—ERISA church plan litigation—is one of the most nuanced,
unpredictable, and rapidly developing in ERISA jurisprudence, as evidenced by the proceedings
in the Supreme Court. Moreover, presenting an ERISA case of this type on the merits is a
massive undertaking, with substantial risks, expense, and delay. Defendants have forcefully
defended their actions with respect to the Plan to date, and there is no reason to believe they
would not continue to do so through trial and on appeal if necessary. The monetary and non-
monetary consideration to the Plan is far better for the Class than the possibility of a more
significant recovery, if any, after an expensive and protracted trial and appeal.
3. The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout the Trial Supports
Final Approval
Although the risk of maintaining class action status through trial is likely minimal in this
case, the balance of the factors still weighs in favor of final approval of the Settlement. See
Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser, 255 F.R.D. 537, 542 (W.D. Wash. 2009) (“The Court finds that the risk
of maintaining the class action throughout the trial was probably minimal; however, the balance
of these factors favors approval, and the Court is not persuaded that this factor alone militates a
different result.”).
4. The Amount Offered in Settlement Is Substantial and Weighs in Favor of
Approval
The Settlement provides substantial monetary and equitable relief to the Plan and the
Class. As noted above, Providence will make a $350 million contribution to the Plan and
guarantee that the Plan’s trust will have sufficient assets to pay benefits as they come due. Ex. 1
at §§ 8.1.1, 8.1.4, 9.1. Providence also guarantees that participants’ accrued benefits cannot be
reduced in the event of a Plan amendment or termination, and that if this Plan is merged with or
into another Plan, participants and beneficiaries will be entitled to the same or greater benefits
after the merger. See Ex. 1 at §§ 9.2-9.3.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 18 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 13
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
These commitments are significant, as the liabilities of the Providence Plan are “fund-
specific.” Prior to the enactment of ERISA, the sponsor of a defined benefit plan could limit its
responsibility for benefit levels to whatever assets were contained in the trust fund, i.e., a “fund-
specific plan.” John H. Langbein et al., Pension and Employee Benefit Law 187-88 (6th ed.
2015). As explained in the Complaint, among the factors that led to the enactment of ERISA
were the widely-publicized failures of certain defined benefit pension plans, especially the plan
for employees of Studebaker Corporation, an automobile manufacturing company which
defaulted on its pension obligations in 1965. Complaint ¶ 49, citing Langbein, supra, at 78-83.
The Studebaker plan was fund-specific. Langbein, supra, at 244. ERISA prohibits this sort of
fund-specific defined benefit promise which failed the Studebaker employees. Id. Plaintiffs
allege that in claiming the church plan exemption, the Plan is, in essence, a Studebaker-esque
pre-ERISA plan. Of course, Defendants dispute this. In any event, the Settlement’s equitable
consideration provides the Plan’s participants and beneficiaries with several important
protections comparable to ERISA that they would otherwise lack.
In addition to the payments to the Plan, Providence will also make a pro rata payment of
$500 to each of the former participants who terminated with more than three, but less than five,
years of vesting service under the Plan, and who therefore allegedly forfeited a benefit under
ERISA.
The Settlement also includes other equitable provisions comparable to ERISA’s
protections, including requiring that Plan participants be provided with summary plan
descriptions, summaries of material modifications to the Plan, and administrative notices and
procedures (annual reports, pension benefit statements, and claims procedures). Ex. 1 at
§§ 9.5.1-9.5.4.
In light of the considerable monetary and equitable relief provided under this Settlement
versus the risks of long and protracted litigation, this Settlement Agreement should be approved.
See Pelletz, 255 F.R.D. at 542 (approving of settlement because “pursuing trial would have
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 19 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 14
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
delayed the distribution of any benefits to the Class and would likely have incurred far more
expenses[]”); see also Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998)
(citation omitted) (settlement should not be judged against a “speculative measure” of what
could have been attained in negotiations).
5. The Fact that Extensive Investigation and Informal Discovery Were
Completed Before Settlement Favors Final Approval
Prior to, and during, settlement negotiations, Plaintiffs and Defendants completed a
careful investigation of the facts and law of this case, allowing the Parties to carefully evaluate
all of the “legal and factual issues surrounding this case.” Nat’l Rural, 221 F.R.D. at 527
(citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has stated that “[i]n the context of class action settlements,
‘formal discovery is not a necessary ticket to the bargaining table’ where the parties have
sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement.” In re Mego Fin. Corp.
Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Before filing the Complaint in this case, Plaintiffs engaged in extensive factual and legal
research in order to develop their claims and legal theories, which ultimately resulted in a
seventy-page Complaint. Joint Decl. ¶¶ 8-14. Such investigation included, among other things,
a review and analysis of: the statute at issue in this case, the legislative history behind it, and
agency and court opinions interpreting it; Plan documents; Providence’s public disclosures;
publicly-available financial statements; governmental filings; and information provided by the
Plaintiffs themselves. Id. The Parties honed the legal issues in this case during the motion to
dismiss briefing, and such issues became even more nuanced after decisions concerning the
church plan exemption from the Ninth, Third, and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 15,
24. These appellate court decisions informed the Settlement negotiations in this case, as did the
risk that they would be appealed to the Supreme Court—a risk that has since come to fruition,
with the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in all three of these cases. Id.; see also section
II(A), supra.
The Parties’ settlement negotiations also benefited from all the informal discovery and
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 20 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 15
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
research that was undertaken in this matter, including Defendants’ production of approximately
2,100 pages of documents concerning the Plan and its administration, the exchange of additional
documents during mediation, and the preparation of mediation statements. Joint Decl. ¶¶ 16, 23-
25.
In light of the above, the Parties possessed sufficient information to properly evaluate the
value and benefit of this Settlement Agreement, and this factor weighs in favor of final approval.
See Pelletz, 255 F.R.D. at 543 (approving settlement even though formal discovery was not
completed); In re Mego, 213 F.3d at 459.
6. The Opinions of Experienced Counsel Weigh in Favor of Approval
“‘Great weight’ is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely
acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation.” Nat’l Rural, 221 F.R.D. at 528 (citation
omitted); City of Seattle, 955 F.2d at 1291; Churchill Vill. L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566,
576-77 (9th Cir. 2004). “This is because ‘[p]arties represented by competent counsel are better
positioned than courts to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome
in the litigation.” Nat’l Rural, 221 F.R.D. at 528 (citing In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d
373, 378 (9th Cir. 1995)).
As evidenced by their firm resumes attached to the Joint Declaration (Exs. A and B
thereto), and as detailed in the Joint Decl. ¶¶ 39-48, Class Counsel have extensive experience in
handling ERISA church plan litigation and other class action ERISA cases. Keller Rohrback has
been litigating church plan cases since 2010 in the case of Thorkelson v. Publ’g House of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am., No. 10-1712 (D. Minn. filed Apr. 21, 2010). Joint Decl. ¶
40. Keller Rohrback and Cohen Milstein serve as co-counsel in all three of the appellate court
cases mentioned above that are now pending in the Supreme Court concerning the applicability
of the church plan exemption to hospital pension plans. See section II(A), supra, and Joint Decl.
¶ 42. In addition, Keller Rohrback and Cohen Milstein serve, or have served, as co-counsel in
roughly 20 cases pending across the country involving claims by hospital systems that their plans
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 21 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 16
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
qualify as “church plans.” Id. ¶ 41.
Based on their own experience and the facts of this case, Class Counsel believes that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable and is in the best interests of the Plan and the Class. This opinion
supports final approval of the Settlement. See Pelletz, 255 F.R.D. at 543.
7. The Presence of a Government Participant Supports Approval
The United States Department of Justice was given notice of this action because, as an
alternative cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that if the Plan is found to be an exempt church plan,
then to that extent and as applied to the Plan, the church plan exemption violates the
Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. See Complaint ¶¶ 284-92; see also Pls.’
Notice of Constitutional Question, Dkt. # 18. This alternative, as-applied challenge to the
constitutionality of the exemption has not become “live” in this case; the government has not
submitted formal briefing on this issue; and the government has not yet formally intervened. See
Dkt. ## 29, 44.
In addition to the United States Department of Justice being on notice of this lawsuit and
the proposed Settlement, the state Attorneys General have also been given notice of the
Settlement, as required by the CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1715. See Saper Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 8. Although it
has been several months since the CAFA notice was first issued, none of the state Attorneys
General has raised an objection to this Settlement. These factors all weigh in support of final
approval.
8. The Reaction of Absent Members of the Settlement Class
Both Plaintiffs fully support the proposed Settlement, but full consideration of this factor
cannot occur until after the deadline to file objections, which is February 21, 2017. Dkt. # 52 at
¶ 6. Class Counsel will address objections, if any, in their Reply in Support of Final Approval
(the “Reply”), due on March 14, 2017. Class Counsel have already spoken with 110 Class
members about the Settlement, and to date have not received any objections. Joint Decl. ¶¶ 36,
37. If objections are later received, Class Counsel will respond to them in the Reply.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 22 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 17
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
9. The Settlement is the Product of Non-Collusive, Arm’s-Length Negotiations
In addition to the eight factors above, when settlements are agreed upon prior to class
certification, district courts should also “consider whether the settlement is the product of
collusion among the negotiating parties.” G.F. v. Contra Costa Cty., No. 13-03667, 2015 WL
7571789, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2015) (citing In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,
654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Settlement in this instance is clearly non-collusive.
