The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Homer U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT
This case coming on for hearing before the undersigned Judge on December 4, 2009 to conduct a final fairness hearing to determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreement between the parties is fair, reasonable and adequate, and to address Class Counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees and costs; and the Class Members being represented by Class Counsel and Defendant being represented by its attorney; the Court having read and considered the Settlement Agreement, the Notice Plan, Affidavits, and Memoranda of Law submitted by Class Counsel, and having considered the submissions by Class members, now makes the following:
1. This action was commenced on February 28, 2006, as a class action.
2. After years of intensive litigation, including extensive discovery and motion practice before this Court, and including the granting of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and as a result of intensive, arm's length negotiations between Class Counsel and Defendant, as well as two settlement conferences before the Court, the parties have reached accord with respect to a settlement that provides substantial benefits to Settlement Class Members, in return for a release and dismissal of the claims at issue in this case against the Defendant ("Settlement Agreement"). The resulting Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 10, 2009.
3. As part of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval, this Court approved a proposed Notice Plan and Class Notice, which provided Settlement Class Members notice of the proposed settlement. The Notice Plan provided an opportunity for class members to file objections to the Settlement.
4. As of the deadline for the filing of objections, no objections were filed. Given the size of this Settlement Class, and the notice plan described above, this Court finds that the absence of objections is indicative of the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement with the Defendant.
5. The settling Parties have filed with the Court an affidavit from Jose C. Fraga declaring that the mailing of the Court-approved notice and newspaper advertising, consistent with the Notice Plan, has been completed.
6. The Court finds that the published notice, mailed notice, and Internet posting constitute the best practicable notice of the Fairness Hearing, the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses, and other matters set forth in the Class Notice and the Short Form Notice; and that such notice constituted valid, due, and sufficient notice to all members of the Settlement Class, and complied fully with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of New York and any other applicable law.
7. Any persons who wished to be excluded from this Action were provided an opportunity to "opt out" pursuant to the Notice. None have done so.
8. Class Members are bound by the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement and releases contained therein, and the Final Order and Judgment, and do not have any further opportunity to opt-out of the Action.
9. Any class member who did not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement Agreement, to the entry of Final Order and Judgment, or to Plaintiffs' Class Counsel's application for fees, costs, and expenses in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, is deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
10. On the basis of all of the issues in this litigation and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Court finds that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate compromise of the claims against the Defendant in this case, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are a number ...