In re Snap Inc. Securities Litigation

Central District of California, cacd-2:2017-cv-03679

Exhibit Exhibit C

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

3 Page ID #:1942 EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT B 000009 Case Case 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGRDocument Document 217114-5 FiledFiled 01/25/16 08/30/18 PagePage 1 of 12 2 of Page 13 Page ID #:4852 ID #:1943 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul M. Cruz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL, PRELIMINARY CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND CLASS NOTICE [209]. Presently before the Court is the parties' joint motion for preliminary settlement approval, preliminary class certification, and class notice. (Dkt. 209). Having considered the moving papers and for the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. I. Background As the facts of this case are well known to the parties, the Court only briefly touches upon them here. The underlying allegations stem from injuries caused by Caldera Medical, Inc.'s ("Caldera") transvaginal mesh ("TVM") devices. There are currently no fewer than 2,710 individuals asserting claims against Caldera for injuries caused by its TVM products. (Rose Decl. ¶ 3). The majority of the lawsuits are currently being litigated within a joint coordinated proceeding pending in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles and entitled In Re Transvaginal Mesh Litigation, Case No. JCCP 4733. (Id. ¶ 6). Federal Insurance Company ("Federal") issued to Caldera various insurance policies between 2008 and 2011. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 3). The policies have "burning-limits" provisions, meaning all sums paid by Federal to defend Caldera or other insureds liable for injuries caused by Caldera's TVM products erode the limits available to pay judgments or settlements on the TVM claims. (Id.). In light of: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000010 CV-90 (10/08) Page 1 of 12 Case Case 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGRDocument Document 217114-5 FiledFiled 01/25/16 08/30/18 PagePage 2 of 12 3 of Page 13 Page ID #:4853 ID #:1944 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al the multiple and competing demands for the proceeds of the insurance policies, on January 20, 2015, Federal initiated the present interpleader action. (Id. ¶ 4). Although the policies collectively have a total of $35,000,000 in limits of liability, all parties agree that the maximum that might potentially be available is $25,000,000. (Id.). Federal contends that there is a maximum of only $20,000,000 in limits potentially responsive to TVM claims, of which Federal has already paid approximately $7,275,000 in defense costs and settlements. On May 6, 2015, Federal filed a motion for summary judgment asserting various coverage defenses, which, if successful, could reduce available coverage even further. (Id. ¶ 5). On August 7, 2015, the Court granted the parties' request to stay and enjoin proceedings pending settlement discussions. (Dkt. 182). II. The Proposed Settlement A. The Class The parties agree—for the purposes of settlement—to the following class: "(A) . . . any and all persons who have asserted, are asserting, or shall have asserted (or who have entered or shall have entered into any tolling agreement preserving), up until and including the TVM Claim Cutoff Date (as defined in Paragraph 4.9, below), any claim(s) against Caldera, and/or any other Insured(s) and/or Contractual Indemnitee(s), arising out of any actual or alleged Caldera Pelvic Product-Related Injuries that occurred as a result (directly or indirectly, in whole or in part) of any Caldera Pelvic Product(s), each of which claim(s) and Caldera Pelvic Product-Related Injuries shall be deemed, for purposes of this Settlement, covered under one of the respective Policies; and (B) includes, without limitation, the 2,710 TVM Claimants in the TVM Litigation and the Tolled TVM Claims. (Settlement ¶ 1.5).: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000011 CV-90 (10/08) Page 2 of 12 Case Case 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGRDocument Document 217114-5 FiledFiled 01/25/16 08/30/18 PagePage 3 of 12 4 of Page 13 Page ID #:4854 ID #:1945 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al B. The Settlement 1. The Settlement Sum Federal, which contends that a maximum of $20,000,000 in limits is potentially responsive to the TVM claims (prior to any additional coverage defenses), will pay approximately that amount, in the form of defense costs and indemnity payments under the insurance policies (which have already exceeded $7,275,000), and in a $12,250,000 settlement sum. Of the $12,250,000 settlement sum, $1 million has been set aside as a "Holdback," out of which $500,000 is reserved to cover fees and costs related to class notice and settlement administration; and $500,000 is reserved for Caldera to use in paying defense costs, settlements, and/or judgments on future claims. In addition to the settlement sum, Federal has agreed to reserve a further $450,000 to cover previously incurred defense costs. Any portion of the Holdback or the $450,000 reserve not needed for the purpose for which it was designated will revert to the settlement class. 2. The Claim Process Any member of the settlement class who wishes to obtain a payment from the settlement sum must file a proof of claim within 98 days of this order ("TVM Claim Cutoff Date"). This requirement applies to anyone who has already asserted a tolled or filed TVM claim, as well as anyone else with a known claim who wishes to join the settlement class. 