First, an experienced, neutral, third-party mediator oversaw all of the Settlement negotiations and
came up with a mediator’s proposal for the amount of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and Incentive
Fees for the Named Plaintiffs, to which the Parties ultimately agreed (subject to Court approval).
See Ex. 1 at § 8.1.5; see also Joint Decl. ¶¶ 5, 26. Second, the attorneys’ fees being sought in
this case (Ex. 1 at § 8.1.5) were not negotiated until after agreement was reached on the key
provisions for the Settlement Class. Joint Decl. ¶ 26. The requested amount does not in any way
reduce: the hundreds of millions of dollars in relief to the Settlement Class; Providence’s
commitments to continue making contributions to this Plan with the present intent to fully fund it
by December 31, 2029; Providence’s guarantee that the Plan’s trust will have sufficient assets to
pay vested benefits as they come due; or the equitable relief that Plan participants will receive,
such as important notices and disclosures about the Plan and their benefits. Ex. 1 at §§ 8.1.1–
8.1.5, 9.1–9.5.4. Moreover, even when examined as a percentage of the fund, the amount
requested is a very tiny fraction (1.8%) of the readily-ascertainable value of the Class Settlement
Amount of $351.9 million. Ex. 1 at §§ 8.1.1, 8.1.5; see also Plaintiffs’ Motion for Awards of
Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and Incentive Fees for the Named Plaintiffs, submitted
contemporaneously herewith. In the hotly-contested settlement negotiations, overseen by the
mediator, there was simply no trade-off of lesser benefits for the Settlement Class in exchange
for greater fees. See Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. 10-1859, 2013 WL 1858797, at *8-9
(W.D. Wash. May 3, 2013) (finding no collusion where the parties’ negotiations were arm’s-
length, guided by a mediator, discussed after the key settlement terms were negotiated, based
upon a mediator’s proposal, and there was no hint of a trade-off of lesser class benefits for
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 23 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 18
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
greater fees).
B. The Form and Methods of Notice Employed Satisfy Rule 23 and Due Process
In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Class has been
provided with ample and sufficient notice of this Settlement, including an appropriate
opportunity to voice objections. The notice plan fully informed Settlement Class members of the
lawsuit and the proposed Settlement, and enabled them to make informed decisions about their
rights. Joint Decl. ¶ 34.
Due process requires that notice to class members be “reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an
opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S.
306, 314 (1950) (citation omitted). For the due process standard to be met, “[a]ctual notice need
not be provided to absent members of a class action settlement to bind them, assuming the notice
provided was the ‘best practicable notice.’” Villegas v. United States, 963 F.Supp.2d 1145, 1159
(E.D. Wash. 2013) (quoting Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1453-54) (9th Cir. 1994)). To
satisfy Rule 23, “[f]or non-opt out cases, such as the ERISA Actions, [all that is required is] such
unspecified ‘appropriate notice’ as ‘the court may direct[.]’” In re Glob. Crossing Sec. & ERISA
Litig., 225 F.R.D. 436, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A)). Here, the
form and methods of notice of proposed Settlement provided pursuant to the Preliminary
Approval Order satisfy all due process considerations and Rules 23(c)(2) and (e)(1).
The mailed class notice provided detailed information about the Settlement to
approximately 75,505 individual members of the Settlement, including: (1) a comprehensive
summary of the Settlement’s terms; (2) notice of Class Counsel’s intent to request attorneys’
fees, reimbursement of expenses, and class representative Incentive Fees for the services
performed by Named Plaintiffs; and (3) detailed information about the Released Claims. Rust
Aff. ¶ 10, Joint Decl. ¶¶ 33-34. In addition, the notice provided information about the Fairness
Hearing date, rights of members of the Settlement Class to object (and deadlines and procedures
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 24 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 19
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
for objecting), and the procedure to receive additional information. Joint Decl. ¶¶ 33-34; Rust
Aff. Exs. 1 and 2. The mailed class notice provided members of the Settlement Class with
contact information for Class Counsel, information on the toll-free phone number for inquiries,
and website addresses for further information. Id.
The notice form and methods employed here are substantially similar to those
successfully used in many other ERISA class settlements and “fairly, accurately, and neutrally
describe the claims and parties in the litigation[,] . . . the terms of the proposed settlement and the
identity of persons entitled to participate in it.” Foe v. Cuomo, 700 F. Supp. 107, 113 (E.D.N.Y.
1988), aff’d, 892 F.2d 196 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 972 (1990) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, the notice provided to the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of due
process and Rule 23.
C. Certification of the Settlement Class Is Appropriate
To proceed with the settlement approval process, it is necessary for the Court to certify a
class for Settlement. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 provides that an action may be
maintained as a class action if each of the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) is met and, in addition,
the action qualifies under one of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b). Courts in this jurisdiction have
consistently found that class certification is appropriate in ERISA cases. See McCluskey v. Trs.
of Red Dot Corp. Emp. Stock Ownership Plan & Tr., 268 F.R.D. 670, 678 (W.D. Wash. 2010)
(“‘Class actions are generally well-suited to litigation brought pursuant to ERISA.’”) (quoting
Banyai v. Mazur, 205 F.R.D. 160, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)); Wilson v. Venture Fin. Grp., Inc.,
No. 09-5678, 2011 WL 219692, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2011). Furthermore, the Supreme
Court has acknowledged the propriety of certifying a class solely for settlement purposes.
See, e.g., Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 618 (1997). As set forth below, the
Class easily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) requirements and thus
certification of the Settlement Class is appropriate.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 25 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 20
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1. The Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Easily Satisfied
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Defendants have identified, and the Class Notice has
been sent to, approximately 75,505 members of the Settlement Class. See Rust Aff. ¶ 10. Thus,
the element of numerosity is met.
Rule 23(a)(2) requires that a class action raise “questions of law or fact common to the
class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). There need be only a single issue common to all members of
the class. K.M. v. Regence BlueShield, No. 13-1214, 2014 WL 801204, at *13 (W.D. Wash. Feb.
27, 2014) (“Commonality only requires a single significant question of law or fact.”). In the
instant case, members of the Settlement Class share multiple issues of law and fact, such as
whether the Plan is exempt from ERISA as a church plan, and, if not, whether the fiduciaries of
the Plan have failed to administer and fund the Plan in accordance with ERISA. Thus,
commonality is satisfied.
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical
of the claims or defenses of the class. When evaluating typicality, a court must analyze
“‘whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct
which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured
by the same course of conduct.’” K.M., 2014 WL 801204, at *14 (quoting Hanon v.
Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992)). Here, Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the
same course of events as the claims of the Settlement Class—Defendants’ alleged failure to
maintain the Plan in accordance with ERISA. Moreover, each member of the Settlement Class
asserts the same claims arising from the same conduct by Defendants and seeking the same relief
on behalf of the Plan—compliance with ERISA. Accordingly, typicality is met.
Rule 23(a)(4) requires that class representatives fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class they seek to represent. This test looks to whether the Plaintiffs’ “attorneys are well
qualified to handle this type of litigation” and demands that Plaintiffs’ interests not be
“antagonistic to the remainder of the class.” Wilson, 2011 WL 219692, at *2. The “adequacy”
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 26 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 21
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
test is easily met in this case, particularly in the context of the Settlement Class. The claims and
interests of the Named Plaintiffs were congruent with those of the other members of the
Settlement Class: all seek to enhance their retirement security under this Plan, whether through
monetary or non-monetary relief. There can be no question that the Named Plaintiffs’ interests
are aligned with those of the Settlement Class and that they have retained qualified counsel with
extensive experience representing plaintiffs in class litigation, including ERISA cases and church
plan cases specifically. Accordingly, this class action satisfies all the requirements of Rule
23(a).
2. The Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2)
a. Individual Actions Would Create Inconsistent Adjudications or be
Dispositive of the Interests of Absent Members
A class may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) if, in addition to
meeting the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), the prosecution of separate
actions by individual class members would create the risk of inconsistent adjudications, which
would create incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant, or would as a practical matter
be dispositive of the interests of absent members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) & (B). Here, the
risk of inconsistent adjudications and incompatible standards is obvious: in the absence of
certification, two participants could bring identical actions and achieve different results, with one
court holding that the Plan is an ERISA-regulated plan and the other holding that it is not.
Courts have certified classes under Rule 23(b)(1) in ERISA cases for those very reasons. See
McCluskey, 268 F.R.D. at 677 (“Where, as here, the primary relief is to the Plan as a whole, then
adjudications with respect to any individual member of the class would, as a practical matter,
alter the interests of other members of the class. . . . Thus, the proposed class clearly falls within
Rule 23(b)(1)(B)[.]”).
