De Santos v. Jaco Oil Company
Filing
41
ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement re 37 38 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/29/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LINDA DE SANTOS,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
JACO OIL COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-0738 -JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
CLASS SETTLEMENT
(Docs. 37, 38)
16
17
Plaintiff, Linda De Santos requests final approval of a class settlement. (Doc. 38) Plaintiff also
18
seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and a class representative incentive award. (Doc. 37)
19
Defendants do not oppose these requests, and no class member objected. For the following reasons,
20
final approval of the settlement and for attorney’s fees is GRANTED. In addition, Plaintiff’s request
21
for an award of costs and for an incentive payment are GRANTED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
22
23
Plaintiff asserts she applied for the Human Resources Manager position with Defendant Jaco
24
Oil Company in March 2014. (Doc. 32 at 16) She completed the application online, “had a telephone
25
interview and took several computer proficiency exams, all of which she passed.” (Id.) In addition,
26
Plaintiff was “asked to fill out a “Credit and Background Check Authorization” form as part of the
27
application process.” (Id.)
28
Plaintift “emailed Defendant Jaco on March 26, 2014, to find out the status of her application.”
1
1
(Doc. 32 at 16) That same day, Plaintiff received a response, “from the human resources department
2
representative, Ms. Winkler, stating that she had not been selected for employment and that the position
3
had been filled already by a candidate with a “skill set that more closely matches [Jaco’s] needs.” (Id.)
4
According to Plaintiff, Ms. Winkler did not “indicate whether Plaintiff’s consumer report was
5
considered in the decision to deny her employment,” but Plaintiff “suspected that there were negative
6
items on her consumer report that she wanted to explain.” (Id.)
7
Plaintiff emailed Ms. Winkler on April 9, 2014, requesting a copy of her consumer report and
8
inquiring “whether the report was considered in the decision to deny her employment.” (Doc. 36 at 16)
9
Ms. Winkler did not respond, and Plaintiff sent a second inquiry on April 21, 2014. (Id. at 17) In
10
reply, Plaintiff received an email from with a copy of her consumer report, but Ms. Winkler did not
11
answer whether Jaco considered it with Plaintiff’s application. (Id.) Several weeks later, Plaintiff
12
learned Jaco had not yet filled the position for which she had applied. (Id.)
13
On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against Jaco “individually
14
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,” including “other prospective, current, and former
15
employees.” (Doc. 1 at 2) Plaintiff alleged Jaco’s actions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
16
California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and California’s Consumer Credit
17
Reporting Agencies Act. (Id. at 1) Jaco filed its answer on June 16, 2014. (Doc. 7)
18
According to Plaintiff, in the course of discovery, her attorneys learned that Jaco performed
19
background check services for its affiliated entities, including Fastrip Food Stores, Inc.; Fastrip Food
20
Stores of Fresno, Inc.; Fastrip Financial, LP; Instant Storage, LLC; Brooke Utilities, Inc.; and
21
Wholesale Fuels, Inc. (Doc. 32 at 18) On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in
22
which she named the affiliated entities as additional defendants in this action. (Doc. 25)
23
The parties engaged in private mediation with Carl West, who proposed a monetary settlement
24
in the amount of $300,000. (Doc. 32 at 19-20) After accepting the proposal, the parties executed a
25
memorandum of understanding on May 12, 2015. (Id.) The parties finalized the proposed settlement
26
on June 10, 2015. (Doc. 32-1 at 57-60) Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval
27
of the class settlement and conditional certification of the Settlement Class on June 22, 2015. (Doc. 32)
28
The Court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement on July 17, 2015. (Doc. 34)
2
1
The court appointed Plaintiff as the Class Representative, and authorized Plaintiff to seek an award
2
enhancement up to $5,000 for her representation of the class. (Id. at 16-17) In addition, the Court
3
appointed the law firm of Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP as the Class Counsel, and authorized Class
4
Counsel to seek fees that did not “exceed 33 1/3% of the gross settlement amount and costs up to
5
$8,500.” (Id.) The Court appointed ILYM Group, Inc. as the Claims Administrator. (Id. at 16) On
6
July 26, 2015, the Court approved the Class Notice that conveyed this information to Class Members.
7
(Doc. 36) In addition, the Class Notice Packet informed Class Members of the nature of the action, the
8
class definition approved by the Court, claims and issues to be resolved, how a Class Member could
9
chose to be excluded from the Settlement Class, the time and method to opt-out, and the binding effect
10
of a class judgment. (See id.)
The Claims Administrator mailed the Class Notice Packet to 766 Class Members identified by
11
12
the parties. (Doc. 39-1 at 3, Molina Decl. ¶¶ 5-6) Of the mailed packets, 23 were undeliverable
13
because the Claims Administrator was unable to locate a current address. (Id., ¶10) Class Members
14
were instructed to postmark any objections to the settlement or return the Request for Exclusion Form
15
no later than September 11, 2015. (Doc. 34 at 17) The Claims Administrator received four Requests
16
for Exclusion. (Doc. 39-1 at 4, Molina Decl. ¶11) No objections were received by the Settlement
17
Administrator or filed with the Court. Accordingly, the Claims Administrator reports there are 762
18
participating class members. (Id. at 4, ¶13)
Plaintiff filed her motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as approval of a class
19
20
representative incentive payment, on August 21, 2015. (Doc. 37) She filed the unopposed motion for
21
final approval of the Settlement on August 28, 2015. (Doc. 38) Because the Court found the matters
22
suitable for decision without oral arguments, the motions were taken under submission pursuant to
23
Local Rule 230(g) on September 21, 2015.
THE SETTLEMENT TERMS
24
Pursuant to the proposed settlement (“the Settlement”), the parties agree to a gross settlement
25
26
amount up to $300,000. (Doc. 38-1 at 21, Settlement § 2.1)
27
I.
28
Payment Terms
The settlement fund will cover payments to Class Members including “all applicants who
3
1
applied for employment with Jaco Oil Company, Fastrip Food Stores, Inc., Fastrip Food Stores of
2
Fresno, Inc., Fastrip Financial, LP, Instant Storage, LLC, Brooke Utilities, Inc., and/or Wholesale
3
Fuels, Inc. and for whom Defendants obtained and/or used a ‘Consumer Report’1 during the
4
‘Settlement Period.’” (Doc. 32-1 at 17, Settlement § 1.1) In addition, the Settlement provides for
5
payments to Class Counsel and to the Claims Administrator. (Id. at 21-22; Settlement § 2.1)
6
Specifically, the Settlement provides for the following payments from the gross settlement fund:
7
The Class Representative will receive up to $5,000;
8
Class Counsel will receive no more than $100,000, which equals 33.3% of the gross
settlement fund and, and up to $7,250 for expenses; and
The Claims Administrator will receive up to $10,000 for fees and expenses.
9
10
11
(Doc. 32-1 at 23-25, Settlement § 3; Doc. 37 at 11) After these payments have been made, the
12
remaining money – estimated to total approximately $177,000 – will be distributed to Class Members.
13
(See Doc. 32-1 at 18, Settlement § 1.5)
14
The funds to Class Members will be distributed to two different subclasses: class members
15
hired by Defendants (“Group I”) and class members who were not hired by Defendants (“Group II”).
16
(Doc. 38 at 10) Class Members were not required to submit claim forms to receive a settlement share,
17
and will be compensated as long as they did not return the Request for Exclusion. (Doc. 38-1 at 22-
18
23, Settlement § 2.3) Class Members in Group I will receive $50 each, and Class Members in Group
19
II “will receive approximately $350.” (Doc. 38 at 10-11)
20
II.
