Ray, et al. v. NCAA.

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
----oo0oo----
SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER
ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and
RUDY BARAJAS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated
association,
Defendant.
No. 1:23-cv-00425
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
----oo0oo----
Plaintiffs Shannon Ray, Khala Taylor, Peter Robinson,
Katherine Sebbane, and Rudy Barajas brought this putative class
action against defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association
(“NCAA”), alleging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. (Second Am. Compl. (Docket No.
84).) Plaintiffs have filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement. (Docket No. 159.)

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
I. Background and Proposed Settlement
This is one of two related cases assigned to this court
involving antitrust challenges to a since-repealed NCAA bylaw
barring “volunteer coaches” from receiving pay. The related
case, Smart v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 2-22-cv-02125
WBS CSL, 2025 WL 2651800 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2025), recently
ended in settlement.
The court previously granted plaintiffs’ motion to
certify a class in this action, which consists of “[a]ll persons
who from March 17, 2019, to June 30, 2023, worked for an NCAA
Division I sports program other than baseball in the position of
‘volunteer coach,’ as designated by NCAA bylaws.” (Docket No.
128 at 27.) Plaintiffs now estimate the class has approximately
7,718 members. (Docket No. 159 at 8.)
The parties propose a gross settlement amount of
$303,000,000, to be paid in three separate installments of
$101,000,000 into a common fund over the course of two calendar
years. (See Plan of Allocation (Docket No. 159-1 ¶ 2).) Amounts
paid to class members “will be determined by the school, sport,
and year in which he or she worked.” (Docket No. 159 at 15.)
More specifically, plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Ashenfelter “will
calculate a Recognized Loss for each six-month period coached by
a Class Member . . . based on the wages paid to the team’s
lowest-paid coach during that period who was not designated as a
‘Volunteer Coach,’” and then incorporate a “stepdown” to account
for the fact that class member coaching positions were “lower in
the hierarchy than [their] reference coach.” (Id. at 16; Plan of
Allocation ¶ 12.) The resulting payment for each claimant will

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
3
be divided into three amounts corresponding with settlement
distributions. (Id. at 12-13.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipates that attorneys’ fees
will comprise up to 30% of the settlement fund. (Docket No. 159
at 27.) Plaintiffs further request service awards for the class
representatives in the amount of $25,000 each. (Id. at 29.)
II. Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlements
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that
“[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be
settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e). This Order is the first step in that process and analyzes
only whether the proposed class action settlement deserves
preliminary approval. See Murillo v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 266
F.R.D. 468, 473 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (Shubb, J.). Preliminary
approval authorizes the parties to give notice to putative class
members of the settlement agreement and lays the groundwork for a
future fairness hearing, at which the court will hear objections
to (1) the treatment of this litigation as a class action and (2)
the terms of the settlement. See id.; Diaz v. Tr. Territory of
Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989). The court
will reach a final determination as to whether the parties should
be allowed to settle the class action on their proposed terms
after that hearing.
A. Class Certification and Notice
Having already certified a class under Rule 23, the
court must now “direct to class members the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice
to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.”

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
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Rule 23(c)(2) governs both the form
and content of a proposed notice. See Ravens v. Iftikar, 174
F.R.D. 651, 658 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Eisen v. Carlisle &
Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 172–77 (1974)). Although that notice
must be “reasonably certain to inform the absent members of the
plaintiff class,” actual notice is not required. Silber v.
Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
Plaintiffs’ counsel has provided the court with a
proposed notice to be sent class members via email, First-Class
Mail, and paid and earned media. (See Docket No. 159-3 at 4.) A
dedicated website and toll-free telephone number will serve as
additional resources. (Id.) The proposed notices explain the
proceedings, define the scope of the class, and explain what the
settlement provides and the minimum amount each class member can
expect to receive in compensation. (See id. at 20-25.) The
notices further explain the opt-out procedure, the procedure for
objecting to the settlement, and the date and location of the
final approval hearing. (See id.) The content of the notices
therefore satisfies Rule 23(c)(2)(B). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2)(B); Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566,
575 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Notice is satisfactory if it ‘generally
describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to
alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come
forward and be heard.’”) (quoting Mendoza v. Tucson Sch. Dist.
No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338, 1352 (9th Cir. 1980)).
The parties have selected A.B. Data, Ltd.’s Class
Action Administration Company (“A.B. Data”) to serve as the
Settlement Administrator. (Declaration of Elaine Pang (“Pang

