Lane et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

Filing 236

ORDER RE 226 FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT, 224 ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARD. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2014).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

MERCEDES GUERRERO, individually
and for other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 12-04026 WHA

v.

ORDER RE FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS
SETTLEMENT, ATTORNEY’S
FEES AND EXPENSES, AND
SERVICE AWARD

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
/

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
In this class action involving force-placed flood insurance on home mortgages, class

19

representative and class counsel move for (1) final approval of the proposed class settlement;

20

(2) $143,750 for attorney’s fees and expenses; (3) reimbursement for the settlement

21

administrator’s expenses, capped at $28,604; (4) a $7,500 service award for class representative;

22

and (5) designation of Habitat for Humanity as the cy pres recipient of any residual net

23

settlement funds. Moreover, class representative’s former counsel seek to respond and submit

24

evidence. To the extent stated below, the requests are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

25

STATEMENT

26

The background of this action is set forth in prior orders (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 212). In

27

brief, this action began in June 2012. An amended complaint was permitted to add plaintiff

28

Mercedes Guerrero, a California resident, as a putative class representative (Dkt. No. 82).

1

The other named plaintiffs in this action — Danny and Beverly Lane — already stipulated to

2

dismiss their claims, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is the only remaining defendant.

mortgage. Wells Fargo then serviced that mortgage beginning in 2010. Because Guerrero’s

5

home was located in a flood-hazard area, she was required to maintain adequate flood insurance;

6

otherwise, Wells Fargo was authorized to (and did) force-place flood insurance on her property.

7

In doing so, Wells Fargo allegedly entered into exclusive purchasing agreements with two

8

insurers — American Security Insurance Company and QBE Insurance Corporation — so that

9

ASIC and QBE would pay “kickbacks” in unearned commissions to a Wells Fargo affiliate.

10

Wells Fargo also reportedly maximized these kickbacks via a “backdating” practice, i.e., by

11
For the Northern District of California

Guerrero obtained a mortgage loan based on a Federal Housing Administration form

4

United States District Court

3

force-placing flood insurance polices with retroactive effective dates. Guerrero thus sought to

12

represent a California class based on Wells Fargo’s alleged commissions and backdating,

13

claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment or restitution, conversion, and violation of

14

California’s Unfair Competition Law.

15

On June 21, 2013, a California class was conditionally certified with Guerrero as class

16

representative. On August 16, 2013, that class was certified under Federal Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 23, upon appointment of Hagens Berman Shobol Shapiro LLP as new class counsel

18

and counsel for Guerrero in her individual capacity. The parties later agreed to a proposed class

19

settlement, and an order filed on April 7, 2014, granted preliminary approval thereof (Dkt. No.

20

212).

21

Notice of settlement was then sent to class members, pursuant to the requirements of the

22

settlement and the April 7 order. Among other items, the class notice provided adequate

23

information about the proposed settlement relief, including the total settlement amount and

24

injunction against Wells Fargo and its associates. The class notice also detailed the requested

25

service award for Guerrero, the attorney’s fees and expenses for class counsel, and the deadlines

26

and rights that class members had to object to the settlement or exclude themselves from the

27

class.

28
2

1

A motion is now made for (1) final approval of the proposed class settlement; (2)

2

$143,750 for attorney’s fees and expenses; (3) reimbursement for the settlement administrator’s

3

expenses, capped at $28,604; (4) a $7,500 service award for Guerrero; and (5) designation of

4

Habitat for Humanity as the cy pres recipient of any residual net settlement funds. In addition,

5

Guerrero’s former counsel — from before class certification — seek an opportunity to file a

6

response and submit evidence in connection with the present request for attorney’s fees and

7

costs. Having considered the relevant briefing and oral argument from the fairness hearing, this

8

order rules as follows.

9
1.

FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT
AND CY PRES DESIGNATION.

11
In short, this order approves of the proposed class settlement. As part of that settlement,
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ANALYSIS

12
Wells Fargo will pay a total amount of $625,000 to the class, which represents a 180% recovery
13
of the best-case damages scenario (i.e., $365,179.08), as calculated by Guerrero’s damages
14
expert (Dkt. No. 199-3 at 2). Even if this order were to consider only the net amount of the
15
settlement —i.e., $445,146, after taking into account the requested attorney’s fees and costs, the
16
administrative expenses, and even the service award — Wells Fargo’s settlement payment still
17
comprises a 121.8% recovery of the best-case damages scenario. The amount of the settlement
18
payment therefore militates in favor of final approval here.
19
But there is more. For three years from the date of final approval, the settlement would
20
enjoin Wells Fargo and any of its affiliates from receiving (Loeser Exh. A at ¶ 15):
21
22
23
24

[C]ommissions in connection with the placement of
lender[-]placed flood insurance on any residential California real
estate that serves as collateral for an FHA Loan unless the receipt
of such commissions is specifically authorized by statute,
regulation or a federal or state regulatory body with appropriate
jurisdiction.

