Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Whitehead v. Advance Stores Company Inc.
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
May 23, 2017
JORDAN WHITEHEAD; and JANIE STAPLETON, Plaintiffs,
ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INC., Defendant.
Dalton JR. United States District Judge
September 28, 2016, the parties notified the Court that they
had agreed to settle this action on a nationwide class basis,
pending preliminary and final approval by the Court. (Doc.
37.) The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on
January 9, 2017, and held a final approval hearing on May 15,
2017 (“Final Approval Hearing”). (See
Doc. 41.) Having considered the record, and in accordance
with its findings from the bench at the Final Approval
Hearing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The parties' Joint Unopposed Motion for Final Order
Approving the Settlement Agreement and Certifying the Class
(Doc. 51) is GRANTED.
2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Jordan
Whitehead and Janie Stapleton (“Named
Plaintiffs”), Defendant Advance Stores Company Inc.
(“ASC”) (collectively, “Parties”) and
the Settlement Class Members. The Court has subject matter
jurisdiction to approve the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 40-1),
including all exhibits, and to enter this Order. In addition,
venue is proper in this District.
3. The Court finds that the prerequisites for a class action
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b) have
been satisfied for settlement purposes only in that: (a) the
number of Settlement Class Members is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are
questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c)
the claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of claims of
the Settlement Class they seek to represent; (d) Named
Plaintiffs have and will continue to fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the Settlement Class for purposes
of entering into the Settlement Agreement; (e) the questions
of law and fact common to the Settlement Class predominate
over any questions affecting any individual Settlement Class
Member; (f) the Settlement Class is ascertainable; and (g) a
class action is superior to the other available methods for
the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
4. For purposes of settlement only, and pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3), the Court FINALLY CERTIFIES the following
All current and former ASC employees whose personal
identification information was disclosed as a result of the
ASC Phishing Attack.
5. Excluded from the Settlement Class are individuals who
submitted a timely request to be excluded from the Settlement
Class pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Class
Notice (see Doc. 40-3).
6. The Court finally designates Named Plaintiffs as Class
7. The Court finally appoints the law firm of Whittel &
Melton, LLC (“Whittel”) as Class Counsel. The
Court finds that Whittel has acted competently as Class
Counsel and has fairly and adequately represented and
protected the interests of the absent Settlement Class
8. The Court finds that the Settlement Administrator
implemented and completed the Notice Program, which included
the mailing of the Notice to Settlement Class Members.
(See Doc. 48.) The Court finds that the Notice
Program satisfies Rule 23, due process, and any other
9. The Parties have complied with their notice obligations
under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715,
in connection with the Settlement. ASC timely sent notices of
the proposed Settlement Agreement, including materials
required by the Act, to the appropriate state and federal
officials. (See Doc 43.)
10. The Court FINALLY APPROVES the
Settlement Agreement (Doc. 40-1), including all exhibits, as
fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule
23(e). The Court further finds that the terms of
the Settlement Agreement have been entered into in good
faith, are in the best interests of ...
Buy This Entire Record For