Releases
21
The Settlement provides that at the time final judgment is entered, Plaintiffs and Class
22
Members, other than those who elect not to participate in the Settlement, release Defendants from the
23
claims arising in the class period. Specifically, the released claims for Class Members include:
24
any and all claims regarding Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”), or other similar state or
25
26
27
28
1
Pursuant to the Settlement, “Consumer Report” includes “any credit, consumer, and/or investigative report as
may be applied by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”), the Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code §1786, et seq. (“ICRAA”), the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act,
California Civil Code § 1785.1, et seq. (“CCRAA”), or any other similar state or federal laws.” (Doc. 38-1 at 18,
Settlement § 1.7)
4
federal laws, related to or arising from the alleged facts and other claims asserted in,
or that could have been asserted in, the operative First Amended Complaint;
1
2
any and all claims regarding Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code § 1786, et
seq. (“ICRAA”), or other similar state or federal laws, related to or arising from the
alleged facts and other claims asserted in, or that could have been asserted in, the
operative First Amended Complaint;
any and all claims regarding Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code § 1785.1, et seq.
(“CCRAA”), or other similar state or federal laws, related to or arising from the
alleged facts and other claims asserted in, or that could have been asserted in, the
operative First Amended Complaint; [and]
any and all claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, restitution, and/or
fraudulent business practices brought pursuant to the California Business &
Professions Code § 17200 and related to or arising from the alleged facts and other
claims asserted in, or that could have been asserted in the operative First Amended
Complaint
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(Doc. 38-1 at 32, Settlement § 5.2)
The release for Plaintiff encompasses more claims than the release of Class Members. (See
13
14
Doc. 38-1 at 30-31, Settlement § 5.3) Specifically, Plaintiff’s release provides that she releases
15
Defendants “from any and all claims, charges, complaints, liens, demands, causes of action,
16
obligations, damages and liabilities, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, that the Class
17
Representative had, now has, or may hereafter claim to have against the Released Parties arising out of,
18
or relating in any way to, the Class Representative’s application for employment with Defendants, or
19
otherwise relating to the Defendants or the Released Parties.” (Id. at 30)
20
III.
Objections and Opt-Out Procedure
The Class Notice Packet explained claims that were to be released by Class Members as part of
21
22
the Settlement. (See Doc. 35, Exh. 1; Doc. 36) Any class member who wished had an opportunity to
23
object or elect not to participate in the Settlement. In addition, the Class Notice Packet explained the
24
procedures for Class Members to claim object to the terms of the Settlement, or to complete and return
25
the Request for Exclusion Form. (Id.)
26
IV.
Service of the Notice Packets and Responses Received
27
On July 17, 2015, the Court ordered the Settlement Administrator to mail the Class Notice
28
Packet to Class Members no later than August 13, 2015. (Doc. 34 at 17) ILYM Group served the
5
1
Class Notice Packet to the extent possible. (See generally, Doc. 39-1) The Class Notice Packets were
2
mailed on August 8, 2015, via the United States Postal Service, to the 766 Class Members identified by
3
Defendants. (Doc. 39-1 at 3, Molina Decl. ¶¶ 6-7)
According to Stephanie Molina, Operations Manager for ILYM Group, 98 Class Notice Packets
4
5
were returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 39-1 at 3, Molina Decl. ¶ 8) ILYM Group attempted to locate
6
the current addresses for these individuals, and re-mailed 91 of the Notice Packets. (Id., ¶ 9) After the
7
additional searches for correct addresses, a total of 23 Notice Packets were “deemed undeliverable,”
8
including seven for which updated addresses were not located and sixteen packets that were returned to
9
ILYM Group a second time. (Id., ¶ 10) ILYM Group received four requests for exclusion from the
10
Settlement. (Id., ¶ 11) No objections to the Settlement were mailed to ILYM Group (id.at 4, ¶ 12) or
11
filed with the Court
Based upon the number of Class Notice Packets successfully served and the requests for
12
13
exclusion received by ILYM Group, Ms. Molina reports there is “a total of 762 Participating Class
14
Members.” (Doc. 39-1 at 4, Molina ¶ 13) “Of the 762 Participating Class Members, 312 have been
15
designated as Group I (those applicants that were hired by Defendants) and 450 have been designated
16
as Group II (those applicants that were not hired by Defendants).” (Id.)
APPROVAL OF A CLASS SETTLEMENT
17
18
19
I.
Legal Standard
When parties settle the action prior to class certification, the Court has an obligation to “peruse
20
the proposed compromise to ratify both the propriety of the certification and the fairness of the
21
settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). Approval of a class settlement is
22
generally a two-step process. First, the Court must assess whether a class exists. Id. (citing Amchem
23
Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997)). Second, the Court must “determine whether the
24
proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Id. (citing Hanlon v. Chrysler
25
Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 2998)). The decision to approve or reject a settlement is within
26
the Court’s discretion. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.
27
28
6
1
II.
Certification of a Settlement Class2
Class certification is governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
2
3
provides that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf
4
of all.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Under the terms of the Settlement, the proposed class is comprised of all
5
applicants who applied for employment with Jaco Oil Company; Fastrip Food Stores, Inc.; Fastrip Food
6
Stores of Fresno, Inc.; Fastrip Financial, LP; Instant Storage, LLC, Brooke Utilities, Inc.; and
7
Wholesale Fuels, Inc. and for whom Defendants obtained and/or used a Consumer Report during the
8
relevant time period. (Doc. 38-1 at 17, Settlement § 1.1)
Parties seeking class certification bear the burden of demonstrating the elements of Rule 23(a)
9
10
are satisfied, and “must affirmatively demonstrate . . . compliance with the Rule.” Wal-Mart Stores,
11
Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011); Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 563 F.2d 1304,
12
1308 (9th Cir. 1977). If an action meets the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the Court must consider
13
whether the class is maintainable under one or more of the three alternatives set forth in Rule 23(b).
14
Narouz v. Charter Communs., LLC, 591 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, Plaintiff contends that
15
“each of the elements of both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) are met.” (Doc. 38 at 14)
16
A.
Rule 23(a) Requirements
17
The prerequisites of Rule 23(a) “effectively limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed
18
by the named plaintiff’s claims.” General Telephone Co. of the Southwest. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147,
19
155-56 (1982). Certification of a class is proper if:
(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.
20
21
22
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). These prerequisites are generally referred to as numerosity, commonality,
24
typicality, and adequacy of representation. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 156.
1.
25
Numerosity
A class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26
27
2
28
Because the class was only conditionally certified upon preliminary approval of the Settlement, final certification of the
Settlement Class is required.
7
1
23(a)(1). This requires the Court to consider “specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute
2
limitations.” General Telephone Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980). Although there is not a
3
specific numerical threshold, joining more than one hundred plaintiffs is impracticable. See Immigrant
4
Assistance Project of Los Angeles Cnt. Fed’n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 869 (9th Cir. 2002)
5
(“find[ing] the numerosity requirement . . . satisfied solely on the basis of the number of ascertained
6
class members . . . and listing thirteen cases in which courts certified classes with fewer than 100
7
members”). Here, Plaintiffs reports that “Defendants’ records demonstrated there are 766 Class
8
Members,” of which four elected to be excluded. (Doc. 38 at 15; see also Doc. 39-1 at 4, Molina ¶ 13)
9
Therefore, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.
10
11
2.
Commonality
Rule 23(a) requires “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
12
Commonality “does not mean merely that [class members] have all suffered a violation of the same
13
pro-vision of law,” but “claims must depend upon a common contention.” Wal-Mart Stores, 131 S. Ct.
14
at 2551. In this case, Plaintiff asserts there are common facts in this case, because Defendants asked
15
prospective employees, including Class Members, “to fill out a ‘Credit and Background Check
16
Authorization’ form as part of the application process, which Defendants use to obtain and use the
17
Class Members’ consumer reports.” (Doc. 38 at 15) Further, Plaintiff contends there is a common
18
question in the action: “whether these authorizations and uniform policies by which Defendants
19
obtained and used applicants’ consumer reports violated the FCRA, ICRAA, and CCRAA.” (Id.) Thus,
20
the Court finds the commonality requirement is satisfied.
21
22
3.
Typicality
This requirement requires a finding that the “claims or defenses of the representative parties are
23
typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The standards under this rule
24
are permissive, and a claim or defense is not required to be identical, but rather “reasonably co-
25
extensive” with those of the absent class members. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. “The test of typicality is
26
whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which
27
is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same
28
course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal
8
1
quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Kayes v. Pac. Lumber Co., 51 F.3d 1449, 1463 (9th Cir.