Moreover, the Advisory Committee on Rule 23 specifically notes that actions that
“charge[] a breach of trust by an indenture trustee or other fiduciary similarly affecting the
members of a large class of . . . beneficiaries”—i.e., an action like the present action—“should
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 27 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 22
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ordinarily be conducted as class actions” under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(1)(B) Advisory Committee’s Note to 1966 Amendment; see also McCluskey, 268 F.R.D.
at 678 (“Certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1) where plaintiff claims defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, and any decision on that issue would necessarily
affect the interests of other participants.”) (citation omitted). As a result, certification of the
proposed class under Rule 23(b)(1) is appropriate in this ERISA Action.
b. Defendants Have Acted on Grounds Generally Applicable to the Class
and Relief for the Class as a Whole is Appropriate
A class may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) if “the party
opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that
final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a
whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to comply with
ERISA on a Plan-wide basis and seek declaratory relief that the Plan is not a church plan as well
as injunctive relief requiring that the Plan comply with ERISA. The available remedies include
monetary relief and remedial equitable relief to the Plan as a whole. ERISA §§ 502(a)(2) & (3),
29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) & (3).
Remedies under ERISA section 502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2), are by definition plan-
wide, a classic example of equitable relief. See Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 473 U.S. 134, 140-41
(1985). While the Settlement includes monetary consideration to the Plan, that consideration
goes to the Plan as a whole and flows directly from Plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive and
declaratory relief. Berger v. Xerox Corp. Ret. Income Guarantee Plan, 338 F.3d 755, 763-64
(7th Cir. 2003) (certifying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class where ERISA plaintiffs sought
declaratory relief); see also In re Mut. Funds Inv. Litig., MDL No. 1586, 2010 WL 2307568, at
*4 (D. Md. May 19, 2010) (same); In re Glob. Crossing, 225 F.R.D. at 453 (same).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are also properly certified under Rule 23(b)(2).
3. The Requirements of Rule 23(g) Are Met
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) requires the Court to examine the capabilities and
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 28 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 23
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
resources of Class Counsel. Class Counsel have detailed the claims brought in this action, and
the time and effort already expended in connection with this litigation. See Section II, supra; see
also Joint Decl. ¶¶ 7-38. Moreover, Class Counsel are among the leading ERISA plaintiffs’
firms, and possess unparalleled expertise in the specific types of ERISA claims brought in this
lawsuit. Joint Decl. ¶¶ 39-48. Class Counsel thus satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(g).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Named Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Settlement
should be granted final approval because it is a fair and reasonable result when viewed against
the governing standard. Moreover, the Settlement Class meets all the requirements of Rule 23
and should be finally certified.
DATED this 3rd day of February, 2017.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
By: s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko
s/ Erin M. Riley
s/ Laura Gerber
s/ Gretchen S. Obrist
s/ Havila C. Unrein
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA #16569
Erin M. Riley, WSBA #30401
Laura Gerber, WSBA #34981
Gretchen S. Obrist, WSBA #37071
Havila C. Unrein, WSBA #40881
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 29 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 24
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
By: s/ Ron Kilgard Ron Kilgard, Pro Hac Vice 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: (602) 248-0088 Fax: (602) 248- 2822 Email: [email protected]
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL,
PLLC
By: s/ Karen L. Handorf
s/ Michelle Yau Karen Handorf, Pro Hac Vice Michelle Yau, Pro Hac Vice 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 30 of 31
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT &
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 25
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 3, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of
record.
s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko
Lynn Lincoln Sarko
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54 Filed 02/03/17 Page 31 of 31
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between Plaintiffs,
as defined in § 1.21 below, on the one hand, and Defendants, as defined in § 1.8 below, on the
other. Capitalized terms and phrases have the meanings provided in § 1 below or as specified
elsewhere in this Settlement Agreement.
1. DEFINITIONS
1.1. “Action” shall mean: Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al., No. 14-
1720, an action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.
1.2. “Church Plan” shall mean: a plan which meets the definition of a “church plan” under
ERISA § 3(33), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33) and Section 414(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended.
1.3. “Class Counsel” shall mean: Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll,
PLLC.
1.4. “Class Notice” shall have the meaning provided in § 3.2.1.
1.5. “Class Settlement Amount” shall have the meaning set forth in § 8.1.1.
1.6. “Complaint” shall mean: the Class Action Complaint filed in the Action on November 7,
2014.
1.7. “Court” shall mean: The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.
1.8. “Defendants” shall mean: 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.
1.9. “Effective Date” or “Effective Date of Settlement” shall mean: the date on which all of
the conditions to settlement set forth in § 3 of this Settlement Agreement have been fully
satisfied or waived and the Settlement shall have become Final.
1.10. “ERISA” shall mean: the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, including all regulations promulgated thereunder.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 2 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
2
1.11. “Fairness Hearing” shall have the meaning provided in § 3.2.5(a).
1.12. “Final” shall mean: with respect to any judicial ruling or order in the Action, that the
period for any appeals, petitions, motions for reconsideration, rehearing or certiorari or any other
proceedings for review (“Review Proceeding”) has expired without the initiation of a Review
Proceeding, or, if a Review Proceeding has been timely initiated, that there has occurred a full
and completed disposition of any such Review Proceeding, including the exhaustion of
proceedings in any remand and/or subsequent appeal on remand.
1.13. “Final Approval Motion” shall have the meaning provided in § 3.2.6.
1.14. “Final Approval Order” shall have the meaning provided in § 3.2.5(a).
1.15. “Incentive Fees to Plaintiffs” shall mean: any monetary amounts awarded by the Court
in recognition of the Named Plaintiffs’ assistance in the prosecution of the Action and payable
pursuant to § 8.1.5 below.
1.16. “Judgment” shall have the meaning provided in § 3.2.5(a).
1.17. “Nonvested Former Participants” shall mean the former 3,802 Plan participants who had
a break in covered service under the Plan on or after January 1, 2008 and who as of the break in
service were credited with at least three (3) Years of Vesting Service but less than five (5) Years
of Vesting Service and forfeited a benefit accrued under a cash balance formula.
1.18. “Party” or “Parties” shall mean the Plaintiffs and Defendants, either individually or
collectively.
1.19. “Payroll Year” shall mean the period for which pay was received by the Plan participant
from an employer participating in the Plan is reported on the Plan participant’s Wage and Tax
Statement (Form W-2) for a calendar year.
1.20. “Person” shall mean: an individual, partnership, corporation or any other form of
organization.
1.21. “Plaintiffs” and “Named Plaintiffs” shall mean: Linda Griffith and Jeanette Wenzl.
1.22. “Plan” shall mean: the Providence Health & Services Cash Balance Retirement Plan,
which is also commonly referred to as the “Core Plan.”
1.23. “Plan Payment” shall have the meaning set forth in § 8.1.2.
1.24. “Plan Sponsor” shall have the meaning provided in ERISA § 3(16)(B), 29 U.S.C. §
1002(16)(B).
1.25. “Preliminary Approval Motion” shall have the meaning provided in § 3.2.1.
1.26. “Preliminary Approval Order” shall have the meaning provided in § 3.2.1.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 3 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
3
1.27. “Providence” shall mean Providence Health & Services, a nonprofit corporation
organized in Washington.
1.28. “Released Claims” shall have the meaning provided in § 4.1.
1.29. “Releasees” shall mean: Providence, all entities that are considered to be a single
employer with Providence under Internal Revenue Code 414, 26 U.S.C. § 414, their employees,
agents, and directors, including the individual defendants.
1.30. “Representatives” shall mean: representatives, attorneys, agents, directors, officers,
employees, insurers and reinsurers.
1.31. “Settlement” shall mean: the settlement to be consummated under this Settlement
Agreement pursuant to the Final Approval Order.
1.32. “Settlement Agreement” shall mean this Class Action Settlement Agreement entered into
by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants.
1.33. “Settlement Class” shall mean: All Persons who are or were participants, whether vested
or non-vested, in the Plan on or after January 1, 2008, and their beneficiaries.
1.34. “Successor-In-Interest” shall mean: a Person’s estate, legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any other Person who can make a legal claim by or through such
Person.
1.35. “Term Sheet” shall mean: the document entitled “Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health &
Services, et al. Settlement Term Sheet” dated September 26, 2016.
1.36. “Vesting Payment” shall have the meaning provided in § 8.1.3.
1.37. “Year of Vesting Service” means each Payroll Year in which a Plan participant was
credited with at least 800 hours of service.
2. RECITALS
2.1. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege and seek declaratory relief against Defendants that the
Plan is not a Church Plan within the meaning of ERISA § 3(33) and thus is subject to the
provisions of Title I and Title IV of ERISA. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants (a) violated
ERISA’s reporting and disclosure provisions; (b) failed to adhere to ERISA’s required minimum
funding standards for the Plan; (c) failed to establish the Plan pursuant to a written instrument
meeting the requirements of ERISA § 402; and (d) failed to establish a trust meeting the
requirements of ERISA § 403. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached fiduciary duties owed
to the Plan’s participants and beneficiaries, including Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that the
Church Plan exemption, as claimed by Defendants, violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants deny each and every allegation of the
Complaint and believe substantial and meritorious defenses exist for every claim alleged by
Plaintiffs.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 4 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
4
2.2. On January 26, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint (Dkt. No. 32).
That motion was fully briefed (Dkt. Nos. 35, 37).
