Whitehead v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Chase Whitehead,
Plaintiff,
v.
Amica Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendant.
No. CV-22-01978-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Chase Whitehead’s (“Plaintiff”) Unopposed
Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Certification of the Settlement Class. (Doc. 40). For the reasons stated below, the Court
will grant the Motion.
I. Background
Previously on March 20, 2025, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification was denied. (Doc. 39). The Court
found that Plaintiff failed to both satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)’s numerosity requirement and
establish superiority under Rule 23(b)(3). (Id.) Because the Court already gave a
background of how the case originated and the layout of insurance stacking cases in
Arizona, the Court will not do so again here. (See Doc. 39 at 1–2). The Court’s reasoning
for allowing the preliminary certification to go forward is enunciated below.
II. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), one or more members of a class may
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 10

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if all four of the
following prerequisites are met: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). On top of satisfying the four prerequisites above, at least one of the
following must be true: (1) Risk of inconsistency: the prosecution of separate actions by
individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications or adjudications
that would be dispositive of non-party class member interests; (2) Appropriate Class-Wide
Injunctive Relief: injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a
whole because the conduct of the opposing party applies generally to the class; or (3)
Predominance and Superiority: questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action
is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).1 When there is an underlying settlement in a class
action, that settlement needs the approval of the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e). At the
preliminary approval stage, the Court only needs to evaluate whether the proposed
settlement (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations,
(2) has no obvious deficiency, (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class
representatives or segments of the class, and (4) falls within the range of possible approval.
See Alberto v. GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 665 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
III. Discussion
A. Class Certification
In the Court’s previous Order, the Court found that Plaintiff had satisfied all the
initial prerequisites under Rule 23(a), except 23(a)(1): numerosity. (Doc. 39 at 6). Because
that was the only prerequisite the Court found deficient, that is the only one the Court will
now address. If the Court did not make it clear previously, it will make clear now why the
1 Plaintiff only seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3). (See Doc. 36 at 23–26).
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 10

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court was not initially persuaded that Plaintiff had met 23(a)(1)’s numerosity requirement.
The Court’s prior Order observed the small class size, which the Court understands is not
a strict numerical requirement, but it was also concerned with Plaintiff’s lack of analysis
of other subfactors to support the Court’s finding of numerosity. See Gen. Tel. Co. of the
Nw. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980) (emphasizing that the numerosity requirement has
no absolute limitations, but instead turns on looking at the specific facts of the case). The
subfactors for numerosity that the Court would have been swayed by, and now is, are: (a)
geographic diversity of the class members; (b) their ability to institute separate suits; and
(c) the nature of the underlying action and the relief sought. Jordan v. Los Angeles Cty.,
669 F.2d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, Cty. of Los Angeles v.
Jordan, 459 U.S. 810 (1982), modified, 726 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1984) (listing out the
subfactors to be analyzed within numerosity).
In his renewed Motion Plaintiff states that geographic diversity is satisfied because
the members of the class are spread across thirteen cities and five counties in Arizona.
(Doc. 40 at 6). One class member even resides in Washington state. (Id.) The Court finds
that this is adequate to show geographic diversity. 1 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on
Class Actions § 3:12 (5th ed. 2014) (“geographic dispersion of class members cuts in favor
of certification as joinder of all members of a dispersed class is likely less practicable than
joinder of all members of a similarly sized class residing in one neighborhood or working
in one workplace”). Class members are also unlikely or unable to initiate separate suits
because most would not be aware of their right to do so. Datta v. Asset Recovery Sols.,
LLC, 2016 WL 1070666, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016) (attributing the unlikelihood of
filing separate lawsuits to a finding that certification is appropriate). And while the nature
of the underlying relief sought is for compensatory damages, the Court will err on the side
of granting preliminary approval, considering that Plaintiff has supplemented his Motion
with more persuasive authority. (Doc. 41) (citing to recent caselaw in which a class size as
small as 25 was certified). Considering the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has now
satisfied the numerosity requirement to meet preliminary certification of the class.
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 10

