Williams v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
URSULA N. W ILLIAMS , ON BEHALF OF 	§
HERSELF AND ALL O THERS S IMILARLY 	§
S ITUATED, 	§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION N O. 4:20-CV-1900
§
LAKEVIEW LOAD S ERVICING, LLC AND 	§
LOANC ARE , LLC, 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This class action lawsuit regarding mortgage loan fees is before the Court on
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Entry of Final Order and Judgment (ECF 175) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’
Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Award, and Incorporated Memorandum of
Law (ECF 172).1 The Court heard oral argument on the record in open court on
January 6, 2025. Having considered the parties’ submissions, arguments of counsel
at the hearing, and the law, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ Motions be
GRANTED.
1 The District Judge referred the case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 92.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 07, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 15

2
I. 	Background
Lead Plaintiff Ursula Nichole Williams filed a Class Action Complaint
against Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC and LoanCare, LLC on May 29, 2020. ECF
1. 	On March 30, 2022, the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendations and certified two classes — the Lakeview Class and the
LoanCare Class. ECF 91. On September 26, 2023, the District Judge adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations and denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment and granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 	ECF 130. 	On
June 17, 2025, the parties notified the Court that they had engaged in mediation with
Paul D. Clote and reached a full settlement. ECF 165.
The 	Court 	granted 	preliminary 	approval 	to 	the 	proposed 	Settlement
Agreement on August 13, 2025, and set a Final Approval Hearing for January 6,
2025. 	ECF 171. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, and
Service Award, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law was filed on November 18,
2025. 	ECF 172. 	Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and Entry of Final Order and Judgment on December 19,
2025. ECF 175. No member of the Plaintiff Class and no Defendant objects to any
aspect of the Class Action Settlement Agreement or Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and
Expenses. The Court conducted a Final Approval hearing on the record on January
6, 2025.
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 15

3
II. 	Legal Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires judicial approval for the
settlement of class action claims. See F ED . R. CIV. P. 23(e). A court should approve
a class action settlement if the court finds it “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Id. at
23(e)(2). The Fifth Circuit has recognized a strong public policy in favor of
settlement of class action lawsuits. See In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 807
(5th Cir. 2014) (noting the “overriding public interest in favor of settlement” in class
action cases). 	Under Rule 23(e)(2), in determining whether a settlement is “fair,
reasonable, and adequate,” the Court considers whether: (A) the class representatives
and counsel have adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated
at arm’s length; (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account:
(i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed
method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-
member claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including
timing of payment; and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule
23(e)(3); and(D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.
F ED. R. CIV. P. 23(e)(2); see also Al’s Pals Pet Care v. Woodforest Nat’l Bank, NA,
No. 4:17-CV-3852, 2019 WL 387409, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2019). 	Courts in
this Circuit also consider what are known as the Reed factors: (1) the existence of
fraud or collusion behind the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 15

4
duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of
discovery completed; (4) the probability of plaintiffs’ success on the merits; (5) the
range 	of 	possible 	discovery; 	and 	(6) 	the 	opinions 	of 	class 	counsel, 	class
representatives, and absent class members. Reed v. General Motors Corp., 703 F.2d
170, 172 (5th Cir. 1983); Union Asset Mgmt. Holdings A.G. v. Dell, Inc., 669 F.3d
632, 639 n.11 (5th Cir. 2012) (same). “A proposed settlement need not obtain the
largest conceivable recovery for the class to be worthy of approval; it must simply
be fair and adequate considering all the relevant circumstances.”
III. 	Findings and Conclusions
Upon review of the Settlement Agreement and arguments of counsel at the
Final Approval Hearing, and finding good cause, the Court RECOMMENDS that
the District Judge enter an Order and Final Judgment incorporating the following
findings of fact and conclusion of law: 2
1. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms and phrases
in 	this 	Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	shall 	have 	the 	same
meaning as ascribed to them in the Settlement.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
and personal jurisdiction over the Parties and the Settlement Class
Members.
2 All findings are deemed conclusions and vice versa.
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 15

5
CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
3. The Court previously certified the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes in its Preliminary Approval Order.
4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court confirms as final its certification of the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary Approval
Order.
5. The Court confirms the appointment of Ursula Nichole
Williams as Settlement Class Representative for the Settlement Class.
6. The Court confirms the appointment of Randall K. Pulliam of
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, James L. Kauffman of Bailey &
Glasser LLP as Class Counsel.
7. The Court finds that Plaintiff and Class Counsel adequately
represented the Settlement Class for purposes of entering into and
implementing the Settlement Agreement.
FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT
AND NOTICE PROGRAM
8. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the 	Court 	hereby 	finally 	approves 	and 	confirms 	the 	Settlement
embodied 	in 	the 	Settlement 	Agreement 	as 	fair, 	reasonable, 	and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 15