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
5
Decl.” (Docket No. 159-3) ¶ 4.) Pursuant to the notice plan, the
Settlement Administrator will effectuate direct notice to each
class member using a provided list of available names, schools,
sports, email addresses, and/or mailing addresses for known class
members. (See id. ¶ 10.) Further, the Settlement Administrator
will establish a website and toll-free phone number, which will
be referred to in the mail and email notices, to supplement
direct notice and provide further information about the
settlement to class members. (See id. ¶¶ 11-14.) The proposed
notice procedures appear “reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances,” to apprise all class members of the proposed
settlement. See Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035,
1045–46 (9th Cir. 2019).
B. Terms of the Settlement
The court must next determine whether the terms of the
parties’ settlement appear fair, adequate, and reasonable. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d
1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). This process requires the court to
“balance a number of factors,” including “the strength of the
plaintiff’s case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely
duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class
action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in
settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of
the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the
presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the
class members to the proposed settlement.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at
1026.
Because some of these factors cannot be considered

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
6
until the final fairness hearing, at the preliminary approval
stage “the court need only determine whether the proposed
settlement is within the range of possible approval,” Murillo,
266 F.R.D. at 479 (quoting Gautreaux v. Pierce, 690 F.2d 616, 621
n.3 (7th Cir. 1982)), and resolve any “glaring deficiencies” in
the settlement agreement before authorizing notice to class
members, Ontiveros, No. 2:08-567 WBS DAD, 2014 WL 3057506, at *12
(E.D. Cal. July 7, 2014) (citing Murillo, 266 F.R.D. at 478).
This generally requires consideration of “whether the proposed
settlement discloses grounds to doubt its fairness or other
obvious deficiencies, such as unduly preferential treatment of
class representatives or segments of the class, or excessive
compensation of attorneys.” Murillo, 266 F.R.D. at 479 (quoting
West v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 04-cv-438 WBS GGH, 2006 WL
1652598, at *11-12 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2006)).
Courts often begin by examining the process that led to
the settlement’s terms to ensure that those terms are “the result
of vigorous, arms-length bargaining” and then turn to the
substantive terms of the agreement. See, e.g., Murillo, 266
F.R.D. at 479-80; Circle K, 2006 WL 1652598, at *11-12; In re
Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1080 (N.D. Cal.
2007) (“[P]reliminary approval of a settlement has both a
procedural and a substantive component.”).
1. Negotiation of the Settlement Agreement
This action was filed in 2023. (Docket No. 1.) The
court disposed of NCAA’s motions to dismiss and transfer venue in
2023. (Docket No. 38.) The parties attempted mediation in
summer 2024 but were unsuccessful in reaching a settlement at

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
7
that time. (Joint Declaration (Docket No. 159-1 ¶ 28.)
Following additional litigation, including discovery motions,
class certification proceedings, a petition for appeal, and
filings on motions for partial summary judgment, the parties
resumed settlement discussions in September 2025. (Docket No.
159 at 20.) These discussions involved almost daily exchanges of
proposals over ten days and were informed by the extensive
litigation up to that point. (Id.) The parties agreed to request
a continuance of the impending hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment and engaged another professional mediator.
(Id.) Follow further exchange of memoranda and a full-day
mediation on October 10, 2025, the parties reached a settlement.
(Id.)
Given the extensive discovery and litigation conducted
prior to settlement and counsel’s representation that the
settlement was the product of arms-length bargaining, the court
at this stage does not question that the proposed settlement is
the result of informed and non-collusive negotiations between the
parties.
2. Amount Recovered and Distribution
In determining whether a settlement agreement is
substantively fair to the class, the court must balance the value
of expected recovery against the value of the settlement offer.
See Tableware, 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1080. This inquiry may involve
consideration of the uncertainty class members would face if the
case were litigated to trial. See Ontiveros, 2014 WL 3057506, at
*14.
“In determining whether the amount offered in