2.3. While the motion to dismiss briefing was in progress, the Parties engaged in informal
discovery. Plaintiffs propounded discovery requests on Defendants and Defendants produced
roughly 2,100 pages of documents in response to those requests, which included Plan documents,
trust agreements, and communications with the IRS and DOL. In addition, Class Counsel
engaged in substantial discovery and conducted both a legal and factual investigation of publicly
available sources during the course of this litigation.
2.4. During that same period, another case concerning the Church Plan exemption, Rollins v.
Dignity Health, No. 13-01450 (“Dignity”), was appealed to the Ninth Circuit after the District
Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and found, on summary judgment, that only a church could
establish a church plan. See Rollins v. Dignity Health, 59 F. Supp. 3d 965 (N.D. Cal. July 22,
2014).
2.5. Recognizing that a Ninth Circuit ruling would have a major bearing on the course of this
litigation, the Parties stipulated to a stay of this case until the Ninth Circuit ruled in the Dignity
matter. (See Dkt. No. 38.) The Court granted the stay on April 20, 2015, and ordered the Parties
to submit a joint status report within 21 days after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Dignity. (Dkt.
No. 39.)
2.6. On July 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in the Dignity case and held that (1) a
church plan must be established by a church, and (2) a church plan must be maintained either by
a church or by a principal-purpose organization. Rollins v. Dignity Health, 830 F.3d 900, 905
(9th Cir. 2016). Later, on September 21, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed
the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. Rollins v. Dignity Health, 579 U.S. __ (No. 16-258, Sept. 21,
2016).
2.7. Pursuant to the United State District Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 39), on August 16, 2016,
the Parties filed a joint status report with the Court. The Parties stipulated to stay the case while
the Parties engaged in extensive settlement discussions, including utilizing the assistance of a
third party mediator (Robert Meyer, Esq.) who has substantial experience mediating cases
involving ERISA and retirement plan issues, including cases involving the applicability of the
ERISA church plan exception.
2.8. On September 29, 2016, the Parties filed another status report in which they informed the
Court that they had signed the Term Sheet containing the preliminary terms resolving this matter.
(Dkt. No. 48). The Parties requested that the Court lift the stay of this Action in order to carry
out settlement approval proceedings. (Id.) The Court granted the request and lifted the stay on
September 29, 2016. (Dkt. No. 49.)
2.9. Defendants desire to resolve fully and settle with finality the Action and all of Plaintiffs’
Released Claims for themselves, the Settlement Class, and the Plan, thereby avoiding the risk,
expense, inconvenience, burden, distraction and diversion of their personnel and resources, and
uncertainty of outcome that is inherent in any litigation, associated with the Action.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 5 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
5
2.10. Class Counsel has conducted an extensive investigation into the facts, circumstances and
legal issues associated with the allegations made in the Action. This investigation has included,
inter alia: (a) inspecting, reviewing and analyzing documents produced by or otherwise relating
to Defendants and the Plan; (b) researching the applicable law with respect to the claims asserted
in the Action and the defenses and potential defenses thereto; (c) inspecting, reviewing and
analyzing documents concerning the Plan and administration of the Plan; (d) research and
analysis of governmental and other publicly-available information concerning the Defendants,
the Plan, and the relevant industry; and (e) participating in lengthy settlement negotiations with
Defendants’ counsel, presided over by mediator Robert Meyer, Esq.
2.11. Class Counsel’s investigation also included reviewing information provided by
Providence’s actuary in order to confirm that the individuals listed in Schedule A to this
Settlement Agreement are the appropriate population of individuals who are entitled to the
Vesting Payment set forth in § 8.1.3 of this Settlement Agreement. The data provided by
Providence’s actuary and reviewed by Class Counsel included (1) a list of Nonvested Former
Participants, and (2) a schedule of each Nonvested Former Participants’ hours of service per
Payroll Year.
2.12. Class Counsel believes that the Settlement will provide a substantial benefit to the
Settlement Class, and that, when that benefit is weighed against the attendant risks of continuing
the prosecution of the Action, the Settlement represents a reasonable, fair, and adequate
resolution of the claims of the Settlement Class. In reaching this conclusion, Class Counsel has
considered, among other things, the risks of litigation; the time necessary to achieve a complete
resolution through litigation; the complexity of the claims set forth in the Complaint; the ability
of Defendants to withstand judgment; and the benefit accruing to the Plan’s participants under
the Settlement.
2.13. Class Counsel believes that the Settlement will provide the Settlement Class with a
substantial number of the protections they would have received if the Action had been litigated
to a conclusion and Plaintiffs had prevailed.
2.14. Plaintiffs and Defendants have thus reached this Settlement by and through their
respective counsel on the terms and conditions set forth here, which they have had a full and
meaningful opportunity to consider with the advice of their respective counsel.
2.15. Defendants contend that nothing in the Term Sheet and/or this Settlement Agreement
should be construed as an agreement that the Plan is not properly treated as a Church Plan or that
the Plan is subject to ERISA. Plaintiffs contend that nothing in the Term Sheet and/or this
Settlement Agreement should be construed as an agreement that the Plan is properly treated as a
Church Plan or that the Plan is not subject to ERISA. Notwithstanding these differences between
the Parties, they agree jointly to the conditions set forth in this Settlement Agreement.
3. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SETTLEMENT
3.1. Effectiveness of This Settlement Agreement. This Settlement Agreement shall not become
binding unless and until each and every one of the following conditions in §§ 3.2 through 3.8
shall have been satisfied.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 6 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
6
3.2. Court Approval. The Settlement contemplated under this Settlement Agreement shall
have been approved by the Court, as provided for in this § 3.2. The Parties agree jointly to
recommend to the Court that it approve the terms of this Settlement Agreement and the
Settlement contemplated hereunder. The Parties agree to undertake their best efforts, including
all steps and efforts contemplated by this Settlement Agreement, and any other steps or efforts
which may become necessary by order of the Court (unless such order modifies the terms of this
Settlement Agreement) or otherwise, to carry out this Settlement Agreement, including the
following:
3.2.1 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and of Notices. The Court shall
have approved the preliminary approval motion (“Preliminary Approval Motion”) to be filed by
Plaintiffs on or before October 20, 2016, and the Court shall issue an order (the “Preliminary
Approval Order”), including a class notice to be drafted and agreed upon by the Parties (the
“Class Notice”):
(a) Preliminarily approving this Settlement Agreement;
(b) Directing the time and manner of the Class Notice; and
(c) Finding that: (i) the proposed form of Class Notice fairly and adequately:
(A) describes the terms and effect of this Settlement Agreement and of the
Settlement, (B) gives notice to the Settlement Class of the time and place
of the hearing of the motion for final approval of this Settlement
Agreement, and (C) describes how the recipients of the Class Notice may
object to approval of this Settlement Agreement; and (ii) the proposed
manner of communicating the Class Notice to the members of the
Settlement Class is the best notice practicable under the circumstances.
3.2.2 Class Certification.
(a) The Court shall have certified the Action as a non-opt out class action for
settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1) and/or (b)(2), with Named Plaintiffs as the named Settlement
Class representatives, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll, PLLC, as Class Counsel, and with the Settlement Class as defined
above.
(b) The Parties agree to stipulate to certification of the consolidated action as
a non-opt out class action for settlement purposes only, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and/or (b)(2), on the foregoing
terms. If the Settlement does not become Final, then no Settlement Class
will be deemed to have been certified by or as a result of this Settlement
Agreement, and the Action will for all purposes revert to its status as of
the day immediately prior to the date on which the Term Sheet was
executed.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 7 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
7
3.2.3 Issuance of Class Notice. On the date and in the manner set by the Court in its
Preliminary Approval Order, Providence will cause notice of the Preliminary Approval Order to
be delivered to the Settlement Class in the form and manner approved by the Court. The Parties
shall confer in good faith with regard to the form of the Class Notice in an effort to utilize cost
effective forms of notice. The Parties agree that the Preliminary Approval Order shall provide
that the last known addresses for members of the Settlement Class in the possession of the Plan’s
current record-keeper will suffice for all purposes in connection with this Settlement, including,
without limitation, the mailing of the Class Notice. Providence will pay the cost for notice to the
Settlement Class as part of the settlement administration.
3.2.4 Internet/Publication of Class Notice. Class Counsel also shall have given notice
by publication of the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice on www.kellersettlements.com and
www.cohenmilstein.com/providence-settlement.
3.2.5 The Fairness Hearing.
(a) On the date set by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order, the Parties
shall participate in the hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) during or after
which the Court will determine by order (the “Final Approval Order”)
whether: (i) this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate
and should be approved by the Court; (ii) final judgment approving this
Settlement Agreement should be entered (“Judgment”); (iii) the Settlement
Class should be certified as a mandatory non-opt-out class meeting the
applicable requirements for a settlement class imposed by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23; (iv) the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and due process have been satisfied in connection with the
distribution of the Class Notice to members of the Settlement Class; (v)
the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act have been satisfied; (vi)
to award Plaintiffs Incentive Fees and if so, the amount; and (vii) to award
attorneys’ fees and further expenses to Class Counsel and if so, the
amounts.
(b) The Parties covenant and agree that they will reasonably cooperate with
one another in obtaining an acceptable Final Approval Order at the
Fairness Hearing and will not do anything inconsistent with obtaining such
a Final Approval Order.