2
1995) (the typicality requirement is satisfied when the named plaintiffs have the same claims as other
3
members of the class and are not subject to unique defenses).
4
Here, Plaintiff alleged that she applied for employment with Defendant Jaco during the relevant
5
time period. (Doc. 1 at 4, ¶ 10; Doc. 25 at 7, ¶ 20) Because Plaintiff was subjected to the same polices
6
and application procedures as the Settlement Class Members, the typicality requirement is satisfied.
7
8
9
4.
Fair and Adequate Representation
Absentee class members must be adequately represented for judgment to be binding upon them.
Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42-43 (1940). Accordingly, this prerequisite is satisfied if the
10
representative “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
11
“[R]esolution of this issue requires that two questions be addressed: (a) do the named plaintiffs and
12
their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (b) will the named plaintiffs
13
and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec.
14
Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020).
15
16
a.
Class representative
Plaintiff seeks appointment as the Class Representative of the Settlement Class, and asserts that
17
she has “always maintained the best interest of the Class while performing [her] Class Representative
18
duties.” (Doc. 37-2 at 6, DeSantos Decl. ¶ 13) Further, the parties do not report that there any conflicts
19
between Plaintiff and the putative class members. Thus, it appears Plaintiff will fairly and adequately
20
represent the interests of the class.
21
22
b.
Class counsel
Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP seek appointment as counsel for the settlement class.
23
Proposed Class Counsel report that they “are experienced in litigating class action cases and in serving
24
as class counsel.” (Doc. 38 at 16, citing Stafford Decl. ¶¶28-31) Further, Plaintiff reports, “There are
25
no known personal affiliations or familial relationships between the plaintiff and proposed class
26
counsel.” (Id.) Defendants do not oppose the appointment or assert Plaintiff’s counsel are inadequate
27
to represent the interest of the class. Therefore, the Court finds the lawyers at Shanberg, Stafford &
28
Bartz LLP satisfy the adequacy requirements.
9
1
B.
2
As noted above, once the requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, a class may only be certified
3
if it is maintainable under Rule 23(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b); see also Narouz, 591 F.3d at 1266. Here,
4
Plaintiff asserts that certification of the Class is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires a
5
finding that (1) “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
6
affecting only individual members,” and (2) “a class action is superior to other available methods for
7
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” These requirements are generally called the
8
“predominance” and “superiority” requirements. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022-23; see also Wal-mart
9
Stores, 131 S. Ct. at 2559 (“(b)(3) requires the judge to make findings about predominance and
10
11
12
Certification of a Class under Rule 23(b)(3)
superiority before allowing the class”).
1.
Predominance
The predominance inquiry focuses on “the relationship between the common and individual
13
issues” and “tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
14
representation.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022 (citing Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 623). The Ninth Circuit
15
explained, “[A] central concern of the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test is whether ‘adjudication of
16
common issues will help achieve judicial economy.’” Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571
17
F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th
18
Cir. 2001)). In this case, Plaintiff asserts that common issues predominate over any individual issues
19
because “all the liability issues in this case can be determined based on common evidence, namely, that
20
Defendants utilized a uniform background check policy as part of their application process, and
21
uniformly obtained and used applicants’ consumer reports in alleged violation of the FCRA, ICRAA,
22
and CCRAA.” (Doc. 38 at 17-18)
23
24
2.
Superiority
The superiority inquiry requires a determination of “whether objectives of the particular class
25
action procedure will be achieved in the particular case.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1023 (citation omitted).
26
This tests whether “class litigation of common issues will reduce litigation costs and promote greater
27
efficiency.” Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 1996). Pursuant to Rule
28
23(b)(3), the Court must consider four non-exclusive factors to determine whether a class is a superior
10
1
method of adjudication, including (1) the class members’ interest in individual litigation, (2) other
2
pending litigation, (3) the desirability of concentrating the litigation in one forum, and (4) difficulties
3
with the management of the class action.
a.
4
Class members’ interest in individual litigation
5
This factor is relevant when class members have suffered sizeable damages or have an
6
emotional stake in the litigation. See In re N. Dist. of Cal., Dalkon Shield, Etc., 693 F.2d 847, 856 (9th
7
Cir. 1982)). Here, Plaintiff reports “the claimants in Group I will receive $50, and those in Group II
8
will receive approximately $350.” (Doc. 38 at 18) Further, no objections were made to the Settlement,
9
and only four individuals elected to be excluded from the Settlement. Because there is no evidence that
10
class members are interested in pursuing their own actions, this factor weighs in favor of class
11
certification.
12
b.
Other pending litigation
13
According to Plaintiff, this is the only action she is aware of against Defendants involving the
14
claims brought by Plaintiff. (Doc. 38 at 18, citing Stafford Decl. ¶ 38) Further, Defendants have not
15
identified any other pending litigation. As a result, this factor weighs in favor of certification.
16
17
c.
Desirability of concentrating litigation in one forum
Because common issues predominate on Plaintiff’s class claims, “presentation of the evidence
18
in one consolidated action will reduce unnecessarily duplicative litigation and promote judicial
19
economy.” Galvan v. KDI Distrib., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127602, at *37 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2011).
20
Moreover, because the parties have resolved the claims through the Settlement, this factor does not
21
weigh against class certification.
22
23
d.
Difficulties in managing a class action
The Supreme Court explained that, in general, this factor “encompasses the whole range of
24
practical problems that may render the class format inappropriate for a particular suit.” Eisen v.
25
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 164 (1974). However, because the parties have reached a
26
settlement agreement, it does not appear there are any problems with managing the action. Therefore,
27
this factor weighs in favor of class certification.
28
Because the factors set forth in Rule 23(b) weigh in favor of certification, the Settlement Class
11
1
is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to certify the Settlement Class is
2
GRANTED.
3
III.
Approval of the Settlement
4
Settlement of a class action requires approval of the Court, which may be granted “only after a
5
hearing and on finding that [the settlement] is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).
6
Approval is required to ensure settlement is consistent with Plaintiff’s fiduciary obligations to the class.
7
See Ficalora v. Lockheed Cal. Co., 751 F.2d 995, 996 (9th Cir. 1985). The Ninth Circuit has identified
8
several factors to determine whether a settlement agreement meets these standards, including:
11
the strength of 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;3 and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
12
Staton, 327 F.3d at 959 (citation omitted). Further, a court should consider whether settlement is “the
13
product of collusion among the negotiating parties.” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d at 458
14
(citing Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1290 (9th Cir. 1992)). In reviewing the settlement
15
terms, “[t]he court need not reach any ultimate conclusions on the contested issues of fact and law
16
which underlie the merits of the dispute.” Class Plaintiffs, 955 F.2d at 1291(internal quotations and
17
citation omitted).
18
A.
19
When evaluating the strength of a case, the Court should “evaluate objectively the strengths and
20
weaknesses inherent in the litigation and the impact of those considerations on the parties’ decisions to
21
reach these agreements.” Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964, 975 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
22
(quoting In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 720 F.Supp 1379, 1388 (D. Az. 1989)).
9
10
23
Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case
According to Plaintiff, “Defendants’ background check policy facially violated the FCRA,
24
ICRAA, and CCRAA by unlawfully using authorization forms that failed to comply with each of the
25
statutes’ disclosure requirements and that Defendants failed to properly notify applicants of adverse
26
actions taken after Defendants obtained and used the applicants’ consumer reports.” (Doc. 38 at 20)
27
28
3
Because there is not a government participant in this action, this factor does not weigh in the Court’s analysis.
12
1
However, Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants may be able to assert the violations were not willful,
2
making it challenging to prove liability. (Id. at 21) Given the challenge identified by Plaintiff, this
3
factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval of the Settlement.
4
B.
Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further Litigation
5
Approval of settlement is “preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain
6
results.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 529 (C.D. Cal. 2004). If
7
the proposed settlement were to be rejected, the parties would have to engage in further litigation,
8
including seeking class certification and discovery on the issue of damages. Plaintiff contends that
9
“[her] claims, much of which rest on a showing of technical violations, have faced judicial resistance
10
in some courts.” (Doc. 32 at 34, citing, e.g., Syed v. M-I LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150748 at *8
11
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014)). On the other hand, the proposed settlement provides for immediate
12
recovery for the class. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement.
