Case: 1:12-cv-00276 Document #: 111 Filed: 11/04/13 Page 1 of 236 PageID #:2457 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION THURMAN ROSS, by and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Civil Action No. 12 C 276 Plaintiff, Hon. John W. Darrah vs. CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION, GARY E. McCULLOUGH, and MICHAEL J. GRAHAM, Defendants. LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Jay W. Eisenhofer Joseph F. Rice Geoffrey C. Jarvis James M. Hughes Jeff A. Almeida David P. Abel Christine M. Mackintosh Meghan S. B. Oliver GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. MOTLEY RICE LLC 123 Justison Street 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Wilmington, DE 19801 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel for Thurman Ross Paul E. Slater (ARDC 2630567) James E. Barz (ARDC 6255605) SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN 55 West Monroe Street & DOWD LLP Suite 3200 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 Telephone: (312) 674-4673 Facsimile: (312) 641-6492 Facsimile: (312) 674-4676 Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counsel for Thurman Ross Case: 1:12-cv-00276 Document #: 111 Filed: 11/04/13 Page 2 of 236 PageID #:2458 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................3 A. Lead Plaintiffs’ Factual Allegations ....................................................................................3 B. Procedural Posture, Mediation, And Settlement ..................................................................4 C. The Notices And Plan Of Allocation Of The Net Settlement Fund ....................................6 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................7 A. The Settlement Should Be Preliminarily Approved ............................................................7 B. Preliminary Certification Of A Settlement Class Under Rule 23 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Is Appropriate .............................................................................9 1. The Settlement Class is Sufficiently Numerous ....................................................10 2. The Settlement Class Shares Common Issues of Law and Fact ............................10 3. The Claims of the Class Representatives Are Typical...........................................11 4. Lead Plaintiffs and Their Counsel Are Adequate ..................................................12 5. Common Issues of Law and Fact Predominate......................................................12 C. The Court Should Preliminarily Approve The Settlement And The Notices And Should Schedule A Final Approval Hearing .....................................................................13 1. The Settlement Satisfies the Criteria for Preliminary Approval ............................13 2. The Proposed Notices Satisfy Due Process ...........................................................15 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................17 i Case: 1:12-cv-00276 Document #: 111 Filed: 11/04/13 Page 3 of 236 PageID #:2459 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Abrams v. Van Kampen Funds, Inc. , No. 01-C-7538, 2006 WL 163023 (N.D. Ill Jan. 18, 2006) . .................................. 8, 11 Amchem Products v. Windsor , 51 U.S. 591 (1997) ............................................................ ............................ 9, 10, 13 Armstrong v. Board of School Directors of Milwaukee , 616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................... 8 Bennett v. Behring Corp. , 96 F.R.D. 343 (S.D. Fla. 1982) ................................................................................................. 14 Berger v. Xerox Corp. Retirement Income Guarantee Plan , No. 00-584-DRH, 2004 WL 287902 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2004) .................................................... 7 Gautreauz v. Pierce, 690 F.2d 6163 (7th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................... 7 Henry v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , No. 98-CV-4110, 1999 WL 33496080 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 23, 1999) .............................................. 14 In re Hartmarx Securities Litigation, No 01 C 7832, 2002 WL 31103491 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 2002) ................................................. 10 In re NeoPharm, Inc. Securities Litigation , 225 F.R.D. 563 (N.D. Ill. 2004) ................................................................................................ 10 In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (S.D. Ohio 1997) ............................................................................................. 14 In re System Software Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation , No. 97 C 177, 2000 WL 1810085 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2000) .......................................... 10, 12, 13 Isby v. Bayh , 75 F.3d 1191 (7th Cir. 1996) .......................................................................................... 7, 13, 14 King v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc. , 519 F.2d 20 (7th Cir. 1975) ...................................................................................................... 10 McKinnie v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , No. 07-CV-774, 2009 WL 4782736 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 8, 2009) ................................................ 14 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. , 339 U.S. 306 (1950) .................................................................................................................. 16 Pesek v. Donahue, No. 04 C 4525, 2006 WL 1049969 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2006) ........................ .............. 13 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts , 472 U.S. 797 (1985) ............... ................................................... .............. 13 ii Case: 1:12-cv-00276 Document #: 111 Filed: 11/04/13 Page 4 of 236 PageID #:2460 Pierce v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. , 65 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 1995) .............................................. ......... .............. 13 Rosario v. Livaditis , 963 F.2d 1013 (7th Cir. 1992) ............................................. ......... .............. 11 Ross v. Career Education Corp., 12-cv-276, 2012 WL 5363431 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2012) ..... ......... ................ 8 Silverman v. Motorola, Inc. , 259 F.R.D. 163 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ........................................... ......... .............. 12 Tatz v. Nanophase Technologies Corp. , No. 01-8440, 2003 WL 21372471 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 13, 2003) ......... ........ 10, 12 Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. , 472 F. Supp. 2d 830 (E.D. La. 2007) ........................................................ .............. 14 Will v. General Dynamics Corp. , 06-cv-698, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95630 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2010) ............. .............. 17 STATUTES 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7) ................................................................................................................ 15 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7)(A) ........................................................................................................... 16 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7)(B) ........................................................................................................... 16 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7)(C) ........................................................................................................... 16 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7)(D) ........................................................................................................... 16 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7)(E) ........................................................................................................... 16 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ................................................................................................................. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ........................................................................................................... 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(i) ........................................................................................................ 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(ii)....................................................................................................... 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(iii) ..................................................................................................... 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) ...................................................................................................... 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(v) ....................................................................................................... 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(vi) ...................................................................................................... 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(vii)..................................................................................................... 16 TREATISES Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.632 (2004) ............................................................