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
8
settlement is fair, the Ninth Circuit has suggested that the
Court compare the settlement amount to the parties’ ‘estimates of
the maximum amount of damages recoverable in a successful
litigation.’” Litty v. Merrill Lynch & Co., No. 14-cv-0425 PA
PJW, 2015 WL 4698475, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015) (quoting In
re: Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir.
2000)); see also Almanzar v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:20-
cv-0699 KJN, 2022 WL 2817435, at *11 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2022)
(citing Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 964 (9th Cir.
2009)) (“In determining whether the amount offered is fair and
reasonable, courts compare the proposed settlement to the best
possible outcome for the class.”)
Plaintiffs’ expert has calculated the total damages
suffered by class members to be $299,600,000. (Dr. Ashenfelter
Declaration (“Ashenfelter Decl.”) (Docket No. 159-2) ¶ 9.) The
gross settlement amount of $303,000,000 represents over 100% of
estimated damages to the class. This is an exceptional result
for the class and is comfortably within the range of percentage
recoveries that California courts have found to be reasonable.
See Cavazos v. Salas Concrete, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00062 DAD EPG,
2022 WL 2918361, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2022) (collecting
cases). Based on these figures, the average payment per class
member is $39,260 before allowed fees and expenses. (Docket No.
159 at 9.) This five-figure payout also represents a strong
result for the class.
Plaintiffs faced numerous risks in this complex
antitrust litigation, including proving all elements of the
claims, obtaining and maintaining class certification,

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
9
establishing liability, and the costliness of litigation and
potential appeals on these issues. In light of the risks
associated with further litigation and the strength of the
settlement terms, the court finds that the value of the
settlement is within the range of possible approval such that
preliminary approval of the settlement is appropriate. The court
further finds the method of processing class member claims to be
adequate, as each class member’s share of the settlement will be
calculated on an individual basis by plaintiffs’ expert based on
factors including school, sport, and length of employment.
3. Attorney’s Fees
If a negotiated class action settlement includes an
award of attorney’s fees, that fee award must be evaluated in the
overall context of the settlement. Knisley v. Network Assocs.,
312 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir. 2002); Monterrubio v. Best Buy
Stores, L.P., 291 F.R.D. 443, 455 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (England, J.).
The court “ha[s] an independent obligation to ensure that the
award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the
parties have already agreed to an amount.” In re Bluetooth
Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiffs’ counsel will seek fees in an amount not to
exceed 30% of the gross settlement amount. (Docket No. 159 at
27.) Counsel plans to file a fee petition contemporaneously with
its motion for final approval which will provide details
regarding expenses incurred and fees sought. (Id.) In deciding
the attorney’s fees motion, the court will have the opportunity
to assess whether the requested fee award is reasonable by
multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours

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
10
counsel reasonably expended. See Van Gerwen v. Gurantee Mut.
Life. Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000). As part of this
lodestar calculation, the court may consider factors such as the
“degree of success” or “results obtained” by plaintiffs’ counsel.
See Cunningham v. Cnty. of L.A., 879 F.2d 481, 488 (9th Cir.
1988). If the court, in ruling on the fees motion, finds that
the amount of the settlement warrants a fee award at a rate lower
than what plaintiffs’ counsel requests, then it will reduce the
award accordingly. The court will therefore not evaluate the fee
award here in considering whether the settlement is adequate.
4. Service Awards for Class Representatives
“[A]wards that are intended to compensate class
representatives for work undertaken on behalf of a class are
fairly typical in class action cases.” In re Online DVD-Rental
Antitrust Litig., 779 F. 3d 934, 943 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted). Class counsel plans to
request service awards for the class representatives in the
amount of $25,000 each, for a total of $125,000. (Docket No. 159
at 29.)
“Several courts in this District have indicated that
incentive payments of $10,000 or $25,000 are quite high and/or
that, as a general matter, $5,000 is a reasonable amount.”
Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2012 WL
381202, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012) (collecting cases). In
justifying their request, class counsel provides some detail of
the class representatives’ efforts in this action, including
consulting with counsel on numerous occasions about their
experience as college coaches, case strategy, and discovery, as

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
11
well as responding to interrogatories and sitting for
depositions. (Id.) The court notes, however, that counsel has
not identified specific reasons for why five individuals were
needed for these efforts.
In light of the unusually high amount of the service
award requested, and the number of class representatives listed,
counsel is advised to provide a more substantial report in their
motion for final approval of the class representatives’
contributions to this action meriting the requested award
amounts, which should also explain the necessity for having five
representatives.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement (Docket No.
159) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
(1) The proposed settlement is preliminarily approved as
fair, just, reasonable, and adequate to the members of the
settlement class, subject to further consideration at the final
fairness hearing after distribution of notice to members of the
settlement class;
(2) A.B. Data is appointed as the Settlement Administrator;
(3) The form and content of the proposed Notices of Class
Action Settlement (Docket No. 159-3 at 3-14) are approved, except
to the extent that they must be updated to reflect the dates and
deadlines specified in this Order and other information such as
website addresses and phone numbers;
(4) no later than seven (7) calendar days from the date this
Order is signed, counsel shall provide the Settlement