13
C.
Risk of Maintaining Class Status throughout the Trial
14
Approval of settlement is “preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain results.”
15
Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 529. If the settlement were to be rejected, the parties
16
would have to engage in further litigation, including certification of a class and discovery on the issue
17
of damages. Plaintiff’s counsel estimated that Plaintiff “had a 70% chance of certifying the claims in
18
this case and prevailing on the merits.” (Doc. 37-1 at 5, Stafford Decl. ¶ 16) Further, she previously
19
acknowledged that “[e]ven if Plaintiff was to prevail in certification, the costs for both parties would
20
increase and Plaintiff would face ‘substantial risk of incurring the expense of a trial without any
21
recovery.’” (Doc. 32 at 33, quoting In re Toys “R” Us- Dec., Inc. Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions
22
Act (FACTA) Litigation, 295 F.R.D. 438, 451 (C.D. Cal. 2014)). Due to the risk to the claims of class
23
members, this factor supports approval of the Settlement.
24
D.
Amount Offered in Settlement
25
The Ninth Circuit observed “the very essence of a settlement is compromise, ‘a yielding of
26
absolutes and an abandoning of highest hopes.’” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d
27
615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). Thus, when analyzing the amount offered in settlement,
28
the Court should examine “the complete package taken as a whole,” and the amount is “not to be
13
1
judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what might have been achieved by the
2
negotiators.” Id., 688 F.2d at 625, 628.
3
Here, Plaintiff asserts “[t]he proposed recovery for Settlement Class Members ($50 for Group I
4
members and $350-$375 for Group II members) is substantial.” (Doc. 38 at 24) She explains: “For
5
those Class Members receiving $50, that represents 50% of the potential $100 recovery. [Citations]
6
And for those Class Members in Group II, who will receive approximately $350, the recovery is
7
substantially better than many other settlements that have been approved in similar FCRA cases
8
recently.” (Id., internal citations omitted). Plaintiff believes this supports approval of the settlement,
9
because the total settlement fund “represents a recovery of approximately 67%” of the total calculated
10
11
damages of $445,200. (Id. at 23)
Notably, “[t]he fact that a proposed settlement may only amount to a fraction of the potential
12
recovery does not, in and of itself, mean that the proposed settlement is grossly inadequate and should
13
be disapproved.” Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998). Rather,
14
as noted by the Ninth Circuit, “parties, counsel, mediators, and district judges naturally arrive at a
15
reasonable range for settlement by considering the likelihood of a plaintiffs’ or defense verdict, the
16
potential recovery, and the chances of obtaining it, discounted to present value.” Rodriguez v. West
17
Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2009). Based upon the parties’ agreement that this
18
amount provides adequate compensation for the class claims, the Court finds the amount offered in
19
settlement supports approval of the settlement agreement.
20
E.
Extent of Discovery Completed and Stage of the Proceedings
21
The Court is “more likely to approve a settlement if most of the discovery is completed because
22
it suggests that the parties arrived at a compromise based on a full understanding of the legal and
23
factual issues surrounding the case.” Adoma, 913 F. Supp. 2d at 977 (quoting DIRECTV, Inc., 221
24
F.R.D. at 528). Here, Plaintiff reports the parties engaged in discovery prior to mediation, and
25
“Defendants produced hundreds of pages of documents, including exemplar background check forms
26
used in the hiring process, company policies and procedure manuals, emails and other relevant
27
documents enabling Plaintiff to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of her claims.” (Doc. 38 at 25-
28
26, citing Doc. 37-1 at 3, Stafford Decl. ¶ 5) Further, Plaintiff reports she “retained an expert to
14
1
prepare a damage exposure analysis to calculate the maximum amount of Defendants’ potential
2
liability,” and this information “formed much of the basis for the settlement negotiations.” (Id. at 26)
3
Given the discovery completed by the parties prior to mediation, it appears that the parties made
4
informed decisions, which lead to resolution of the matter. Therefore, this factor supports preliminary
5
approval of the Settlement.
6
F.
Experience and Views of Counsel
7
Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that “the Settlement fair and reasonable, and that final approval of the
8
Settlement would best serve the interests of class members because the extremely favorable result
9
achieved by the Settlement outweighs the risks and uncertainty of continued litigation, weighs strongly
10
in favor of final approval.” (Doc. 38 at 27) Similarly, Defendants indicated in the Settlement that they
11
believe it “is fair, adequate, and reasonable,” and a “good faith compromise of the claims raised in the
12
Litigation, based upon their assessment of the mutual risks and costs of further litigation.” (Doc. 38-1
13
at 42, Settlement § 9) Given counsels’ experience and familiarity with the facts, their recommendation
14
that the settlement be approved is entitled to significant weight. Nat’l Rural Telecomms., 221 F.R.D. at
15
528 (“Great weight is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely acquainted
16
with the facts of the underlying litigation”); see also Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., 297
17
F.R.D. 431, 447 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (“In considering the adequacy of the terms of a settlement, the trial
18
court is entitled to, and should, rely upon the judgment of experienced counsel for the parties.”)
19
Consequently, this factor supports approval of the Settlement.
20
G.
Reaction of Class Members to the Proposed Settlement
21
Class Members seem to have demonstrated a positive reaction to the Settlement in light of the
22
fact the Settlement Administrator received only for Requests for Exclusion forms. (Doc. 39-1 at 4,
23
Molina Decl. ¶11), and no objections were received by either the Settlement Administrator or the
24
Court. Significantly, “the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action
25
settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class action settlement are
26
favorable to the class members.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms., 221 F.R.D. at 529. Because the number of
27
requests for exclusion and objections received are vastly outweighed by the remaining class members
28
who have indicated their consent to the terms of settlement, this factor weighs in favor the settlement.
15
1
H.
Collusion between Negotiating Parties
2
The inquiry of collusion addresses the possibility that the settlement agreement is the result of
3
either “overt misconduct by the negotiators” or improper incentives of class members at the expense of
4
others. Staton, 327 F.3d at 960. Plaintiff notes that the parties here “engaged the services of a highly
5
respected mediator, negotiated over the span of a day of mediation and seven weeks of post-mediation
6
discussions, and accepted a settlement premised on a mediator’s proposal.” (Doc. 38 at 28) The Ninth
7
Circuit has determined the “presence of a neutral mediator [is] a factor weighing in favor of a finding of
8
non-collusiveness.” In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011).
9
Because there is no indication the agreement was the product of collusive conduct, this factor weighs in
10
favor of approval of the Settlement.
11
IV.
12
Conclusion
The factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of final approval of the Settlement,
13
which appears to be is fair, reasonable, and adequate as required by Rule 23. Therefore, final approval
14
of the Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.
15
16
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs “authorized by law or by agreement of the parties” may be
17
awarded pursuant to Rule 23(h). The Settlement authorizes Class Counsel to seek attorneys’ fees that
18
do “will not exceed 33.3% of the Gross Fund Value.” (Doc. 38-1 at 23, Settlement § 3.1) Here, Class
19
Counsel requests “an award of 33 1/3% of the gross settlement amount, or $100,000.” (Doc. 37 at 10)
20
Under the “common fund” doctrine, attorneys who create a common fund for a class may be
21
awarded their fees and costs from the fund. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029; Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444
22
U.S. 472, 478 (1980) (“a lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than
23
himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole”). An award
24
from the common fund “rests on the perception that persons who obtain the benefit of a lawsuit without
25
contributing to its cost are unjustly enriched at the successful litigant’s expense,” and as such
26
application of the doctrine is appropriate “when each member of a certified class has an undisputed and
27
mathematically ascertainable claim to part of a lump-sum judgment recovered on his behalf.” Boeing
28
Co., 444 U.S. at 478. Here, the Settlement applies distribution formulas to determine the amount paid
16
1
to participating Class Members, and application of the common fund doctrine is appropriate.
2
I.