3.2.6 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On the date set by the
Court in its Preliminary Approval Order, Plaintiffs shall have filed a motion (the “Final Approval
Motion”) for a Final Approval Order. The Final Approval Motion shall seek the Court’s finding
that the Final Approval Order is a final judgment disposing of all claims and all Parties.
3.3. Finality of Final Approval Order. Subject to § 8.1.5, the Final Approval Order shall have
become Final, as defined in § 1.12 of this Settlement Agreement.
3.4. Compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court shall have determined that
Defendants complied with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) and its notice
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 8 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
8
requirements by providing appropriate federal and state officials with information about the
Settlement.
3.5. Dismissal of Action. The Action shall have been dismissed with prejudice as against
Defendants on the Effective Date of Settlement.
3.6. No Termination. The Settlement shall not have terminated pursuant to § 10 below.
3.7. Materiality of Settlement Agreement Conditions. The Parties expressly acknowledge that
the effectiveness of this Settlement Agreement is specifically conditioned upon the occurrence of
each and every one of the foregoing conditions precedent prior to the Effective Date of
Settlement, and that a failure of any condition set forth in §§ 3.1 through 3.8 at any time prior to
the Effective Date of Settlement shall make this Settlement Agreement, and any obligation to
pay the amounts specified in § 8.1, or any portion thereof, null, void, and of no force and effect.
3.8. Establishment of Effective Date of Settlement. If Plaintiffs and Defendants disagree as to
whether each and every condition set forth in § 3 has been satisfied, they shall promptly confer in
good faith and, if unable to resolve their differences within five (5) business days thereafter, shall
present their disputes for determination to Robert M. Meyer, the Parties’ mediator, who shall
retain jurisdiction for this purpose. No portion of the Class Settlement Amount shall be
disbursed in the event of such a dispute pending the Court’s ruling. Disbursement shall
thereafter be made pursuant to the Court’s order.
4. RELEASES AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE
4.1. Released Claims. Released Claims shall mean any and all actual or potential claims,
actions, causes of action, demands, obligations, liabilities, attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs
arising out of the allegations of the Complaint that were brought or could have been brought as
of the date of the Settlement Agreement by any member of the Settlement Class, including any
current or prospective challenge to the Church Plan status of the Plan. Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of the Settlement Class, hereby expressly waive and relinquish, to the
fullest extent permitted by law and equity, the provisions, rights and benefits of § 1542 of the
California Civil Code, which provides: “A general release does not extend to claims which the
creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which
if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”
Released Claims are not intended to include the release of any of the following:
4.1.1 Any rights or duties arising out of the Settlement Agreement, including the
express warranties and covenants in the Settlement Agreement;
4.1.2 Claims for relief under state law pursuant to the terms of the Plan’s documents,
including but not limited to individual claims for benefits;
4.1.3 Claims related to any other plan that is merged, adopted, or consolidated into the
Plan after the execution date of this Settlement Agreement and before the Effective Date; and
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 9 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 9 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
9
4.1.4 Any claim arising under ERISA with respect to any event occurring after the
Internal Revenue Service issues a written ruling that the Plan does not qualify as a Church Plan;
the Plan Sponsor elects to be governed by ERISA; a court of law issues a definitive ruling that
the Plan is not a Church Plan; or an amendment to ERISA is enacted and becomes effective as a
law of the United States eliminating the Church Plan exception.
4.2. Release by Named Plaintiffs and Settlement Class. Subject to § 10 below, upon the
Effective Date of Settlement, Named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the
Settlement Class absolutely and unconditionally release and forever discharge the Releasees
from any and all Released Claims that Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class have. The Settlement
Class covenants and agrees: (i) not to file against any of the Releasees any claim based on,
related to, or arising from any Released Claim; and (ii) that the forgoing covenants and
agreements shall be a complete defense to any such claim against any Releasee.
4.3. Defendants’ Releases of Named Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class, and Class Counsel.
Subject to § 10 below, upon the Effective Date of Settlement, Defendants absolutely and
unconditionally release and forever discharge the Named Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class and
Class Counsel from any and all claims relating to the institution or prosecution of the Action.
4.4. Releasees’ Release of Other Releasees. Subject to § 10 below, upon the Effective Date
of Settlement, each of the Releasees also releases each of the other Releasees from any and all
claims which were asserted in the Complaint or any pleading which would have been required to
be filed in the Action or that would be barred by principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel
had the claims asserted in the Complaint or any such other pleading in the Action been fully
litigated and resulted in a Final judgment or order.
5. COVENANTS
Named Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Settlement
Class, the Plan, and Defendants, hereby covenant as follows:
5.1. Taxation of Settlement Payments. The Parties will act in good faith to attempt to
minimize adverse tax consequences of the Class Settlement Amount to the recipients. However,
Named Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants, Releasees and any of their Representatives or
Successors-In-Interest shall not have any responsibility for any taxes that may be due on the
Class Settlement Amount, or on any funds that the Plan, members of the Settlement Class, or
Named Plaintiffs receive from the Settlement Payments. Nothing herein shall constitute an
admission or representation that any taxes will or will not be due on the Class Payments or any
allocation or disbursement therefrom.
5.2. Non-Disparagement. The Parties, their counsel, and their agents shall refrain from
making derogatory or disparaging comments as to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs, Class
Counsel, any Released Party, Defendants, the Plan, and/or Defendants’ Counsel.
6. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
6.1. Parties’ Representations and Warranties.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 10 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 10 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
10
6.1.1 Named Plaintiffs represent and warrant that they have not assigned or otherwise
transferred any interest in any Released Claims against any Releasee, and further covenant that
they will not assign or otherwise transfer any interest in any Released Claims.
6.1.2 Named Plaintiffs represent and warrant that they shall have no surviving claim or
cause of action against any of the Releasees for the Released Claims against them.
6.1.3 The Parties, and each of them, represent and warrant that they are voluntarily
entering into this Settlement Agreement as a result of arm’s-length negotiations among their
counsel; in executing this Settlement Agreement they are relying solely upon their own
judgment, belief and knowledge, and the advice and recommendations of their own
independently selected counsel, concerning the nature, extent and duration of their rights and
claims hereunder and regarding all matters which relate in any way to the subject matter hereof;
except as expressly stated herein, they have not been influenced to any extent whatsoever in
executing this Settlement Agreement by any representations, statements or omissions pertaining
to any of the foregoing matters by any other Party or its Representatives; and each Party assumes
the risk of and unconditionally waives any and all claims or defenses arising out of any alleged
mistake as to facts or law.
6.1.4 The Parties, and each of them, represent and warrant that they have carefully read
the contents of this Settlement Agreement; they have made such investigation of the facts and
law pertaining to this Settlement Agreement and all of the matters pertaining thereto as they
deem necessary; and this Settlement Agreement is executed freely by each Person executing it on
behalf of each of the Parties.
6.2. Signatories’ Representations and Warranties. Each individual executing this Settlement
Agreement on behalf of any other Person does hereby personally represent and warrant to the
other Parties that he or she has the authority to execute this Settlement Agreement on behalf of,
and fully bind, each principal which such individual represents or purports to represent.
7. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY
Defendants deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing made in the Complaint.
Defendants aver that the Plan has been and continues to be properly administered as a Church
Plan as defined in Internal Revenue Code section 414(e), 26 U.S.C. § 414(e), and ERISA section
3(33), 29 U.S.C. § 3(33). This Settlement is not evidence of any liability of any type.
8. SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS
8.1. The Class Settlement Amount.
8.1.1 The “Class Settlement Amount” shall be three hundred fifty-one million, nine
hundred and one thousand dollars ($351,901,000.00), which consists of the Plan Payment
defined in § 8.1.2 and the Vesting Payment defined in § 8.1.3.
8.1.2 Plan Payment. Providence will contribute three hundred and fifty million dollars
($350,000,000.00) to the Plan. This payment will be made by annual contributions to the Plan
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 11 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 11 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
11
for seven years. The payment schedule will be as follows: after January 1, 2017, and within
thirty days after the Effective Date, Providence will make an initial $50 million contribution to
the Plan. For each of the remaining six years, Providence will make an annual payment of $50
million to the Plan in each calendar year thereafter. The annual payments made in the remaining
six years will be made on a quarterly basis. Providence may pay an amount greater than the
annual amount required by this Settlement Agreement at any time, in which case the excess
contribution may be used to reduce subsequent contributions up to $350 million.
8.1.3 Vesting Payment to Nonvested Former Participants. In addition to the payment
made in § 8.1.2, after January 1, 2017, and within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date,
Defendants will pay up to one million, nine hundred and one thousand dollars ($1,901,000.00),
in the aggregate ($500 per person) to the total of 3,802 Nonvested Former Participants.
Nonvested Former Participants are identified on Schedule A of this Settlement Agreement.
Payment will be sent to those individuals’ last known addresses.
8.1.4 Minimum Funding. Beginning eight years after the Effective Date, and
continuing thereafter as long as the Plan has not been terminated, Providence will make annual
minimum contributions recommended by the Plan’s enrolled actuary to fully fund the Plan by
December 31, 2029, which shall not be interpreted to require that the Plan actually be fully
funded by such date.
