United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division
DANIEL A. BRNA, RAMON FERNANDEZ and JAMES E. SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS INC. and INTERBLOCK USA, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
FEDERICO A. MORENO, UNITED STATES-DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Certification of the Settlement Class ("Motion for Final
Approval") [DE 76], filed on January 26, 2018 and
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion and Application for
Attorney's Fees and Costs and Incentive Awards
("Motion for Fees and Incentive Awards") [DE 75]
filed on January 12, 2018. The Court having considered the
motions, the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, it is
and ADJUDGED as follows:
November 17, 2017, this Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement dated September 22, 2017
("Settlement Agreement") between Plaintiffs, Daniel
A. Brna and James E. Scott (collectively
"Plaintiffs"), and Defendants, Isle of Capri
Casinos, LLC ("IOC") and Interblock USA LLC
"Defendants") that provides for direct monetary
relief to a class of casino patrons who placed a winning buy
bet on electronic gaming machines that were manufactured by
Defendant Interblock and were available for play at Defendant
IOC in Pompano Park from July 8, 2015 to January 22, 2017.
(D.E. 73) In accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the
Court's preliminary approval order, the Settlement
Administrator provided Notice to eligible class members.
connection with the final approval process, a final approval
hearing was duly noticed and the Court has considered: (a)
whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement
are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class;
(b) whether final judgment should be entered dismissing the
Plaintiffs' claims on the merits and with prejudice,
including the claims of Settlement Class Members who have not
requested exclusion; and (c) whether and in what amount to
award attorney's fees and costs to Class Counsel and
service awards to the Plaintiffs. At this juncture, the Court
is "not called upon to determine whether the settlement
reached by the parties is the best possible deal, nor whether
class members will receive as much from a settlement as they
might have recovered from victory at trial." See
Gevaerts v. TD Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 6751061, *5 (S.D.
Fla. Nov. 5, 2015). Rather, as this Court has previously
recognized, the objective at this final-approval stage is
simply to ensure that the class action settlement terms are
"fair, reasonable, and adequate." See
Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, 2016 WL 8256853,
*1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2016) (Moreno, D.J.); Almanzar v.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2016 WL 1169198, *1
(S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2016) (Moreno, D.J.); Hall v. Bank of
America, N.A., 2014 WL 7184039, (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17,
2014) (Moreno, D.J.); see also In re: Takata Airbag
Products Liability Litigation, 2017 WL 5706147, *3-4
(S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2017) (Moreno, D.J.), appeal pending
sub nom., Budgen v. FAC U.S. LLC, No. 17-15382 (11th
Cir. filed Nov. 28, 2017).
the reasons set forth herein, the Motion for Final Approval
is hereby GRANTED.
not defined, all capitalized terms herein shall have the
meaning given to them in the Settlement Agreement.
Court has evaluated the following six factors in resolving
(1) The existence of fraud or collusion among the parties in
reaching the settlement;
(2) The complexity, expense and duration of the litigation;
(3) The stage of proceedings at which the settlement was
achieved and the amount of discovery completed;
(4) The probability of the plaintiffs' success on the
(5) The range of possible recovery; and
(6) The opinions of class counsel, the class representatives,
and the substance and amount of ...