3
Legal Standards
“[A] district court must carefully assess the reasonableness of a fee amount spelled out in a
4
class action settlement agreement” to determine whether the request is “fundamentally fair, adequate,
5
and reasonable.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 963 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)).
6
To do so, the Court must “carefully assess the reasonableness of a fee amount spelled out in a class
7
action settlement agreement.” Id.
8
A court “may not uncritically accept a fee request,” but must review the time billed and assess
9
whether it is reasonable in light of the work performed and the context of the case. See Common Cause
10
v. Jones, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1076, 1079 (C.D. Cal. 2002); see also McGrath v. County of Nevada, 67 F.3d
11
248, 254 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting a court may not adopt representations regarding the reasonableness
12
of time expended without independently reviewing the record); Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743
13
F.2d 1378, 1385 (9th Cir. 1984) (remanding an action for a thorough inquiry on the fee request where
14
“the district court engaged in the ‘regrettable practice’ of adopting the findings drafted by the prevailing
15
party wholesale” and explaining a court should not “accept[] uncritically [the] representations
16
concerning the time expended”).
17
The party seeking fees bears the burden of establishing that the fees and costs were reasonably
18
necessary to achieve the results obtained. See Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th
19
2000). Therefore, a fee applicant must provide time records documenting the tasks completed and the
20
amount of time spent. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 424 (1983); Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
21
Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2007). “Where the documentation of hours in inadequate, the
22
district court may reduce hours accordingly.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.
23
Significantly, when fees are to be paid from a common fund, as here, the relationship between
24
the class members and class counsel “turns adversarial.” In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys.
25
Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1302 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit observed:
26
27
[A]t the fee-setting stage, plaintiff’s counsel, otherwise a fiduciary for the class, has
become a claimant against the fund created for the benefit of the class. It is obligatory,
therefore, for the trial judge to act with a jealous regard to the rights of those who are
interested in the fund in determining what a proper fee award is.
28
17
1
Id. at 1302 (internal quotation marks, citation omitted). As a result the district court must assume a
2
fiduciary role for the class members in evaluating a request for an award of attorney fees from the
3
common fund. Id.; Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 968 (9th Cir. 2009) (“when fees are
4
to come out of the settlement fund, the district court has a fiduciary role for the class”).
The Ninth Circuit determined both a lodestar and percentage of the common fund calculation
5
6
“have [a] place in determining what would be reasonable compensation for creating a common fund.”
7
Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989). Whether the Court
8
applies the lodestar or percentage method, the Ninth Circuit requires “fee awards in common fund
9
cases be reasonable under the circumstances.” Florida v. Dunne, 915 F.2d 542, 545 (9th Cir. 1990);
10
see also Staton, 327 F.3d at 964 (fees must be “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable”).
11
A.
Lodestar Method
12
The lodestar method calculates attorney fees by “by multiplying the number of hours reasonably
13
expended by counsel on the particular matter times a reasonable hourly rate.” Florida , 915 F.2d at 545
14
n. 3 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433). The product of this computation, the “lodestar” amount, yields a
15
presumptively reasonable fee. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013);
16
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). Next, the Court may adjust the
17
lodestar upward or downward using a “multiplier” considering the following factors adopted by the
18
Ninth Circuit in a determination of the reasonable fees:
(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved,
(3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other
employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6)
whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the
circumstances, (8) the amount 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.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). However, the Court has since
25
suggested that the fixed or continent nature of a fee and the “desirability” of a case are no longer
26
relevant factors. Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance v. City of Seward, 640 F.3d 1087, 1095, n.5
27
(9th Cir. 2011) (citing Davis v. City of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1546 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992)).
28
///
18
1
B.
Percentage from the common fund
2
As the name suggests, under this method, “the court makes a fee award on the basis of some
3
percentage of the common fund.” Florida, 915 F.2d at 545 n. 3; see also Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert,
4
444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980) (“a lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than
5
himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole”). An award
6
from the common fund “rests on the perception that persons who obtain the benefit of a lawsuit without
7
contributing to its cost are unjustly enriched at the successful litigant’s expense,” and as such
8
application of the doctrine is appropriate “when each member of a certified class has an undisputed and
9
mathematically ascertainable claim to part of a lump-sum judgment recovered on his behalf.” Boeing
10
Co., 444 U.S. at 478.
In the Ninth Circuit, the typical range of acceptable attorneys’ fees is 20% to 30% of the total
11
12
settlement value, with 25% considered the benchmark. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d
13
1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002); Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029 (observing “[t]his circuit has established 25 %
14
of the common fund as a benchmark award for attorney fees”); In re Pacific Enterprises Securities
15
Litigation, 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Twenty-five percent is the ‘benchmark’ that district
16
courts should award in common fund cases”). The percentage may be adjusted below or above the
17
benchmark, but the Court’s reasons for adjustment must be clear. Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v.
18
Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989).
To assess whether the percentage requested is reasonable, courts may consider a number of
19
20
factors, including “the extent to which class counsel achieved exceptional results for the class, whether
21
the case was risky for class counsel, whether counsel’s performance generated benefits beyond the cash
22
settlement fund, the market rate for the particular field of law (in some circumstances), the burdens
23
class counsel experienced while litigating the case (e.g., cost, duration, foregoing other work), and
24
whether the case was handled on a contingency basis.” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litigation,
25
779 F.3d 934, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
26
II.
27
28
Evaluation of the fees requested
“The district court has discretion to use the lodestar method or the percentage of the fund
method in common fund cases.” Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting In re
19
1
Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 109 F.3d 602, 607 (9th Cir.
2
1997)). Notably, the Court must consider similar factors under either method. See Kerr, 526 F.2d at
3
70; In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litigation, 779 F.3d at 954-55. Further, the Court may “appl[y]
4
the lodestar method as a crosscheck” to determine whether the percentage requested is reasonable.
5
Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050, n.5.
6
A.
Time and labor required
7
Class Counsel provided a time sheet for the attorneys who worked on this action, including the
8
number of hours and rates billed by each through the date of the filing their motion for an award of
9
fees. (See Doc. 37-1, Stafford Decl. Exh. 1) The records provided by Class Counsel indicate they
10
spent 371.70 hours on tasks related to this action, including research, discovery, drafting the complaint
11
and an amended complaint, communicating “with approximately 20 putative class members,” and
12
negotiating a settlement. (See generally id. at 3, 15-39) However, given the total number of hours,
13
there is no evidence that Mr. Stafford, Mr. Shanberg, or Mr. Bartz were precluded from other work
14
because of the pendency of this litigation.
15
B.
16
Courts have recognized consistently that the result achieved is a major factor to be considered in
17
making a fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436; Wilcox v. City of Reno, 42 F.3d 550, 554 (9th Cir. 1994).
18
Here, Plaintiff reports that the settlement of $300,000 “represents approximately a 67% recovery of the
19
possible damages.” (Doc. 37 at 14) Of the total award, “Class Members in Group 1 will receive $50,
20
while those in Group 2 will receive approximately $350.” (Id.) Class Counsel argues that these results
21
“are substantial when compared to other cases pursuing claims under the FCRA, the ICRAA, and the
22
CCRAA.” (Id.) As examples, Class Counsel identify cases from around the country where the
23
settlement results range from $22.44 to $200 per class member:
24
25
26
27
Results obtained for the class
Ellis v. Swift, 3:13-CV-00473-JAG (E.D. Va. 2013) - $50 for Group 1; $50 less fees and
costs for Group 2;
Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, DKC 11-1823 (D. Md. 2012)- $38-$107 per class member;
Pitt v. Kmart, 3:11-cv-697 (E.D. Va. 2013) - $29.50 - $59 per class member;
White v. CRST, Inc., 1:11 cv-2615 (N.D. Ohio 2012) – $125- $200 per person;
28
20
1
Bell v. US Express, Inc., 1:11-cv-00181 (E.D. Tn. 2013) - $22.44 per person;
2
Lavalle v. Chex Systems, Inc., 8:08-cv-01383 (C.D. Cal. 2011) - $82 per person;
3
Knights v. Publix Super Markets, 3:14-cv-00720 (M.D. Tn. 2014) - $48.55 per person;
4
Ford, et al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. dba Chuck E. Cheese’s, No. 3:14-CV-677 JLS
(JLB) (S.D. Cal. 2015) - $38 for some claimants, up to $101 for the remaining claimants.