8.1.5 Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Fees for Plaintiffs. On the date set by
the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order, Plaintiffs shall petition the Court for an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs and Incentive Fees for Plaintiffs, as specified in this § 8.1.5.
Defendants expressly agree not to contest or take any position with respect to Plaintiffs’
application to the Court for an award of attorney fees, out of pocket expenses, and Incentive Fees
for Plaintiffs, the aggregate of which shall not exceed six million five hundred thousand dollars
($6,500,000.00). Defendants will cause this award to be paid in addition to the payments
described in §§ 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and 8.1.3, and 8.1.4 of this Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel’s
attorney fees, expenses, and Incentive Fees for Plaintiffs will be subject to the discretion and
approval of the District Court. Such attorneys’ fees and expenses, as are awarded by the Court in
its discretion, shall be paid to Plaintiffs’ Counsel two weeks after the Court’s entry of the Final
Approval Order and Judgment, notwithstanding the existence of any timely-filed objections
thereto, potential for appeal therefrom, or any collateral attack on the Settlement Agreement or
any part thereof, subject to the obligation of Class Counsel to make appropriate refunds or
repayments to Providence plus accrued interest (based on the one year Treasury constant
maturity rate) within ten calendar days, if and when, as a result of any appeal and/or further
proceedings on remand, or successful collateral attack, the fee or expense award is reduced or
reversed. The procedure for and the allowance or disallowance of any application for attorneys’
fees and expenses are matters separate and apart from the Settlement and shall be requested to be
considered by the Court separately from the Court’s consideration of the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. Any order or proceeding relating solely to an
award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, or any appeal from any order relating thereto, or any
reversal or modification thereof, shall have no effect on the Settlement and shall not operate to,
or be grounds to, terminate or cancel the Settlement Agreement or to affect or delay the finality
of the Final Approval Order or Judgment.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 12 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 12 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
12
8.2. Cost of Notice. Providence shall pay the cost for Class Notice in addition to the amounts
specified in § 8.1.
8.3. Sole Monetary Contributions. The payments provided for in § 8.1 and § 8.2 shall be the
full and sole consideration made by or on behalf of the Releasees in connection with the Action
and this Settlement Agreement. The amount specified in § 8.1.5 specifically satisfies any claims
for costs and attorneys’ fees by Class Counsel and claims for Incentive Fees to Plaintiffs. Except
as set forth above, the Parties shall bear their own costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees).
9. AGREED UPON PLAN PROVISIONS.
9.1. Benefits Commitment. If the Plan’s trust is ever insufficient to pay benefits as they are
due, Providence, and any successor to Providence, will contribute sufficient funds to pay the
vested benefits payable to participants under the terms of the Plan as they are due.
9.2. Plan Mergers. Commencing sixty days after the Effective Date, if the Plan is merged
with or into another plan adopted by additional employers, or consolidated with another plan,
participants and beneficiaries in all affected plans will be entitled to the same (or greater)
accrued benefit post- merger, adoption, or consolidation event as they enjoyed before the event.
9.3. Plan Amendments. Providence retains the right to amend or terminate the Plan at any
time, provided that no amendment or termination would result in a reduction in a participant or
beneficiary’s accrued benefit.
9.4. Funding Restrictions. If the Plan is ever determined to be governed by ERISA, nothing
herein shall be interpreted to prevent the Plan from complying with the benefit restrictions of
Section 436 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or any other applicable law,
including all restrictions on lump sum payments.
9.5. Plan Administrative Arrangements. Commencing sixty days after the Effective Date, the
Providence Retirement Plans Committee (“Plan Administrator”) will put in place certain
arrangements concerning Plan administration, notices, and procedures as set forth in detail in this
§ 9.5.
9.5.1 Summary Plan Descriptions (SPDs) & Summary of Material Modifications
(SMMs). The Plan Administrator’s designee shall prepare documents (referred to herein as
“SPDs”) written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average participant, that contain
the following information: the name and type of administration of the Plan, the name and address
of the person designated as agent for the service of legal process, if such person is not the
administrator; the name and address of the administrator; names, titles, and addresses of any
trustee or trustees (if they are persons different from the administrator); a description of the
relevant provisions of any applicable collective bargaining agreement; the Plan’s requirements
respecting eligibility for participation and benefits; a description of the provisions providing for
nonforfeitable pension benefits; circumstances which may result in disqualification, ineligibility,
or denial or loss of benefits; the source of financing of the Plan and the identity of any
organization through which benefits are provided; the date of the end of the Plan year and
whether the records of the Plan are kept on a calendar, policy, or fiscal year basis; the procedures
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 13 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 13 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
13
to be followed in presenting claims for benefits under the Plan, including procedures for
providing adequate notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits
has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for such denial, written in a manner calculated
to be understood by the participant, as well as procedures to afford a reasonable opportunity to
any participant whose claim for benefits has been denied for a full and fair review by the
appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim; and the remedies available under
the Plan for the redress of claims which are denied in whole or in part. The SPDs shall be
distributed only to current participants via email or using Providence’s existing intranet systems.
The Plan Administrator’s designee shall also prepare documents that are similar in content to the
information listed in 29 C.F.R. § 2520.104b-3. Any such documents shall be furnished to current
participants via email or the use of Providence’s existing intranet systems. Current participants
and beneficiaries may send a written request for a written SPD or documents prepared after a
material modification, and Providence shall provide a hard copy of such SPD or document
prepared after a material modification to the participant within thirty days of receiving the
participant or beneficiary’s request.
9.5.2 Annual Report. The Plan Administrator shall prepare annual reports that include
information described in section 103(b) of ERISA, information described in section 103(c) of
ERISA, and an actuarial statement containing the information described in section 103(d) of
ERISA, excluding information relating to minimum funding and contributions under ERISA,
information required by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and other information that
may be required by the Secretary of Labor for ERISA governed plans. The annual reports shall
be available to participants or beneficiaries on request.
9.5.3 Pension Benefit Statements. The Plan Administrator shall prepare pension benefit
statements containing the information described in ERISA section 105 for defined benefit plans.
The pension benefit statements shall be distributed to participants as such distributions are
described in ERISA section 105(a)(3), and to beneficiaries on request.
9.5.4 Plan Claim Review Procedure. The Plan’s claim review procedures, which shall
be included as part of the SPD, shall state: (a) the identity of the person or entity to whom a
claim should be addressed; (b) the time period for filing a claim; (c) the information that must be
provided in support of the claim; (d) if a claim is denied, in whole or in part, the person or entity
to whom an appeal should be sent; (e) the time period for filing a claim appeal; and (f) the
information the claimant may provide in support of an appeal.
10. TERMINATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
10.1. Automatic Termination. This Settlement Agreement shall automatically terminate, and
thereupon become null and void, in the following circumstances:
10.1.1 If the Court declines to approve the Settlement, and if such order declining
approval has become Final, then this Settlement Agreement shall automatically terminate, and
thereupon become null and void, on the date that any such order becomes Final, provided,
however, that if the Court declines to approve the Settlement for any reason, the Parties shall
negotiate in good faith to cure any deficiency identified by the Court, and further provided that if
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 14 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 14 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
14
necessary to cure any such deficiency, Class Counsel shall re-submit within a reasonable time
the Preliminary or Final Approval Motion with an additional or substitute member of the
Settlement Class as a named Class Representative.
10.1.2 If the Ninth Circuit reverses the District Court’s order approving the Settlement,
and if within ninety-one (91) days after the date of any such ruling the Parties have not agreed in
writing to proceed with all or part of the Settlement Agreement as modified by the Ninth Circuit
or by the Parties, then, provided that no Review Proceeding is then pending from such ruling,
this Settlement Agreement shall automatically terminate, and thereupon become null and void,
on the ninety-first day after issuance of the Ninth Circuit order referenced in this § 10.1.2.
10.1.3 If the Supreme Court of the United States reverses or remands a Ninth Circuit
order approving the Settlement, and if within thirty-one (31) days after the date of any such
ruling the Parties have not agreed in writing to proceed with all or part of the Settlement
Agreement as modified by the Supreme Court or by the Parties, then this Settlement Agreement
shall automatically terminate, and thereupon become null and void, on the thirty-first day after
issuance of the Supreme Court order referenced in this § 10.1.3.
10.1.4 If a Review Proceeding is pending of an order declining to approve the Settlement
Agreement or modifying this Settlement Agreement, this Settlement Agreement shall not be
terminated until Final resolution or dismissal of any such Review Proceeding, except by written
agreement of the Parties.
10.2. Consequences of Termination of the Settlement Agreement. If the Settlement Agreement
is terminated and rendered null and void for any reason, the following shall occur:
10.2.1 The Action shall for all purposes with respect to the Parties revert to its status as
of the day immediately prior to the execution of the Term Sheet.
10.2.2 All Releases given or executed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement shall be null
and void; none of the terms of the Settlement Agreement shall be effective or enforceable;
neither the fact nor the terms of the Settlement Agreement shall be offered or received in
evidence in the Action or in any other action or proceeding for any purpose, except in an action
or proceeding arising under this Settlement Agreement.
