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.

Held v. Performance Lacrosse Group Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

October 19, 2016

LINDSAY HELD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
PERFORMANCE LACROSSE GROUP INC., Defendant. MATTHEW HEMBERGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarl situated, Plaintiff,
v.
PERFORMANCE LACROSSE GROUP INC., Defendant.

          ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS

          Hon. William I. Garfinkel J.

         WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Lindsay Held and Matthew Hemberger, on behalf of themselves and the plaintiff class, have moved this Court for an Order granting final approval of the parties' settlement of this class action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") duly entered into by the Parties and their counsel on April 21, 2016;

         WHEREAS, Defendant Performance Lacrosse Group Inc. ("PLG") has not opposed the request for relief set forth therein;

         WHEREAS, upon the Motion, the supporting Memorandum of Law, exhibits, and all pleadings and submissions previously filed in this action, the Court finds that final approval of the settlement is warranted;

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

         1. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are approved. The Settlement is in all respects fair, reasonable, adequate and proper, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has considered factors that include: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation.

         2. The Settlement Agreement was entered into by experienced counsel after extensive, arm's length negotiations. The Settlement is not the result of collusion. The Settlement was entered into in good faith. Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class for purposes of entering into and implementing the Settlement.

         3. The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay in entering the Final Order and Judgment Approving Settlement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), because (1) delay would not be in the best interests of the Settlement Class members, who will be able to receive Awards shortly after entry of the Final Order and Judgment Approving Settlement; and (2) judicial economy and administration would be served by the efficient resolution of the claims of Settlement Class members by means of the Settlement.

         4. The Court conditionally certified the following Settlement Class in the Preliminary Approval Order:

Class: All persons throughout the United States who purchased a new Cascade R lacrosse helmet between July 1, 2013 and November 20, 2014, and who did not resell it.
Retrofit Sub-Class: All persons throughout the United States who purchased a new Cascade R lacrosse helmet between July 1, 2013 and November 20, 2014, who did not resell it, and who have registered with PLG and had the retrofit performed by PLG pursuant to the R-M Retrofit Program as of the date of Final Approval of the settlement.
Non-Retrofit Sub-Class: All persons throughout the United States who purchased a new Cascade R lacrosse helmet between July 1, 2013 and November 20, 2014, who did not resell it, and who have not had the retrofit performed by PLG pursuant to the R-M Retrofit Program as of the date of Final Approval of the settlement.
Excluded from the class are: (1) all purchasers of a Cascade R helmet who resold the helmet; (2) all owners of Cascade R helmets purchased or obtained as used; (3) owners of Cascade R helmets obtained as free; (4) the Court and court employees; (5) all individuals or entities claiming to be subrogated to the rights of class members; (6) retailers or re-sellers of Cascade R helmets; (7) employees of PLG and their immediate families; and (8) any individuals with claims for personal injuries allegedly relating to the Cascade R helmets.

         5. The Court finds that, for purposes of settlement of the Action only, the Settlement Class satisfies the ...


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.