5
6
(Doc. 37 at 14-15) Further, Class Counsel report that “Defendants have indicated that they changed
7
their background check policies after this case was filed, conferring a substantial non-monetary benefit
8
on current and future applicants for employment with Defendants.” (Id. at 15) Accordingly, the Court
9
finds these results are exceptional when compared to the results achieved in other actions, and support
10
the request for fees exceeding the benchmark. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048 ( “[e]xceptional results
11
are a relevant circumstance” to an adjustment from the benchmark).
12
C.
13
The risk of costly litigation and trial is an important factor in determining the fee award.
14
Chemical Bank v. City of Seattle, 19 F.3d 1297, 1299-1301 (9th Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court
15
explained, “the risk of loss in a particular case is a product of two factors: (1) the legal and factual
16
merits of the claim, and (2) the difficulty of establishing those merits.” City of Burlington v. Dague,
17
505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992).
18
Risk undertaken by counsel
Here, as discussed above, Plaintiff admitted that even if she were to prevail on a motion for
19
class certification, she would face “substantial risk of incurring the expense of a trial without any
20
recovery.” (Doc. 32 at 33) Class Counsel report, “From the outset of the litigation, Defendants
21
maintained that the alleged violations at issue were not ‘willful’ as defined under the statutes.” (Doc.
22
37 at 15) They acknowledge “the technical violations upon which Plaintiff’s claims were based may
23
not have been enough to successfully pursue the case if the parties had not reached a settlement.” (Id.
24
at 15-16, citing, e.g., Shlahtichman v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 615 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2010) [defendant not
25
liable for willful violation if its reading of the statute was objectively reasonable]; Syed v. M-I LLC,
26
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150748 at *8-10 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014) (finding the defendant’s inclusion of
27
a liability waiver provision in an FCRA disclosure was not a willful violation)).
28
Further, Class Counsel contend the fee request is appropriate because they “agree[d] to take this
21
1
case on a contingency basis,” which “includes the risk that Class Counsel would recover nothing for
2
their time in the event Defendants successfully defended the case.” (Doc. 37 at 17) However, the
3
Ninth Circuit held that the distinction between a contingency arrangement and a fixed fee arrangement
4
alone does not merit an enhancement from the benchmark. See In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab.
5
Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 n.7. (9th Cir. 2011) (“whether the fee was fixed or contingent” is “no longer
6
valid” as a factor in evaluating reasonable fees) (citation omitted).
7
Although Class Counsel admit that they may have faced a challenge to the merits of Plaintiff’s
8
claims, the case was not complex and Class Counsel did not face extreme risks in pursuing this
9
litigation. For example, in Vizcaino, the plaintiffs “lost in the district court—once on the merits, once
10
on the class definition” and the class counsel twice “succeeded in reviving their case on appeal.” Id.,
11
290 F.3d at 1303. The court found the pursuit of the case was “extremely risky” given the absence of
12
supporting precedents” and the challenges faced in the appeals. Id. As such, the risks supported an
13
award of fees slightly above the benchmark. Id. at 1048-49. In contrast, here, though Defendants
14
denied liability, settlement was achieved without contentious litigation, and Class Counsel were not
15
faced with a challenge to merits of the claims or the propriety of class certification.
16
D.
Complexity of issues and skill required
17
The complexity of issues and skills required may weigh in favor of a departure from the
18
benchmark fee award. See, e.g., Lopez v. Youngblood, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99289, at *14-15 (E.D.
19
Cal. Sept. 2, 2011) (in determining whether to award the requested fees totaling 28% of the class fund,
20
the Court observed the case involved “complex issues of constitutional law,” and the action
21
“encompassed two categories of class members”); see also In re Heritage Bond Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist.
22
LEXIS 13555, at *66 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) (“Courts have recognized that the novelty, difficulty
23
and complexity of the issues involved are significant factors in determining a fee award”).
24
Class Counsel contend they “have extensive litigation experience and have successfully handled
25
class actions as well as individual claims involving complex matters for several years.” (Doc. 37 at 16-
26
17) They assert, “This experience led to the successful resolution of this case, which resulted in not
27
only compensation for all Class Members, without any reversion to Defendants, but also policy changes
28
by Defendants to ensure compliance with the state and federal statutes and to protect future applicants
22
1
from the violations alleged in the instant case.” (Id. at 17) Accordingly, this factor supports the fees
2
requested by Class Counsel.
3
E.
Length of professional relationship
4
Class Counsel report that Plaintiff first contacted them in April 2014. (Doc. 37 at 17; see also
5
Doc. 37-1 at 15) The parties executed a memorandum of understanding on May 12, 2015, and finalized
6
the proposed settlement on June 10, 2015. (Doc. 32-1 at 57-60) Class Counsel acknowledge “the
7
length of the litigation was not overly extensive,” but assert this “should not be a negative factor.”
8
(Doc. 37 at 17) Rather, Class Counsel argues that this “shows that Plaintiff and Class Counsel were
9
able to efficiently and effectively litigate the case to achieve a settlement that compensates Class
10
Members better than most other settlements in these types of cases.” (Id. at 18) However, the short
11
duration of the professional relationship may warrant an award below the benchmark. See Six Mexican
12
Workers, 904 F.2d at 1311 (finding “the 25 percent standard award” was appropriate although “the
13
litigation lasted more than 13 years”).
14
F.
Awards in similar cases
15
Class Counsel contend that “Courts in the Eastern District have granted fee awards of 30% -
16
33.3% in other class actions, thereby exceeding the ‘benchmark’ of 25%.” (Doc. 37 at 18) As
17
examples, Class Counsel identify Benitez v. Wilbur, No. 08-cv-1122-LJO-GSA (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15,
18
2009) (awarding 33.3% of the common fund in fees) and Alvarado. v. Nederend, No. 1:08-cv-01099
19
OWW-DLB (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2011) (awarding 33.3% of the common fund in fees). Class Counsel
20
assert also that “courts in FCRA cases have awarded fees in excess of 25%, even in cases that resulted
21
in lower compensation amounts to the class members.” (Doc. 37 at 18) Specifically, Class Counsel
22
report: “[I]n Ellis, supra, the court awarded 30%; and in Pitt, supra, the court awarded 30%. Moreover,
23
in other FCRA cases in which the court only awarded 25%, the results obtained were less than those
24
obtained herein. See Singleton, supra, in which the court awarded 25% fees when class members
25
received between $38-$107; and Lavalle, supra, in which the court awarded 25% when class members
26
received $82 per person.” (Doc. 37 at 18)
27
28
However, Class Counsel has not explain how the cases identified are similar to this matter
beyond the fact that the plaintiffs pursued claims on behalf of a class. For example, in Ellis, the
23
1
attorneys worked for 2,266 hours on the matter, prosecuting the matter on behalf of 180,998 class
2
members. (Id., Case No. 3:13-cv-0743-JAG, Docs. 56, 59) Although each class member received only
3
$50, the settlement fund totaled $5,053,500.00. The lodestar amount totaled $851,506, so the requested
4
fees of 30% would result in a multiplier of 1.74. (Ellis, Doc. 56 at 29) The court did not identify the
5
factors considered, but found the fees requested were “fair and reasonable under Fourth Circuit
6
standards.”4 (Ellis, Doc. 59 at 7)
7
G.
Lodestar Crosscheck and Market Rate
8
In general, the first step in determining the lodestar is to determine whether the number of hours
9
expended was reasonable. Fischer, 214 F.3d at 1119. However, when the lodestar is used as a cross-
10
check for a fee award, the Court is not required to perform an “exhaustive cataloguing and review of
11
counsel’s hours.” See Schiller v. David’s Bridal, Inc., 2012 WL 2117001 at *20 (E.D. Cal. June 11,
12
2012) (citing In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d 294, 306 (3d Cir. 2005); In re Immune Response
13
Sec. Litig., 497 F.Supp.2d 1166 (S.D. Cal. 2007)).