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Now that Plaintiff has met the four prerequisite requirements of 23(a)(1)–(4), the
Court will focus on what it found deficient in the Plaintiff’s previous Motion under
23(b)(3). Rule 23(b)(3) requires two separate inquires. The following being the two: “[1]
the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and [2] that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Rule 23(b)(3). Earlier, the
Court took no issue with the predominance part of Plaintiff’s Motion but found that
Plaintiff failed to show the Court that a class action was the superior way to resolve the
underlying cause of action. (Doc. 39 at 17). At that time, the Court found that the large
individual recovery a plaintiff would receive should they pursue the litigation as a
standalone without a class, although neutral, ultimately disfavored certification. (Id.) The
Court also found that the lack of individual litigation by members of the class, while
certainly favoring certification, was not an argument fully advanced by Plaintiff. (Doc. 39
at 20–21). Again, the Court’s finding that superiority was not established, was based on
Plaintiff’s cursory assertions to the contrary. Now that Plaintiff has supplemented his
Motion, the Court is convinced that superiority has been properly plead at this time.
First, individual class members have not shown the desire to control their own
litigation, as stated by Plaintiff in his renewed Motion. Because class members are likely
to be unaware of their claims, it is also unlikely that they would pursue said claims. Datta,
WL 1070666, at *8. Having said that, there is also nothing in the record that shows that
individual class members have tried to pursue their claims. Then, in the previous Motion
that the Court denied, there was also the issue of whether the individual claims were too
small to warrant individual action. The Court found Plaintiff’s singular assertion on this
matter lacking: “many of their claims are too small to individual litigation possible.” (Doc.
39 at 18). Without more, the Court could not find that the class warranted preliminary
certification. Now, however, Plaintiff has clarified that twelve of the class members have
potential damages recoveries under $75,000, with nine below $40,000, and with one class
member only receiving $2,300 potentially. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff admits that some of these
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 10

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recoveries are large given the class size, but that if individual litigation were pursued, these
recoveries would be engulfed by the costs of the litigation. (Id.) Lastly, a class action is
appropriate in this forum because the Court has already made preliminary rulings in this
matter, the forum is geographically convenient for the parties, and other class actions
related to the same issues are already before the Court. (Doc. 40 at 14). Having found that
Plaintiff has satisfied superiority, the Court will move on to analyzing the fairness of the
settlement agreement.
B. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
To determine whether settlement approval can go forward at this stage, the Court
needs to analyze if the settlement proposal is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(e); see also David F. Herr, Ann. Manual Complex Lit. § 21.632 (4th ed. 2023).
Although several factors are used to assess if the underlying settlement should be approved,
at the preliminary stage, the Court only looks at a limited number. These include: (1)
appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has no
obvious deficiency; (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to the class
representatives or segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of possible approval.
Horton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 266 F.R.D. 360, 363 (D. Ariz. 2009). Because “[s]ettlement
is the offspring of compromise; the question . . . is not whether the final product could be
[better], but whether it is fair, adequate and free from collusion.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998).
Here, the proposed settlement class includes:
All persons insured under an insurance policy issued by
Defendant in Arizona that covered more than one vehicle for
uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle insurance, and who
received the limit of liability for the uninsured or underinsured
benefits for only one unit of (or one vehicle’s) UM or UIM
coverage during the Class Period, as reflected in the agreed-
upon list attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement.
(See Doc. 36-1 at ¶ 22, Ex. A, Settlement Agreement). The settlement agreement also
releases Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company of the breach of contract claim and
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim in exchange for a common fund of
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 10

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
$2,875,000. (Id. at ¶¶ 34–36). According to class counsel, the settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate because there is a “strong relationship between the unpaid loss and the
available insurance funds.” (Doc. 36 at 14). Additionally, the projected value of the
insurance benefits owed to the class is $1,773,697.67. (Id. at 13). At this preliminary stage,
the Court finds that the settlement should be approved. See Vasquez v. Coast Valley
Roofing, Inc., 670 F.Supp.2d 1114, 1125 (E.D.Cal.2009) (“To evaluate the range of
possible approval criterion, which focuses on substantive fairness and adequacy, courts
primarily consider plaintiff's expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement
offer.”). 2
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Certification of the Settlement Class. (Doc. 40) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
1. The Court preliminarily approves the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, and the
Settlement set forth therein as fair, adequate and reasonable, and in the best interest of the
putative class members, subject to further consideration at a final fairness hearing (the
“Final Fairness Hearing”).
2. The Court certifies the following Class for purposes of settlement (the
“Settlement Class”): All persons insured under an insurance policy issued by Defendant in
Arizona that covered more than one vehicle for uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle
insurance, and who received the limit of liability for the uninsured or underinsured benefits
for only one unit of (or one vehicle’s) UM or UIM coverage during the Class Period, as
reflected in the agreed-upon list attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement.
3. The Court designates Chase Whitehead as Class Representative for the
Settlement Class.
4. The Court appoints Robert Carey of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as
2 Final approval of the settlement, on the other hand, requires a more extensive analysis by
the Court. See Nat'l Rural Telecommunications Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523,
525 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (highlighting requirements of final approval).
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 6 of 10