6
Court has specifically considered all factors relevant to class settlement
approval, including the factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2) and Reed v.
General Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170, 172 (5th Cir. 1983).
9. More specifically, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate because it was reached through vigorous,
arm’s-length negotiations that were overseen by a neutral mediator and
only after experienced counsel had thoroughly evaluated the merits of
Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses through factual and legal
investigation and hard-fought litigation.
10. All the Rule 23(e) and Reed factors weigh in favor of final
approval. Specifically, the Court finds the Settlement is adequate given:
(1) the adequacy of representation and the benefits achieved; (2) the
complexity, expense and likely duration of continued litigation; (3) the
stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4)
the risks of establishing liability, damages, and maintaining the class
action; (5) the probability of Plaintiff’s success on the merits in light of
all attendant risks of litigation; (6) the Settlement treats Class Members
equitably relative to each other; (7) the Settlement is the result of
informed, arm’s length negotiations with no indicia of collusion; and
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 15

7
(8) the Settlement enjoys the support of the Settlement Class, Class
Counsel and the Settlement Class Representative.
11. The Court finds that the notice program as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary
Approval Order satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, due process, and the rules of this Court, and constitutes
the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute
due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive
notice, i.e., the Settlement Class, of (a) the nature of the case; (b) the
terms of the Settlement, including the definition of the Settlement
Class; (c) the procedure for objecting to the Settlement; (d) the time and
manner for objecting to the Settlement; (e) contact information for
Class Counsel, the Settlement Administrator, the Settlement Website,
and a toll-free number to ask questions about the Settlement; (f)
important dates in the settlement approval process, including the
deadlines to object and the date of the Final Approval Hearing; (g)
Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees, litigation
expenses, and a Service Award; and (h) the binding effect of a class
judgment on Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that the Class
Notices implemented constitute notice that is reasonably calculated,
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 15

8
under 	the 	circumstances, 	to 	apprise 	the 	Settlement 	Class 	of 	the
pendency of the Action, their rights to object themselves from the
Agreement and proposed Settlement, and to appear at the Fairness
Hearing. The Court finds that, in light of the extensive notice program
undertaken 	in 	connection 	with 	class 	certification 	and 	the 	ample
opportunity provided to Settlement Class Members to request exclusion
from the Classes at that time, no second opportunity is required for
Settlement Class Members to exclude themselves from the Settlement
Class in connection with the Settlement proceedings.
12. The Court finds that Defendant provided proper and timely
notice of the Settlement Agreement to the appropriate federal and state
officials, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28
U.S.C. §1715 and that the Court reviewed the substance of the notices
and finds that they complied with the applicable CAFA requirements.
13. The Court also finds that the Settlement Class Members’
reaction to the Settlement was positive. Not one Settlement Class
Member objected to the Settlement and no valid requests for exclusions
from the Classes have been submitted by Settlement Class Members.
14. The Court hereby reaffirms its appointment of the Settlement
Administrator to perform the functions and duties of notice and
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 15

9
settlement administration as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and
to 	provide 	such 	other 	administration 	services 	as 	are 	reasonably
necessary to facilitate the completion of the Settlement. Accordingly,
Class 	Counsel 	and 	the 	Settlement 	Administrator 	are 	directed 	to
administer the Settlement in accordance with its terms and provisions.
15. The Court hereby approves the Settlement in all respects and
orders that the Settlement Agreement shall be consummated and
implemented in accordance with its terms and conditions.
16. The Parties, without further approval from the Court, are
hereby authorized to agree and adopt such amendments, modifications,
and expansions of the Settlement Agreement and its implementing
documents (including all exhibits to the SettlementAgreement) so long
as they are consistent in all material respects with this Order and Final
Judgment and do not materially limit, or materially and adversely
affect, the rights or obligations of Settlement Class Members under the
Settlement Agreement.
17. 	Without 	affecting 	the 	finality 	of 	this 	Order 	and 	Final
Judgment for purposes of appeal, the Court shall retain exclusive,
continuing jurisdiction over all matters relating to the Settlement or the
administration, consummation, enforcement and interpretation of the
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 15