14
Assuming the hours reported are reasonable5, the Class Counsel reports the resulting lodestar is
15
$193,927.00. (See Doc. 37-1 at 8, Stafford Decl. ¶ 23) However, the hourly fees used to calculate this
16
amount must be reduced to reflect the market rate within this community. The Supreme Court
17
explained that attorney fees are to be calculated with “the prevailing market rates in the relevant
18
community.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96 and n.11 (1984). In general, the “relevant
19
community” for purposes of determining the prevailing market rate is the “forum in which the district
20
court sits.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, when a case is
21
filed in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, “[t]he Eastern District of California,
22
Fresno Division, is the appropriate forum to establish the lodestar hourly rate . . .” See Jadwin v. County
23
of Kern, 767 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1129 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
24
Class Counsel acknowledge that “[t]he prevailing market rates in the Eastern District appear to
25
4
26
27
28
Notably, the Fourth Circuit has not established a benchmark award for attorney fees. Boyd v. Coventry Health
Care, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 451, 464 (D. Md. 2014).
5
A “lodestar cross-check calculation need entail neither mathematical precision nor bean-counting.” See In re Rite
Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d at 306. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the time sheets and finds the tasks reported
relate solely to this litigation, and it does not appear Class Counsel engaged in practices that would result in over-billing.
24
1
be ‘between $250 and $380, with the highest rates generally reserved for those attorneys who are
2
regarded as competent and reputable and who possess in excess of 20 years of experience.’” (Doc. 37
3
at 19, quoting Silvester v. Harris, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174366, 2014 WL 7239371 at *4 (E.D. Cal.
4
Dec. 17, 2014)) Accordingly, Class Counsel reduced their hourly rates to $325 for partners who have
5
been practicing law for 14 years to 20 years, and $200 for an associate, which resulted in an adjusted
6
lodestar of $119,965.00.6 (Doc. 37-1 at 10, Stafford Decl. ¶ 26) Thus, the fees requested by Class
7
Counsel are less than the lodestar.
8
III.
Amount of Fees to be Awarded
Significantly, there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is a reasonable fee. Gonzalez, 729
9
10
F.3d at 1202; Camacho, 523 F.3d at 978. Because the fees requested are significantly below the
11
lodestar, and the results obtained on behalf of the class are greater than those in comparable cases, the
12
Court finds the fees requested are fair and reasonable. Accordingly, Class Counsel’s request for
13
attorney fees is GRANTED in the amount of 33.3% of the Settlement fund, or $100,000.
REQUESTS FOR COSTS
14
15
I.
Litigation Expenses
16
Reimbursement of taxable costs is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Federal Rule of Civil
17
Procedure 54. Attorneys may recover reasonable expenses that would typically be billed to paying
18
clients in non-contingency matters. See Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 19 (9th Cir. 1994). Class
19
Counsel were previously authorized to seek “costs up to $8,500.” (Doc. 34 at 17) Mr. Stafford report
20
that as of the filing of his supplemental declaration on September 16, 2015, they incurred $6,407 in
21
costs. (Doc. 39 at 2, ¶3; see also Doc. 37-2 at 43) In addition, Class Counsel assert they “anticipate[]
22
additional costs will be incurred for filing fees for this motion and the motion for final approval, as well
23
as travel to the courthouse for the hearing on September 25, 2015, and any other final invoices from
24
vendors and/or experts related to this case.” (Doc. 37 at 21) Accordingly, they estimate they will incur
25
a total of $7,250 in costs, and seek an award of that amount. (Id.)
26
Previously, this Court noted cost “including filing fees, mediator fees …, ground transportation,
27
28
6
This total includes 365 hours for partners and 6.7 hours for the associate. (Doc. 37-1 at 10, Stafford Decl. ¶ 26)
25
1
copy charges, computer research, and database expert fees ... are routinely reimbursed in these types of
2
cases.” Alvarado v. Nederend, 2011 WL 1883188 at *10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. May 17, 2011). Review of the
3
expenses identified by Mr. Stafford demonstrates the actual costs for the initial filing fee, legal
4
research, travel for purposes of mediation, and photocopying of documents are reasonable. However,
5
there were no filing fees for the filing of this motion or the motion for final approval, and the hearing
6
on the motion was vacated. Finally, Class Counsel have not identified any outstanding invoices from
7
“vendors and/or experts,” and the Court declines to speculate as to the totals. Accordingly, the request
8
for litigation costs is GRANTED IN PART in the modified amount of $6,407.00.
9
II.
10
Costs of Settlement Administration
Previously, the Court ordered that the “[c]osts of settlement administration shall not exceed
11
$12,500.” (Doc. 34 at 17) Ms. Molina reports that ILYM Group has incurred $4,073.39 in costs, and
12
anticipates another $9,017.84 for tasks such as printing checks, postage, and preparing and filing tax
13
reports on the payments. (Doc. 39-1 at 21) Despite the anticipated total of $13,091.23 in expenses,
14
ILYM Group seeks an award of $10,000. (Id. at 4; Doc. 37-3 at 2)
15
The administrative expenses requested are reasonable in light of costs for claims administration
16
awarded in this District. See, e.g, Bond v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., 2011 WL 2648879, at *8
17
($18,000 settlement administration fee awarded in wage an hour case involving approximately 550
18
class members); Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, 266 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ($25,000
19
settlement administration fee awarded in wage and hour case involving approximately 170 potential
20
class members). Accordingly, the request for $10,000 in administration expenses for the settlement
21
administration by ILYM Group is GRANTED.
22
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN INCENTIVE AWARD
23
Plaintiff seeks an incentive award of $5,000 for her actions as the class representative. (Doc. 27
24
at 24) In the Ninth Circuit, a court has discretion to award a class representative a reasonable incentive
25
payment. Staton, 327 F.3d at 977; In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d at 463. Incentive
26
payments for class representatives are not to be given routinely. In Staton, the Ninth Circuit observed,
27
Indeed, ‘[i]f class representatives expect routinely to receive special awards in addition
to their share of the recovery, they may be tempted to accept suboptimal settlements at
the expense of the class members whose interests they are appointed to guard.”
28
26
1
2
Weseley v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 711 F. Supp. 713, 720 (E.D.N.Y. 1989); see also
Women’s Comm. for Equal Employment Opportunity v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 76 F.R.D.
173, 180 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (“[W]hen representative plaintiffs make what amounts to a
separate peace with defendants, grave problems of collusion are raised.”).
3
4
Id. at 975. In evaluating a request for an enhanced award to a class representative, the Court should
5
consider all “relevant factors including the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the
6
class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions, . . . the amount of time and effort
7
the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation . . . and reasonable fears of workplace retaliation.” Id.
8
at 977. Further, incentive awards may recognize a plaintiff’s “willingness to act as a private attorney
9
general.” Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2009).
10
A.
Actions taken to benefit the class
11
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the incentive award is to be given to Plaintiff “to
12
compensate her for her time and efforts spent in serving as the Class Representative.” (Doc. 38-1 at 25,
13
Settlement § 3.3) Plaintiff reports she assisted in the preparation of the complaint in the action; assisted
14
with the discovery process “by compiling a list of potential witnesses and documents” and “attempting
15
to locate former employees of Defendants to assist with obtaining witness statements and/or
16
declarations;” and conferring with her attorneys. (Doc. 37-2 at 4-5, De Santos Decl. ¶¶ 4-8) Plaintiff
17
reports she attended the mediation in Los Angeles, and “incurred out-of-pocket expenses the amount of
18
$105, which included parking and mileage from Riverside to Los Angeles and back.” (Id. at 4, ¶ 10)
19
Notably, Plaintiff would have assisted in much of these same actions to the same extent regardless of
20
whether the action was brought on behalf of the class or she only pursued her own claims against
21
Defendants. Nevertheless, undoubtedly, her actions benefitted the class such that they weigh in favor
22
of an incentive payment.
23
B.