10.2.3 If attorney’s fees have been paid to Class Counsel, within ten days of the
termination of the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel will refund or repay Providence the paid
attorney’s fees, plus accrued interest (based on the one year Treasury constant maturity rate).
11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
11.1. Jurisdiction. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over all Parties, the Action, and this
Settlement Agreement to resolve any dispute that may arise regarding this Settlement Agreement
or the orders and notice referenced in § 3 above, including any dispute regarding validity,
performance, interpretation, administration, enforcement, enforceability, or termination of the
Settlement Agreement and no Party shall oppose the reopening and reinstatement of the Action
on the Court’s active docket for the purposes of effecting this § 11.1.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 15 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 15 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
15
11.1.1 Robert Meyer, mediator in the Action, will act as the final arbiter of any
disagreements as to language and confirmatory discovery regarding the Settlement Agreement.
11.2. No Limitation of Remedies. In the event that the Defendants breach this Settlement
Agreement, Plaintiffs will continue to have any and all remedies for such breach. In the event
that Plaintiffs breach this Settlement Agreement, Defendants will continue to have any and all
remedies for such breach.
11.3. Governing Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the United
States, including federal common law, except to the extent that, as a matter of federal law, state
law controls, in which case Washington law will apply without regard to conflict of law
principles.
11.4. Severability. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement are not severable.
11.5. Amendment. Before entry of a Final Approval Order, any common law to the contrary
notwithstanding, this Settlement Agreement may be modified or amended only by written
agreement signed by or on behalf of all Parties. Following entry of a Final Approval Order, any
common law to the contrary notwithstanding, the Settlement Agreement may be modified or
amended only by written agreement signed on behalf of all Parties, and approved by the Court.
11.6. Waiver. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement may be waived only by an
instrument in writing executed by the waiving Party. The waiver by any Party of any breach of
this Settlement Agreement shall not be deemed to be or construed as a waiver of any other
breach of this Settlement Agreement, whether prior, subsequent, or contemporaneous with this
Settlement Agreement.
11.7. Construction. None of the Parties hereto shall be considered to be the drafter of this
Settlement Agreement or any provision hereof for the purpose of any statute, case law or rule of
interpretation or construction that would or might cause any provision to be construed against a
drafter.
11.8. Principles of Interpretation. The following principles of interpretation apply to this
Settlement Agreement:
11.8.1 Headings. The headings of this Settlement Agreement are for reference purposes
only and do not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Settlement Agreement.
11.8.2 Singular and Plural. Definitions apply to the singular and plural forms of each
term defined.
11.8.3 Gender. Definitions apply to the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders of each
term defined.
11.8.4 References to a Person. References to a Person are also to the Person’s permitted
successors and assigns.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 16 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 16 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
16
11.8.5 Terms of Inclusion. Whenever the words “include,” “includes” or “including” are
used in this Settlement Agreement, they shall not be limiting but rather shall be deemed to be
followed by the words “without limitation.”
11.9. Further Assurances. Each of the Parties agrees, without further consideration, and as part
of finalizing the Settlement hereunder, that they will in good faith execute and deliver such other
documents and take such other actions as may be necessary to consummate and effectuate the
subject matter and purpose of this Settlement Agreement.
11.10. Survival. All representations, warranties and covenants set forth in this Settlement
Agreement shall be deemed continuing and shall survive the Effective Date of Settlement.
11.11. Notices. Any notice, demand or other communication under this Settlement Agreement
(other than notices to members of the Settlement Class) shall be in writing and shall be deemed
duly given if it is addressed to each of the intended recipients as set forth below and personally
delivered, sent by registered or certified mail (postage prepaid), sent by confirmed facsimile, or
delivered by reputable express overnight courier:
A. IF TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS:
Lynn Lincoln Sarko KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Fax: (206) 623-3384
Ron Kilgard KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 3101 North Central Ave., Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Fax: (206) 248-2822
Karen L. Handorf Michelle C. Yau COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20005 Fax: (202) 408-4699
B. IF TO DEFENDANTS:
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 17 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 17 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
17
Howard Shapiro
Stacey C.S. Cerrone
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
650 Poydras Street, Suite 1800
New Orleans, LA 70130
Fax: (504) 310-2022
Cindy Fein Strauss
Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer
Providence
1801 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98057
Fax: (206) 215-6262 Any Party may change the address at which it is to receive notice by written notice delivered to
the other Parties in the manner described above.
11.12. Entire Agreement. This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement among the
Parties relating to the settlement of the Action. It specifically supersedes any settlement terms or
settlement agreements relating to Defendants that were previously agreed upon orally or in
writing by any of the Parties, including the terms of the Term Sheet and any and all discussions,
representations, warranties or the like prior to the Effective Date of Settlement.
11.13. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed by exchange of faxed or
emailed executed signature pages, and any signature transmitted by facsimile for the purpose of
executing this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed an original signature for purposes of this
Settlement Agreement. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which, taken together,
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
11.14. Binding Effect. This Settlement Agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the parties
hereto, their assigns, heirs, administrators, executors and Successors-in-Interest.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Settlement Agreement on the dates set
forth below.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 18 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 18 of 61
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 19 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 19 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al. Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
19
FOR ALL DEFENDANTS
Dated this the 20th day of October 2016.
By: ____________________________________ Howard Shapiro Robert W. Rachal Stacey C.S. Cerrone PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1800 New Orleans, LA 70130 Michael Reiss John A. Goldmark DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101-3045 Attorneys for Defendants
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 20 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 20 of 61
Griffith, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Settlement Agreement, October 20, 2016
SCHEDULE A TO
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
REDACTED
Schedule A consists of sensitive information that the Court need not consider; accordingly, this
Schedule A has been redacted pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(1)(B).
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 21 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 21 of 61
LNAME FNAME STREET STREET2 CITY STATE ZIP Country
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
1
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 22 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 22 of 61
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
2
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 23 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 23 of 61
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
3
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 24 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 24 of 61
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
4
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 25 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 25 of 61
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
5
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 26 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 26 of 61
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
6
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 27 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 27 of 61
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
7
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 28 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 28 of 61
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
8
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 29 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 29 of 61
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
9
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 30 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 30 of 61
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
10
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 31 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 31 of 61
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
11
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 32 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 32 of 61
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
12
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 33 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 33 of 61
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
13
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 34 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 34 of 61
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
14
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 35 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 35 of 61
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
15
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 36 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 36 of 61
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
16
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 37 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 37 of 61
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
17
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 38 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 38 of 61
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
18
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 39 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 39 of 61
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
19
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 40 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 40 of 61
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
20
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 41 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 41 of 61
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
21
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 42 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 42 of 61
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
22
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 43 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 43 of 61
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
23
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 44 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 44 of 61
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
24
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 45 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 45 of 61
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
25
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 46 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 46 of 61
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
26
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 47 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 47 of 61
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
27
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 48 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 48 of 61
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
28
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 49 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 49 of 61
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
29
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 50 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 50 of 61
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
30
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 51 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 51 of 61
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
31
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 52 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 52 of 61
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
32
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 53 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 53 of 61
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
33
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 54 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 54 of 61
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
34
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 55 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 55 of 61
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
35
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 56 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 56 of 61
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
36
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 57 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 57 of 61
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
37
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 58 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 58 of 61
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
38
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 59 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 59 of 61
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
39
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 60 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 60 of 61
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
40
REDACTED
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 50-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 61 of 61Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 61 of 61
EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC)
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C .
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Honorable John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
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.
No. 2:14-cv-01720-JCC
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 1
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C . 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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, which was filed on October 20, 2016
(“Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”).
The Court previously entered an Order Preliminarily Approving the Class Action
Settlement Agreement (“Preliminary Approval Order”), Dkt. #52, dated December 6, 2016,
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 for March 21,
2017, at 9:00 a.m., and providing those persons with an opportunity to object to the proposed
settlement.
This Court held a Fairness Hearing on March 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., to determine whether
to give final approval to the proposed settlement.
Due and adequate notice having been given to the Settlement Class as required in the
Order, and the Court having considered the Settlement Agreement, all papers filed and
proceedings held herein, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED 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 Settlement Class.
2. The Settlement Class this Court previously certified preliminarily in its
Preliminary Approval Order 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.
1 This Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement, and all terms used herein
shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement unless set forth differently herein. The terms
of the Settlement are fully incorporated in this Judgment as if set forth fully here.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 2
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C . 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3. The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all requirements of Federal Rules
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. Additionally, the prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(1) have been satisfied, since the
prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Settlement Class would create a
risk of (i) inconsistent or varying adjudication which would establish incompatible standards of
conduct for Defendants; and (ii) adjudications with respect to individual Settlement 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. Furthermore, the prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(2) have been satisfied, since
Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Settlement Class,
thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with
respect to the Settlement Class as a whole.
6. The Settlement Class is hereby finally certified for settlement purposes under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2).
7. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), the Court finds that Plaintiffs
Linda Griffith and Jeanette Wenzl are members of the Settlement Class, their claims are typical
of those of the Settlement Class and they fairly and adequately protected the interests of the
Settlement Class throughout the proceedings in this Action. Accordingly, the Court hereby
appoints Linda Griffith and Jeanette Wenzl as Class Representatives.
