Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Whitehead v. Advance Stores Company Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division

May 23, 2017

JORDAN WHITEHEAD; and JANIE STAPLETON, Plaintiffs,
v.
ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INC., Defendant.

          ORDER

          Roy B. Dalton JR. United States District Judge

         On 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.[1] 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 Settlement Class:
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 Representatives.
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 Members.
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 applicable law.
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).[2] 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 $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.