3. Class Notice The parties shall provide notice of the settlement, the claims process, and the right to object to the settlement by (1) mailing class notice to the attorney of record for each of the known members of the proposed settlement class, (2) publishing a shorter form of notice in the USA Today newspaper (one quarter of a page for one Monday through Thursday run) and the Wall Street Journal, National Edition (one sixth of a page, to run at least once), and (3) posting the class notice on the website of the settlement administrator for a period of ninety (90) days.: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000012 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 12 Case Case 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGRDocument Document 217114-5 FiledFiled 01/25/16 08/30/18 PagePage 4 of 12 5 of Page 13 Page ID #:4855 ID #:1946 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al 4. Releases All parties shall mutually release each other. In addition, the settlement class will release claims against a defined set of "Insureds and/or Contractual Indemnitees" to the extent that the claims concern Caldera TVM products. 5. The Bar Order The final settlement will bar (1) any person who has actual or alleged injuries relating to Caldera TVM products as of the TVM Claim Cutoff Date from subsequently asserting any claims relating to such injuries, and (2) any joint tortfeasor(s) or co-obligor(s) from any further claims against Federal, Caldera, or any Insureds and/or Contractual Indemnitees for contribution or indemnity. Furthermore, the final settlement will deem the insurance policies fully exhausted and completely terminated. 6. Class Counsel The parties agree that David Bricker, Esq., of Waters Kraus Paul, will represent the settlement class and serve as class counsel. 7. Class Counsel and Common Benefit Fees and/or Costs At the time of the final approval hearing, class counsel will present a fee application and ask the Court to allow a portion of the settlement sum to be used to pay fees and costs to class counsel, and to pay costs incurred by any other counsel for the common benefit of the settlement class. III. Legal Standard Before granting preliminary approval of a class settlement, a court must undertake a two-step analysis. "First, the district court must assess whether a class exists." Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liability Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 799 (3d Cir. 1995) ("In sum, a class is a class, and a settlement class, if it is to qualify under Rule 23, must meet all of its requirements."). "Second, the district court must carefully consider 'whether a proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable,' recognizing that 'it is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must be: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000013 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 4 of 12 Case Case 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGRDocument Document 217114-5 FiledFiled 01/25/16 08/30/18 PagePage 5 of 12 6 of Page 13 Page ID #:4856 ID #:1947 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al examined for overall fairness. . . ." Staton, 327 F.3d at 952 (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)). IV. Discussion A. Class Certification 1. Legal Standard Rule 23(a) establishes four prerequisites for class certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition, one of Rule 23(b)'s subsections must be met; in this case, the parties submit that the class meets Rule 23(b)(1)(B)'s requirements, which permit certification of a class if "prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of. . . adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B). 2. Analysis a. Numerosity The first prerequisite to class certification is that "the class [must be] so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). There is no magic number associated with this requirement. In re Live Concert Antitrust Litig., 247 F.R.D. 98, 116 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Still, "a class of 40 or more members raises a presumption of impracticability of joinder based on numbers alone." William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:12 & n.9 (5th ed.) (citing cases). Here, the putative class contains no fewer than 2,710 claimants. Therefore, numerosity is satisfied. b. Commonality The touchstone of commonality is the existence of a common contention susceptible to a single answer that will drive the case's resolution. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2552: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000014 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 5 of 12 Case Case 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGRDocument Document 217114-5 FiledFiled 01/25/16 08/30/18 PagePage 6 of 12 7 of Page 13 Page ID #:4857 ID #:1948 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al (2011). Because "any competently crafted class complaint literally raises common questions," id. at 2551, "[t]his analysis does not turn on the number of common questions, but on their relevance to the factual and legal issues at the core of the purported class' claims." Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2014). Commonality exists across the proposed class. In the underlying action, common questions include whether Caldera knew or should have known that its TVM products created an increased risk to consumers of serious personal injury, and whether Caldera therefore had a duty to warn regarding such risks. In the present interpleader action, all claimants have a joint interest in maximizing the insurance proceeds available to pay claims related to the TVM products. Thus, common questions include whether the 2010 insurance policy is subject to cancellation, and whether the 2008 and 2009 insurance policies are subject to "per Batch" deductibles limiting the available coverage. c. Typicality "The test for typicality 'is 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.'" Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). The focus is on the "nature of the claim or defense," and "representative claims are typical if they are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members." Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 685 (9th Cir. 2014). The named Plaintiff, Celines Ramirez, appears typical. She is a plaintiff in the underlying JCCP action and was named by Federal as a claimant-defendant in this action. Her claims raise the same common questions addressed above. Therefore, the Court finds Celines Ramirez to be a typical class representative. d. Adequacy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 also requires that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Adequacy has two facets: "(1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?" Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d at 1020.: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000015 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 6 of 12 Case Case 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGRDocument Document 217114-5 FiledFiled 01/25/16 08/30/18 PagePage 7 of 12 8 of Page 13 Page ID #:4858 ID #:1949 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al The Court finds the named Plaintiff and class counsel to be adequate. Based on the record and the representations of counsel, there are no apparent conflicts of interest. Class counsel, David Bricker, also possesses extensive experience in mass tort litigation. Moreover, the proposed settlement is a result of lengthy, arms-length negotiations and there is no suggestion that either the named Plaintiff or class counsel pursued the case less than vigorously. See, e.g., Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Los Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001) (considering the experience of would-be class counsel when analyzing adequacy); In re General Motors Corp., 55 F.3d at 798 (considering "whether negotiations were conducted at arms' length by experienced counsel after adequate discovery"). e. Rule 23(b)(1)(B) As stated above, under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), a class is properly certified if "prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of. . . adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B). The Rule is intended to address "situations where lawsuits conducted with individual members of the class would have the practical if not technical effect of. . . impairing the ability of the others to protect their own interests." Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 834 (1999). The paradigm suit encompassed by Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is the limited fund class action, where many litigants have claims against a single asset and the asset's total value is unlikely to satisfy all of the claims. Newberg on Class Actions § 4:16 (5th ed.). A Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class is appropriate if: (1) the fund has a definitely ascertained limit, (2) all of the fund is put into the litigation, and (3) the judgment distributes the full amount of the fund on a pro rata basis among all available claimants. Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 841. Here, the parties contend that the remaining insurance policies constitute a limited fund such that individual claimants who most aggressively litigate their claims against Caldera would impair the rights of other claimants by (1) forcing Caldera to incur defense costs, thus eroding the policy limits and (2) securing individual payments from "a fund insufficient to satisfy all claims."1 Id. The Court agrees. 1 While the remaining insurance proceeds available in this case amount to $12,250,000, individual: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000016 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 7 of 12 Case Case 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGRDocument Document 217114-5 FiledFiled 01/25/16 08/30/18 PagePage 8 of 12 9 of Page 13 Page ID #:4859 ID #:1950 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al Moreover, the parties demonstrate that the proposed class satisfies the requirements set forth in Ortiz. First, the Merade Declaration and internal Caldera financial statements establish that Caldera has no available assets other than the insurance policies, and Federal has presented evidence supporting the conclusion that the $12,250,000 settlement sum represents a fair calculation of the value of the remaining policy limits. Second, the entirety of the insurance policies, which represent Caldera's only available asset, is placed into the settlement sum. Finally, because the settlement class includes only those with known claims, there is no conflict between holders of present and future claims, and the proposed allocation plan will ensure all class members receive equal treatment. