Parry v. National Seating & Mobility Inc

Filing 133

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING AND ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER SUBMISSION. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 10/30/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

NATIONAL SEATING & MOBILITY, INC.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 10-02782 JSW

Plaintiff,
v.

12

MICHAEL PARRY, et al.,

13

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE
RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING AND ORDER
REQUIRING FURTHER
SUBMISSION

Defendants.

14

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM
/

15
16

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

17

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

18

NOVEMBER 1, 2013, AT 9:00 A.M.:

19

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

20

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

21

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

22

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

23

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

24

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

25

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

26

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel

27

attorneys who are

28

1

working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained

2

herein.

3

The Court tentatively grants the motion for final approval of the Settlement. With

4

respect to the attorneys’ fees, based on the current record, the Court will tentatively grant in

5

part the request, as follows. The Court concludes that Class Counsel have not adequately

6

supported their lodestar request or shown why the Court should award fees in excess of the

7

benchmark of 25% that the Ninth Circuit applies when a court relies on the percentage-of-

8

recovery method. On the current record, the Court would only grant the request for attorneys’

9

fees based on 25% of the maximum settlement payment, or $174,781.25.
However, the Court will give Class Counsel a further opportunity to support its request,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

although it shall not compensate Class Counsel for this additional work. If Class Counsel seeks

12

to have the Court award the full amount of attorneys’ fees requested ($197,581.96), by no later

13

than November 9, 2013, they must provide the Court with a generalized breakdown, per

14

attorney, of the type of work performed (e.g., research on motion for class certification, drafting

15

motion for class certification, prepare discovery requests, respond to discovery requests,

16

document review), the number of hours spent on each task, and the billing rate per hour for that

17

attorney.

18

In addition, the parties shall be prepared to address the following questions:

19

1.

There is a discrepancy between the Class identified in the Settlement Agreement

20

and Release (Docket No. 116, Settlement Agreement and Release at ¶ 1.B.1) and

21

the proposed form order which the Court utilized when it granting preliminary

22

approval. (Docket No. 124, Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval at

23

2:16-20.) Was this a drafting error, and can the parties confirm that notice went

24

out to the broader class defined in the Settlement Agreement?

25

2.

Do the parties have any authority that a submission from an attorney is sufficient

26

evidence to support an incentive award to Plaintiff? If not, do they intend to

27

supplement their request for an incentive award with a declaration from Mr.

28

Parry?
2

1

3.

The Settlement Agreement makes reference to notice under 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

2

Have the parties complied with that requirement?

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: October 30, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3