10
Settlement and this Order and Final Judgment, the validation of the
Settlement, the construction and enforcement of the Settlement and any
orders entered pursuant thereto, all other matters pertaining to the
Settlement or its implementation and enforcement, and for any other
necessary purpose.
18. In the event that this Order and Final Judgment is reversed
on appeal or otherwise does not become final, (i) this Order and Final
Judgment shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated nunc pro
tunc, (ii) as specified in the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement
Agreement and other related orders shall be rendered null and void and
shall be vacated nunc pro tunc, (iii) the Settlement Fund shall be
refunded to the Defendant, less settlement administrative expenses
actually incurred and paid, the amounts for which would be reimbursed
to Defendant by Plaintiff such that Defendant would receive back the
total amount of the Settlement Fund, and (iv) the Action shall proceed
as if no settlement had occurred and as otherwise provided for in the
Settlement Agreement.
19. Neither the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement contained
therein, the negotiation nor any proceeding or document executed
pursuant to or in furtherance thereof, (i) is or shall be construed as, an
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 15

11
admission of, or evidence of, the truth of any allegation or of any
liability or the validity of any claim or defense, in whole or in part, on
the part of any party in any respect, or (ii) is or shall be admissible in
any action or proceeding for any reason, other than an action or
proceeding to enforce the terms of the Settlement or this Order and
Final Judgment.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND
SERVICE AWARD
20. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees seeking an award of fees in the amount of
$766,666.00 is granted because the amount is fair and reasonable and
consistent with fee awards in the Fifth Circuit and beyond.
21. The requested attorneys’ fee, at one-third of the cash benefits,
is supported by this Court’s consideration of the factors set forth in
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th
Cir. 1974), including: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty
and difficulty of the issues; (3) the skill required to perform the legal
service adequately; (4) the preclusion of other employment by attorneys
because they accepted this case; (5) the customary fee for similar work
in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time
limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 15

12
involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and
ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the
nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and
(12) awards in similar cases. See id. at 717-19.
22. The Court approves costs of $32,222.10 incurred by Class
Counsel in the prosecution and settlement of this Action. The costs
sought are fair and reasonable under Rule 23 and applicable caselaw.
23. The Court finds the service award requested is reasonable
based on Plaintiff’s active involvement in this Action and warranted
under applicable law. 	The Court hereby approves a service award to
Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000.
24. In sum, the attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and service
award sought in Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation
Expenses, and Service Award are approved and shall be paid in the
manner specified in the Settlement Agreement.
DISMISSAL AND FINAL JUDGMENT
25. Final judgment of dismissal on the merits and with prejudice
of the Action (including all individual claims and class action claims
presented 	thereby 	against 	both 	Defendants 	LoanCare, 	LLC 	and
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 15

13
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC) is hereby entered, with each party to
bear its own costs.
26. This Order and Final Judgment hereby incorporates the
Release set forth in Section 3 of the Settlement Agreement, makes the
Release 	effective 	as 	of 	the 	Final 	Settlement 	Date, 	and 	forever
discharges 	the 	Released 	Persons 	as 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	Settlement
Agreement.
27. Upon the Effective Date and by operation of this Order and
Final Judgment, the Settlement Class Members who did not timely
exclude themselves from this Action shall be deemed to have, and by
operation of the Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever
waived, released, relinquished, remised, acquitted, and discharged all
Released Claims against the Released Persons, and each of them.
Further, upon the Effective Date, and to the fullest extent permitted by
law, each Settlement Class Member, shall, either directly, indirectly,
representatively, 	or 	in 	any 	capacity, 	be 	permanently 	barred 	and
enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting, or knowingly
participating (as a class member or otherwise) in any lawsuit, action,
claims, causes of action, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction (other
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 13 of 15

14
than participation in the Settlement) against any Released Person based
on the Released Claims.
28. Upon the Effective Date and by operation of this Order and
Final Judgment, the Settlement Agreement shall be binding on and shall
have res judicata and collateral estoppel effect in all pending and future
lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of Plaintiff
and the Settlement Class Members.
29. This Court hereby directs entry of this Order and Final
Judgment based upon the Court’s finding that there is no just reason for
delay of enforcement or appeal of this Final Judgment. The Clerk of the
Court shall close the file in this matter.
IV. 	Conclusion and Recommendation
Having found that the Settlement Agreement, including the agreement as to
Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Award, are fair, adequate, and
reasonable 	and 	in 	the 	best 	interests 	of 	the 	Settlement 	Class, 	the 	Court
RECOMMENDS that the proposed Order and Final Judgment, as set out above, be
adopted and entered by the District Judge.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 14 of 15

15
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on January 07, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 178 Filed 01/07/26 in TXSD Page 15 of 15