Opinion
Case No. 2:06-CV-02042-LKK-GGH.
HEARING Date: October 6, 2008
October 7, 2008
ROSEN, BIEN GALVAN, LLP, MICHAEL W. BIEN (SBN 096891), GAY C. GRUNFELD (SBN 121944), MEGHAN R. LANG (SBN 221156), MARIA V. MORRIS (SBN 223903), SHIRLEY HUEY (SBN 224114), NURA MAZNAVI (SBN 232008), San Francisco, California, BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP, GEOFFREY T. HOLTZ (SBN 191370), KRISTEN A. PALUMBO (SBN 215857), BRIANA LYNN ROSENBAUM (SBN 239977), San Francisco, CA, YOUTH LAW CENTER, SUSAN L. BURRELL (SBN 074204), CAROLE SHAUFFER (SBN 100226), CORENE KENDRICK (SBN 226642), San Francisco, CA, PRISON LAW OFFICE, DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925), SARA NORMAN (SBN 189536), Berkeley, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., DAVID S. CHANEY, ROCHELLE C. EAST, WILLIAM C. KWONG (SBN 168010), San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT,
Whereas, this Court has presided over the proceedings in the above-captioned action and has reviewed the pleadings, records, and papers on file herein;
Whereas, the parties have entered into a Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief, which was lodged with the Court on June 13, 2008;
Whereas, the Court has reviewed the Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief, and has heard from the parties with respect to the proposed settlement of this action;
Whereas, the Court has previously found that the proposed settlement falls within the range of possible approval and is sufficiently fair to warrant dissemination of notice to the proposed class members apprising them of the settlement;
Whereas, the Court has determined that adequate notice has been provided to the class members regarding the proposed settlement; and
Whereas, the Court has conducted a hearing with respect to the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement, and good cause appearing therefore, now finds and orders as follows:
FINDINGS
1. The proposed settlement adequately addresses the needs and rights of class members, improving certain due process protections in the juvenile parole revocation process including the right to counsel in parole revocation and parole extension proceedings, significant adjustments to the nature and timing of parole revocation proceedings in favor of the class, limitations on the period of confinement after a parole revocation, accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, effective communication in parole proceedings, and the right to appeal with the assistance of counsel.
2. The proposed settlement was entered into after discovery was largely complete and certain dispositive motions had been ruled on by this Court.
3. The proposed settlement was the product of arm's-length, serious, informed and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.
4. Class counsel have extensive experience in prisoner, parolee, and juvenile class action litigation and believe that the settlement is in the best interest of the class.
5. Plaintiffs' claims are strong, but would have put class members' interests at risk by prolonging the litigation and exposing them to the uncertainties of further litigation.
6. No class member objected to the proposed settlement and, in fact, several class members wrote this Court in support of the settlement.
7. Accordingly, the Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
8. The Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief is granted final approval and incorporated herein by this reference, and has the full force and effect of an order of the Court. Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Injunction and shall have the power to enforce the terms of the Injunction through specific performance and all other remedies permitted by law or equity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.