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
12
Administrator with the class members’ names, physical mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and any other
information pertinent to the administration of the Settlement, if
they have not done so already;
(5) no later than fourteen (14) calendar days from the date
this Order is signed, the Settlement Administrator shall send a
Notice of Class Action Settlement to all members of the
settlement class via first class mail and email. If a Notice is
returned to the Settlement Administrator with a forwarding
address, the Settlement Administrator will re-send the Notice to
the forwarding address. If no forwarding address is provided,
the Settlement Administrator will attempt to locate a more
current address within three (3) business days of receipt of the
returned mail;
(6) no later than sixty (60) days from the date Settlement
Administrator mails the Notice of Class Action Settlement, though
in the case of a re-mailed notice the deadline will be extended
by fifteen (15) days, any member of the settlement class who
intends to object to, comment upon, or opt out of the settlement
shall provide written notice of that intent pursuant to the
instructions in the Notice of Class Action Settlement;
(7) A final fairness hearing shall be set to occur before
this Court on May 11, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 of the
Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street,
Sacramento, California, to determine whether the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved by this court; whether the settlement class’s claims
should be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered upon

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
13
final approval of the settlement; whether final class
certification is appropriate; and to consider class counsel’s
applications for attorney’s fees, costs, and incentive awards for
the class representatives. The court may continue the final
fairness hearing without further notice to the members of the
class;
(8) no later than thirty-five (35) days before the final
fairness hearing, class counsel shall file with this court a
petition for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Any
objections or responses to the petition shall be filed no later
than twenty-one (21) days before the final fairness hearing.
Class counsel may file a reply to any objections no later than
fourteen (14) days before the final fairness hearing;
(9) no later than thirty-five (35) days before the final
fairness hearing, class counsel shall file and serve upon the
court and defendant’s counsel all papers in support of the
settlement, the incentive awards for the class representatives,
and any award for attorney’s fees and costs;
(10) no later than thirty-five (35) days before the final
fairness hearing, the Settlement Administrator shall prepare, and
class counsel shall file and serve upon the court and defendant’s
counsel, a declaration setting forth the services rendered, proof
of mailing, a list of all class members who have opted out of the
settlement, and a list of all class members who have commented
upon or objected to the settlement;
(11) any person who has standing to object to the terms of
the proposed settlement may appear at the final fairness hearing
(themselves or through counsel) and be heard to the extent

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
14
allowed by the court in support of, or in opposition to, (a) the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed
settlement, (b) the requested award of attorney’s fees,
reimbursement of costs, and incentive award to the class
representative, and/or (c) the propriety of class certification.
To be heard in opposition at the final fairness hearing, a person
must, no later than sixty (60) days from the date the Settlement
Administrator mails the Notice of Class Action Settlement, (a)
serve by hand or through the mails written notice of his or her
intention to appear, stating the name and case number of this
action and each objection and the basis therefore, together with
copies of any papers and briefs, upon class counsel and counsel
for defendant, and (b) file said appearance, objections, papers,
and briefs with the court, together with proof of service of all
such documents upon counsel for the parties.
Responses to any such objections shall be served by
hand or through the mails on the objectors, or on the objector’s
counsel if there is any, and filed with the court no later than
fourteen (14) calendar days before the final fairness hearing.
Objectors may file optional replies no later than seven (7)
calendar days before the final fairness hearing in the same
manner described above. Any settlement class member who does not
make his or her objection in the manner provided herein shall be
deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be
foreclosed from objecting to the fairness or adequacy of the
proposed settlement, the judgment entered, and the award of
attorney’s fees, costs, and incentive awards to the class
representatives unless otherwise ordered by the court;

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
15
(12) pending final determination of whether the settlement
should be ultimately approved, the court preliminarily enjoins
all class members (unless and until the class member has
submitted a timely and valid request for exclusion) from filing
or prosecuting any claims, suits, or administrative proceedings
regarding claims to be released by the settlement.
Dated: January 6, 2026