Time expended by Plaintiff
24
Plaintiff reports that she spent approximately 40 hours on the tasks identified above, including
25
approximately 10 hours for the mediation. (See Doc. 37-2 at 5-6, De Santos Decl. ¶¶10, 13) Because
26
Plaintiff provided assistance with discovery, reviewed documents prepared by Counsel and produced
27
by Defendants, and attended the mediation in Los Angeles, this factor weighs in favor of an incentive
28
payment to Plaintiff. However, the limited amount of time expended by Plaintiff in the course of the
27
1
litigation does not support the amount requested.
2
C.
Fears of workplace retaliation
3
Plaintiff reports she “was not fearful of being retaliated against by Defendants themselves,
4
considering she was rejected from employment by Defendants.” (Doc. 37 at 24) On the other hand,
5
Plaintiff asserts she “was fearful of other employers learning of her status as a class representative and,
6
therefore, refusing to interview or hire her.” (Id.) Plaintiff explains, “[M]y name and status in this
7
lawsuit are obvious when I search on the internet. When I search my name on Google, this case comes
8
up in the first page of hits. As a result, I fear I will be retaliated against by future employers. In fact, I
9
was not able to obtain full time employment for seven months after being rejected by Defendants and
10
11
deciding to pursue this case.” (Doc. 37-2 at 8, De Santos Decl. ¶17)
However, the fear that a prospective employer may not hire Plaintiff based upon her actions
12
taken in this litigation— against a company for which Plaintiff never worked—does not demonstrate a
13
reasonable fear of workplace retaliation and, instead, is pure speculation. Moreover, the fact that
14
Plaintiff has since obtained employment despite the pendency of this litigation undermines her
15
assertions. Accordingly, this factor does not support an award of an incentive payment.
Reasonableness of Plaintiff’s request
16
D.
17
Considering the actions taken by Plaintiff on behalf of the class, an incentive award is
18
appropriate. In determining the amount to be awarded, the Court may consider the time expended by
19
the class representative, the fairness of the hourly rate, and how large the incentive award is compared
20
to the average award class members expect to receive. See, e.g., Ontiveros v. Zamora, 2014 WL
21
5035935 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2014) (evaluating the hourly rate the named plaintiff would receive to
22
determine whether the incentive award was appropriate); Rankin v. Am. Greetings, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist.
23
LEXIS 72250, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2011) (noting the incentive award requested was “reasonably
24
close to the average per class member amount to be received); Alvarado, 2011 WL 1883188 at *10-11
25
(considering the time and financial risk undertaken by the plaintiff). Here, considering these factors,
26
the $5,000 award that Plaintiff requests is out of proportion to the efforts made and time expended.
27
28
1.
Time expended
In Alvarado, the Court noted the class representatives “(1) travelled from Bakersfield to
28
1
Sacramento for mediation sessions; (2) assisted Counsel in investigating and substantiating the claims
2
alleged in this action; (3) assisted in the preparation of the complaint in this action; (4) produced
3
evidentiary documents to Counsel; and (5) assisted in the settlement of this litigation.” Id., 2011 WL
4
1883188 at *11. Further, the Court noted the plaintiffs “undertook the financial risk that, in the event
5
of a judgment in favor of Defendant in this action, they could have been personally responsible for the
6
costs awarded in favor of the Defendant.” Id. In light of these facts, the Court found an award of
7
$7,500 for each plaintiff was appropriate for the time, efforts, and risks undertaken.
8
9
Similarly, in Bond, the Court found incentive payments of $7,500 were appropriate for the two
named plaintiffs who: “(1) provided significant assistance to Class Counsel; (2) endured lengthy
10
interviews; (3) provided written declarations; (4) searched for and produced relevant documents; (5)
11
and prepared and evaluated the case for mediation, which was a full day session requiring very careful
12
consideration, evaluation and approval of the terms of the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the
13
Class.” Bond, 2011 WL 2648879, at *15.
14
In this case, Plaintiff asserts she spent approximately 40 hours on tasks related to this litigation,
15
including assisting with the preparation of the complaint, locating and reviewing documents, and
16
attending mediation. On the other hand, she did not “endure lengthy interviews,” was not required to
17
submit to a deposition, and only prepared declarations related to the approval of the settlement terms
18
and the request for an incentive award. Consequently, an award of $5,000 would be excessive.
19
20
2.
Fairness of the hourly rate
Recently, this Court criticized a requested award of $20,000 where the plaintiff estimated “he
21
spent 271 hours on his duties as class representative over a period of six years,” because the award
22
would have compensated the class representative “at a rate of $73.80 per hour.” Ontiveros, 2014 WL
23
5035935 at *5-6. The Court explained that “[i]ncentive awards should be sufficient to compensate class
24
representatives to make up for financial risk . . . for example, for time they could have spent at their
25
jobs.” Id. at *6 (citing Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2009). The
26
Court found an award of “$50 per hour fairly compensate[] the named plaintiff for his time and
27
incorporates an extra incentive to participate in litigation,” considering that the plaintiff’s hourly flat
28
rate while employed by the defendant was $15 per hour. Id. at *6; n.3. Nevertheless, the Court
29
1
increased the award from $13,550 (calculated with $50 per hour for the 271 hours) to $15,000 because
2
“Mr. Ontiveros relinquished the opportunity to bring several of his own claims.” Id. at *6.
3
Here, with the estimated 40 hours of tasks taken by Plaintiff, the requested award of $5,000
4
would compensate Plaintiff at a rate of $125 per hour. If the Court were to adopt the $50 per hour rate
5
recently approved in Ontiveros, Plaintiff’s incentive award would be reduced to $2,000.7
3.
6
7
Comparison of the award to those of the Class Members
In Rankin, the Court approved an incentive award of $5,000, where the “[p]laintiff retained
8
counsel, assisted in the litigation, and was an active participant in the full-day mediation.” Id., 2011
9
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72250, at *5. The Court found the amount reasonable, in part because “the sum is
10
reasonably close to the average per class member amount to be received.” Id. In contrast, here Plaintiff
11
seeks an award of $5,000, while Class Members in Group I will receive $50 each, and Class Members
12
in Group II “will receive approximately $350.” (Doc. 38 at 10-11) Thus, the requested incentive award
13
is disproportionate to the awards Class Members expect to receive.
14
E.
15
In light of the efforts expended by Plaintiff, the average award expected to be received by the
16
class members, the Court finds $2,500 is an appropriate incentive award. With an hourly rate of $50
17
per hour, Plaintiff would be entitled to an award of $2,000, but a slight increase of the award is
18
appropriate to reflect the fact that Plaintiff released more claims as part of the settlement than the Class
19
Members. See Ontiveros, 2014 WL 5035935 at *5-6. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for an incentive
20
payment is GRANTED in the modified amount of $2,500.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
21
22
23
Amount to be awarded
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable
as required by Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
24
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
25
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement is GRANTED;
26
2.
Plaintiffs’ request for certification of the Settlement Class is GRANTED and defined
27
7
28
Notably, Plaintiff asserts that the position for which she applied would have paid “approximately $54.88/hour,”
and at that rate her “enhancement would be $2,115.20” (Doc. 37 at 26)
30
as follows:
1
All applicants who applied for employment with Jaco Oil Company;
Fastrip Food Stores, Inc.; Fastrip Food Stores of Fresno, Inc.; Fastrip
Financial, LP; Instant Storage, LLC, Brooke Utilities, Inc.; and Wholesale
Fuels, Inc. and for whom Defendants obtained and/or used a Consumer
Report from May 16, 2009 to July 17, 2015.
2
3
4
5
3.
PART in the modified amount of $2,500;
6
7
4.
5.
6.
The request for fees for the Claims Administrator ILYM Group, Inc. in the amount of
$10,000 is GRANTED; and
12
13
Class Counsel’s request for costs is GRANTED NI PART in the modified amount of
$6,407.00;
10
11
Class Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED in the amount of $100,000,
which is 33.3% of the gross settlement amount;
8
9
Plaintiff’s request for a class representative incentive payment is GRANTED IN
7.
The action is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and
14
attorneys’ fees except as otherwise provided by the Settlement and ordered by the
15
Court; and
16
8.
The Court hereby retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications arising out of
or in connection win the Settlement.
17
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 29, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?