8. Having considered the factors set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g)(1), the Court finds that Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the
Settlement Class for purposes of entering into and implementing the Settlement, and thus, hereby
appoints Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC as Class Counsel to
represent the members of the Settlement Class.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 3
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C . 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
9. The appointment of Class Counsel and the appointment of the Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives is fully and finally confirmed.
10. Class Counsel is hereby awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(h), in the amount of $ , which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable,
and $ in reimbursement of Class Counsel’s reasonable expenses incurred in
prosecuting the Action. The attorneys’ 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 Agreement. All
fees and expenses paid to Class Counsel shall be paid pursuant to the timing requirements
described in the Settlement Agreement.
11. Class Counsel has moved for a $10,000 Incentive Fee for each of the Plaintiffs,
Linda Griffith and Jeanette Wenzl. Defendants take no position on the award of an Incentive Fee
for each of the Plaintiffs. The Court hereby [grants in the amount of $_____] [denies] Class
Counsel’s motion for an award of an Incentive Fee for each of the Plaintiffs. The Incentive Fee
awards shall be paid from the $6,500,000.00 fund for Class Counsel pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement. This amount shall be paid pursuant to the timing requirements described in the
Settlement Agreement.
12. The Court directed that Class Notice be given pursuant to the notice program
proposed by the Parties and approved by the Court. In accordance with the Court’s Preliminary
Approval Order and the Court-appointed notice program: (1) on January 20, 2017, Class Counsel
posted the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice to the Settlement websites:
www.kellersettlements.com and www.cohenmilstein.com/providence-settlement; and (2) on
January 19, 2017, the Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, mailed approximately 75,505
copies the Notice of Class Action Settlement to members of the Settlement Class.
13. The Class Notice and Internet/Publication of Class Notice (collectively, the
“Class Notices”) advised members of the Settlement Class of the: terms of the Settlement;
Fairness Hearing and the right to appear at such Fairness Hearing; inability to opt out of the
Settlement Class; right to object to the Settlement, including the right to object to the Settlement
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 4
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C . 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
or the application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, or the
Incentive Fees to Linda Griffith and Jeanette Wenzl as Class Representatives; the procedures for
exercising such rights; and the binding effect of this Judgment, whether favorable or
unfavorable, to the Settlement Class, including the scope of the Released Claims described in §
4.1 of the Settlement Agreement.
14. The Class Notices met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the United States Code, the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and any
other applicable law. The Court further finds that Notice in the form approved by the Court
complied fully with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and that
it constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances. The Court further finds that the
form of notice was concise, clear, and in plain, easily understood language, and was reasonably
calculated under the circumstances to apprise of the pendency of the Action, the claims, issues
and defenses of the Settlement Class, the definition of the Settlement Class certified, the right to
object to the proposed Settlement, the right to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing, through
counsel if desired, and the binding effect of a judgment on members of the Settlement Class,
including the scope of the Released Claims described in § 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement.
15. The Court finds after the Fairness Hearing, and based upon all submissions of the
Parties and interested persons, that the Parties’ proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Court also finds that the proposed Settlement is consistent with and in compliance
with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Code,
and the United States Constitution, and other applicable law. In so finding, the Court has
considered and found that:
a) The Settlement provides for significant monetary contributions to the Plan
as well as Plan administrative provisions which will enhance the retirement security of
the members of the Settlement Class by providing features that are comparable to certain
key ERISA provisions.
b) The terms and provisions of the Settlement were entered into by
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 5
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C . 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
experienced counsel and only after extensive, arm’s-length negotiations conducted in
good faith and with the assistance of an experienced third party mediator, Mr. Robert
Meyer, Esq. The Settlement is not the result of collusion.
c) The negotiations were preceded by robust motion practice at the motion to
dismiss stage; the production of thousands of pages of documents during informal
discovery and as part of the mediation process; and decisions on the statutory issues in
this case from three Circuit Courts of Appeals. The Parties prepared confidential
mediation statements and exchanged multiple proposals and counter-proposals
concerning the Settlement. The absence of formal discovery in this case in no way
undermines the integrity of the settlement given the extensive investigation that has
occurred as a result of proceedings thus far.
d) The documents gave counsel the opportunity to adequately assess this
case’s strengths and weaknesses—and thus to structure the Settlement in a way that
adequately accounts for those strengths and weaknesses. Class Counsel was cognizant
that there was no guarantee of success in this case.
e) Approval of the Settlement will result in substantial savings of time,
money and effort for the Court and the Parties, and will further the interests of justice.
Defendants denied and continue to deny Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations, and raised
various factual and legal arguments in support of their vigorous defense in this Action.
16. All members of the Settlement Class are bound by this Judgment and by the terms
of the Settlement, including the scope of the Released Claims described in § 4.1 of the
Settlement.
17. This Settlement, this Judgment, and/or the fact of Settlement do not constitute an
admission by any of the Parties of any liability, wrongdoing, or violation of law, damages or lack
thereof, or of the validity or invalidity of any claim or defense asserted in the Action. If the
Settlement Agreement is not upheld on appeal, or is otherwise terminated for any reason, the
Settlement and all negotiations, proceedings, and documents prepared, and statements made in
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 6
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C . 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
connection therewith, shall be without prejudice to any Party and shall not be deemed or
construed to be an admission by an party of any fact, matter, or position of law; all Parties shall
stand in the same procedural position as if the Settlement Agreement had not been negotiated,
made, or filed with the Court.
18. The Court hereby dismisses with prejudice the action and all Released Claims
identified in § 4.1 of the Settlement against each and all Released Parties and without costs to
any of the Parties as against the others.
19. “Releasees” shall mean Providence, all entities that are considered to be a single
employer with Providence under Internal Revenue Code 414, 26 U.S.C. § 414, their employees,
agents, and directors, including the individual defendants.
20. “Released Claims” shall mean any and all actual or potential claims, actions,
causes of action, demands, obligations, liabilities, attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs arising out
of the allegations of the Complaint that were brought or could have been brought as of the date
of the Settlement Agreement by any member of the Settlement Class, including any current or
prospective challenge to the “church plan” status of the Plan. In connection with the Released
Claims, as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of the Settlement Class, expressly waive and relinquish, to the fullest extent
permitted by law and equity, the provisions, rights and benefits of § 1542 of the California Civil
Code, which provides: “A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not
know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him
or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”
21. Released Claims shall not include: (i) any rights or duties arising out of the
Settlement Agreement, including the express warranties and covenants in the Settlement
Agreement; (ii) claims for relief under state law under the Plan’s documents, including but not
limited to individual claims for benefits; (iii) claims related to any other plan that is merged,
adopted, or consolidated into the Providence Plan after the execution date of the Settlement
Agreement and before the Effective Date; and (iv) any claim arising under ERISA with respect
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 7
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C . 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
to any event occurring after the Internal Revenue Service issues a written ruling that the Plan
does not qualify as a Church Plan; the Plan Sponsor elects to be governed by ERISA; a court of
law issues a definitive ruling that the Plan is not a Church Plan; or an amendment to ERISA is
enacted and becomes effective as a law of the United States eliminating the Church Plan
exception.
22. It is further ordered that as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Settlement Class absolutely and
unconditionally release and forever discharge the Releasees from any and all Released Claims
that the Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class have. The Settlement Class covenants and agrees: (i)
not to file against any of the Releasees any claim based on, related to, or arising from any
Released Claim; and (ii) that the foregoing covenants and agreements shall be a complete
defense to any such claim against any Releasee.
23. It is further ordered that as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement,
Defendants absolutely and unconditionally release and forever discharge the Plaintiffs, the
Settlement Class, and Class Counsel from any and all claims relating to the institution or
prosecution of the Action.
24. It is further ordered that as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement,
each of the Releasees also releases each of the other Releasees from any and all Claims which
were asserted in the Complaint or any pleading which would have been required to be filed in the
Action or that would be barred by principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel had the claims
asserted in the Complaint or any such other pleading in the Action been fully litigated and
resulted in a Final judgment or order.
25. The Court retains jurisdiction over the implementation, administration and
enforcement of this Judgment and the Settlement, and all matters ancillary thereto.
26. The Court finds that no reason exists for delay in ordering final judgment, and the
Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Judgment forthwith.
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 9 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 8
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C . 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DATED this ____ day of ______________________, 201__.
____________________________________
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presented by:
By: s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko
s/ Erin M. Riley
s/ Laura Gerber
s/ Gretchen S. Obrist
s/ Havila C. Unrein
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA #16569
Erin M. Riley, WSBA #30401
Laura Gerber, WSBA #34981
Gretchen S. Obrist, WSBA #37071
Havila C. Unrein, WSBA #40881
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
By: s/ Ron Kilgard
Ron Kilgard, Pro Hac Vice 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: (602) 248-0088 Fax: (602) 248- 2822 Email: [email protected]
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
By: s/ Karen L. Handorf
s/ Michelle Yau
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 10 of 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
(2:14-cv-01720-JCC) - 9
LAW OFFICES OF
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4
LAW OFFICES OF C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C . 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 4 0 8 - 4 6 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Karen Handorf, Pro Hac Vice Michelle Yau, Pro Hac Vice 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 54-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 11 of 11