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
5. The Final Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court on June 17, 2026
at 3:00 p.m. (a date no sooner than 90 days following completion of the notice being issued
under 28 U.S.C. § 1711 et seq.), before District Judge Diane J. Humetewa in Courtroom
605, Sadra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix,
Arizona 85003, to determine whether to approve certification of the class for settlement
purposes; whether the proposed settlement of the Lawsuit on the terms and conditions
provided from in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class and should be approved by the Court; whether a final judgment should be
entered heroin; whether the proposed plan of distribution should be approved; to determine
the amount of fees and expenses that should be awarded to Class Counsel; and to determine
the amount of the service award that should be provided to the Class Representative. The
Court may adjourn the Final Fairness Hearing without further notice to the members of the
Settlement Class.
6. The Court approves the proposed Notice, Exhibit C, to the original Motion
for Preliminary Approval (Doc. 36). The Court further finds that the proposed plan of
notice and the proposed content of the notice, meet the requirements of Rule 23 and due
process, and are the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute
due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto.
7. The Court appoints the firm of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.,
as the Settlement Administrator. Plaintiff and his designees, including the Settlement
Administrator, are authorized to expend funds from the escrow accounts to pay taxes, tax
expenses, notice, and administration costs as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The
Court appoints the Settlement Administrator to supervise and administer the notice
procedure, as more fully set forth below.
8. Beginning no later than 30 days following the Settlement Administrator’s
receipt of final and approved Settlement Class member contact data (the “Notice Date”),
the Settlement Administrator shall begin issuing direct notice by first class U.S. mail to all
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 7 of 10

- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement Class members for whom there is a valid mailing address, whose mailing
addresses can be identified with reasonable effort, or alternatively by email, if mailing
addresses are not available, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 3 to the Motion
for Preliminary Approval.
9. All members of the Settlement Class shall be bound by all determinations
and judgments in the Lawsuit concerning the settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable
to the Settlement Class.
10. Class Counsel shall file their motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and service
award for Class Representative, and all supporting documentation and papers, by 30 days
before the deadline for exclusions and objections. In filing their motion, Class Counsel
need not comply with the procedures set forth in LRCiv 54.2(e) and (j).
11. Any person who desires to request exclusion from the Settlement Class shall
do so within 60 days of the Notice Date. To be excluded from the settlement, the exclusion
request must be received by the Settlement Administrator no later than 60 days after the
Notice Date. All persons who submit valid and timely requests for exclusion shall have no
rights under the Settlement Agreement, shall not share in the distribution of the settlement
funds, and shall not be bound by the final judgment relating to the Defendants entered in
the litigation.
12. Any member of the Settlement Class who has not requested to be excluded
may enter an appearance in the litigation, at his or her own expense, individually or through
counsel of his or her own choice. If the member does not enter an appearance, he or she
will be represented by Class Counsel.
13. Any member of the Settlement Class who has not requested to be excluded
may appear, object, and show cause, if he or she has any reason, why the proposed
settlement should or should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; why a
judgment should or should not be entered thereon; why the plan of distribution should or
should not be approved; why attorneys’ fees and expenses should or should not be awarded
to Class Counsel; or why the service award should or should not be awarded to Class
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 8 of 10

- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Representatives. All such written objections and supporting papers must be mailed or filed
with the Court within 60 days of the Notice Date, with a copy to the Class Counsel, and
include:
(a) The full name, address, telephone number, and email address of (1) the
person objecting (the “Objector”) and (2) any counsel for an objector;
(b) The name and number of the case: Chase Whitehead v. Amica Mutual
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. CV-22-01978-PHX-DJH;
(c) Whether the objection applies only the Objector, to a specific subset of the
Settlement Class, or to the entire Settlement Class; and
(d) The specific grounds for each objection the Objector is asserting, including
a description of the legal authorities and factual basis that support the
objection.
14. All papers in support of the settlement and responses by Class Counsel
regarding objections and exclusions shall be filed by May 26, 2026.
15. All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying members of
the Settlement Class, as well as administering the Settlement Fund, shall be paid for as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.
16. Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may extend any of the deadlines
set forth in this Order without further notice to the Settlement Class.
17. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested to be excluded
are temporarily barred and enjoined from instituting or continuing the prosecution of any
action asserting the claims released in the proposed settlement, until the Court enters final
judgment with respect to the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 9 of 10

- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18. Except for proceedings in furtherance of the Settlement Agreement, this
Action is stayed pending further order of the Court.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 42 Filed 02/18/26 Page 10 of 10