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS preliminary certification of the proposed settlement class. B. Fairness, Adequacy, and Reasonableness of the Settlement A "court may approve [a class settlement] only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable and adequate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). In making this determination, "a district court must [ultimately] consider a number of factors, including: the strength of the 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." Staton, 327 F.3d at 959. However, at this preliminary stage and because class members will receive an opportunity to be heard on the settlement, "a full fairness analysis is unnecessary." Alberto v. GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 665 (E.D. Cal. 2008); see also Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 314 (6th Cir. 1980). Rather, preliminary approval and notice of the settlement terms to the proposed class are appropriate where "[1] the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, [2] has no obvious deficiencies, [3] does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or verdicts have awarded significantly higher amounts. For example, in October of 2015, it was widely reported that "a $100 million. . . [verdict] awarded to a woman who sued Boston Scientific over injuries related to its pelvic mesh devices, [had] been reduced to $10 million" by a Delaware judge who nevertheless upheld the verdict "which found Boston Scientific's [TVM products] caused [plaintiff] pain such that she required subsequent surgeries to remove the devices." (Renneisen Decl., Ex. D (LawyersandSettlements.com Article of 10/12/15)).: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000017 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 8 of 12 Case Case2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGRDocument Document217 114-5 FiledFiled 01/25/16 08/30/18 PagePage 9 of 10 12 ofPage 13 Page ID #:4860 ID #:1951 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al segments of the class, and [4] falls within the range of possible approval. . . ." In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007); see also Acosta v. Trans Union, LLC, 243 F.R.D. 377, 386 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ("To determine whether preliminary approval is appropriate, the settlement need only be potentially fair, as the Court will make a final determination of its adequacy at the hearing on Final Approval, after such time as any party has had a chance to object and/or opt out."). The Court finds that preliminary approval is appropriate. The proposed settlement is the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations and it was not until the third settlement conference, with the guidance of a new mediator, Robert Kaplan, that any agreement was reached. See Clesceri v. Beach City Investigations & Protective Servs., Inc., 2011 WL 320998, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2011) ("The assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process confirms that the settlement is non-collusive"). As discussed above, the proposed settlement also presents no obvious deficiencies and appears fair and reasonable on its face. Finally, the Court agrees that the proposed settlement is the fairest way of ensuring that those asserting TVM claims against Caldera will receive any compensation. While Caldera's potential liability on the TVM claims could exceed $100 million, Caldera does not have the funds to pay even a discounted fraction of such liability. Caldera has less than $200,000 in cash on hand, which it uses to fund payroll and operating expenses. (Merade Decl. ¶ 6). Caldera cannot use its limited working capital to contribute to a settlement and has no ability to raise or borrow any additional money to pay for TVM claims. (Id. ¶ 7). Therefore, the proceeds of the insurance policies are the only assets available to Caldera to pay the TVM claims. (Id. ¶ 4). Because the insurance policies all have burning-limits, continued litigation will only reduce the funds available to pay judgments or settlements. Moreover, the substantial majority of the $12,250,000 settlement sum will be distributed to the settlement class, who otherwise could be left with little or no remaining limits under the insurance policies. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties' motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. C. Notice Plan Class notice is not mandatory for classes certified under Rule 23(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A) ("For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(1) . . . the court may direct appropriate notice to the class."). Nevertheless, the parties have proposed a notice procedure that satisfies the more exacting standard required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B) for opt-out classes as "the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances.": Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000018 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 9 of 12 Case Case2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGR 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Document Document114-5 217 Filed Filed01/25/16 08/30/18 Page Page10 11ofof12 13 Page PageID ID #:4861 #:1952 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al The parties' proposed notice plan will mail long-form notice to counsel for all currently known claimants, and the attorneys will be directed to pass the notice to their clients. In addition, a summary notice will be published in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. See Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding notice adequate where parties (1) sent long-form notices to "288 brokerages, banks, and other nominees. . . [that] were asked either to mail the notices to beneficial owners [of the stock at issue] or to provide the administrator with a list of the beneficial owners," and (2) published a summary notice in the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times). The Court finds that the proposed class notice fairly and adequately describes the terms of the settlement, gives notice to the proposed settlement class of the time and place of the final fairness hearing, and describes how the recipients of the class notice may object to approval of the settlement and/or final certification of the settlement class. Moreover, the proposed notice clearly warns members that this "is a NON-OPT OUT settlement class" and that members wishing to receive a share of the settlement sum must fill out and submit a claim form. Therefore, the Court approves the proposed notice plan. V. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and rules as follows:  The Court preliminarily approves the terms and fairness of the proposed settlement.  The Court preliminarily certifies the proposed settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B) with Claimant-Defendant, Celines Ramirez as Class Representative and David Bricker, Esq., of Waters Kraus Paul, as Class Counsel.  The Court approves the parties' proposed notice plan and directs the settlement administrator selected by Class Counsel to serve Class Notice in accordance with the plan.  The settlement administrator, directly or through Class Counsel, may submit to the Court a bill of costs for fees and expenses incurred in connection with providing notice as described above. Any objections to the bill of costs must be filed within five (5) court days after the bill: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000019 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 10 of 12 Case Case2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGR 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Document Document114-5 217 Filed Filed01/25/16 08/30/18 Page Page11 12ofof12 13 Page PageID ID #:4862 #:1953 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al of costs is filed. The bill of costs shall thereafter be paid from the $500,000 portion of the Holdback described in Paragraph 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement.  The Court directs any person claiming to have suffered from Caldera TVM products or otherwise claiming to be members of the settlement class to submit to the settlement administrator or file with this Court in the manner described on the Class Notice any objections that they may have to the Settlement Agreement, to Class Certification, and/or to a judicial declaration that Federal's insurance policies are fully exhausted and completely terminated and that Federal no longer owes to Caldera or any other persons or entities any duties or money thereunder (apart from the remainder of the $450,000 that has been held in reserve by Federal for payment of defense costs), as contemplated in the Settlement Agreement. Any objections shall be filed no later than April 25, 2016. The Court sets the following schedule with respect to class notice, settlement approval, and related matters, which is keyed to today's date, January 25, 2016 (the "Preliminary Approval Date"):  Date for mailing of Class Notice to counsel for all known claimants: February 8, 2016, fourteen (14) days after the Preliminary Approval Date.  Date(s) for publication notice. Notice to be published for two (2) consecutive weeks, the first week in USA Today (for one Monday through Thursday run), and the second week in the Wall Street Journal, National Edition (on at least one day), with the final publication occurring no later than February 24, 2016, thirty (30) days after the Preliminary Approval Date.  Deadline for Class Counsel to file a motion (the "Fee Petition") for an order authorizing payments from the Settlement Sum to pay fees and costs to Class Counsel and to pay fees incurred by any other counsel for the common benefit of the Settlement Class: March 25, 2016, sixty (60) days after the Preliminary Approval Date.  Deadline to object to the settlement: April 25, 2016, ninety-one (91) days after the Preliminary Approval Date.: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000020 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 11 of 12 Case Case2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGR 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Document Document114-5 217 Filed Filed01/25/16 08/30/18 Page Page12 13ofof12 13 Page PageID ID #:4863 #:1954 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW Date January 25, 2016 Title Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. et al  Deadline for currently unknown claimants to join the Settlement Class and for any person who is or wishes to be a member of the Settlement Class and wishes to receive funds from the Settlement Sum to submit a Proof of Claim form (i.e., the TVM Claim Cutoff Date): May 2, 2016, ninety-eight (98) days after the Preliminary Approval Date.  Deadline for the parties to file a joint motion for final approval of class action settlement and final certification of a settlement class: May 16, 2016, one-hundred-twelve (112) days after the Preliminary Approval Date.  Date for hearing on the motion for final approval of class action settlement and final certification of a settlement class and on the Fee Petition (i.e., the Final Approval Hearing): June 13, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. one-hundred-forty (140) days after the Preliminary Approval Date.: Initials of Preparer EXHIBIT B PMC 000021 CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 12 of 12