25

Such injunctive relief thus provides another benefit. (This order cautions that when the three

26

years runs, the bank should not treat it as an invitation to revert to its old way).

27
28
3

1

Further supporting final approval is the reaction of class members to the settlement itself.

2

After reviewing and consolidating Wells Fargo’s records, the settlement administrator identified

3

1,909 class members and mailed class notices thereto. Ninety-seven notices were returned as

4

unavailable. The settlement administrator then used “skip trace” databases to find and use

5

updated mailing addresses for 49 notices, but ultimately, were still unable to locate current

6

mailing addresses for 59 remaining notices. To date, no class member has objected to the

7

proposed class settlement, and no requests for exclusion from the class have been received, at

8

least as of August 25, 2014 (Solorzano Reply Decl. ¶¶ 12, 13, 19–21). As to the 59 notices that

9

were returned as undeliverable, those individuals will not release any claims, under the terms of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the proposed class settlement itself (see Loeser Exh. A at ¶ 55).
This order further finds no issues with the proposed plan of allocation. Under that plan,

12

there is no claim procedure. The settlement administrator will instead issue and mail checks via

13

USPS first-class mail to class members, who will then have 120 days to cash their checks. Any

14

leftover settlement funds will be redistributed to those class members who cashed their initial

15

checks, if more than ten percent of the settlement amount remains. As for any settlement amount

16

still remaining after the second distribution of checks, the parties have picked Habitat for

17

Humanity as the cy pres recipient for any residual settlement amount left over (Solorzano Decl. ¶

18

23). In other words, none of the settlement funds will revert to Wells Fargo.

19

Having considered the above, as well as all relevant submissions and the statements made

20

at the fairness hearing, the order finds that the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and

21

adequate under Rule 23(e)(2). This order further finds that the notice of settlement and the

22

manner in which it was sent to potential class members are reasonable and adequate in providing

23

information about the proposed class settlement, the manner in which potential class members

24

could participate in or object to the settlement, and the manner in which such class members

25

could opt out of the class. Both the notice and the manner of notice therefore satisfy the

26

requirements of Rule 23(e)(1).

27
28
4

1

With respect to potential class members whose class notices were returned as

2

undeliverable, the proposed class settlement already provides that “the Class Release will not

3

apply to those Class Members whose Class Notices . . . are ultimately returned as non-

4

deliverable” (Loeser Exh. A at ¶ 55). Such individuals will be deemed excluded from

5

participating in the proposed class settlement, such that they are not bound by either the

6

settlement or its release of claims. Class counsel shall file a final list of names and cities for

7

these individuals whose notices were returned as undeliverable — as well as a final list of names

8

and cities for those individuals who will be receiving a settlement distribution — pursuant to the

9

last paragraph of this order.
Accordingly, final approval of the proposed class settlement and plan of allocation is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

GRANTED. The request to designate Habitat for Humanity as the cy pres recipient of any

12

residual settlement funds is also GRANTED.

13

2.

14

As class counsel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP seek a total of $143,750 in

15

attorney’s fees and expenses. In that connection, a district court must ensure that attorney’s fees

16

are “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” even if the parties have entered into a settlement agreement

17

that provides for those fees. See Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 963–64 (9th Cir. 2003).

18

For such fees, “the district court has discretion in common fund cases to choose either the

19

percentage-of-the-fund or the lodestar method.” Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043,

20

1047 (9th Cir. 2002).

21

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES.

Here, class counsel primarily rely on the percentage-of-the-fund method, pointing out

22

that the $143,750 amount has two parts: (1) $126,300.48 for net attorney’s fees; and (2) the

23

remainder amount for out-of-pocket litigation expenses, such as expert fees and costs for copies,

24

postage, court filings, and other items (Loeser Decl. ¶ 46). As to the net attorney’s fees, that

25

amount constitutes 20.2% of the total settlement amount, which is below the 25% benchmark set

26

forth by our court of appeals under the percentage-of-the-fund method. Hanlon v. Chrysler

27

Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998). Class counsel have also sufficiently documented the

28

types of litigation expenses that comprise the remainder amount (Loeser Decl. ¶ 46; Dkt. No.
5

1

232). Furthermore, the benefits of this action — such as the total settlement amount and

2

injunctive relief for the class — support a finding that the request for attorney’s fees and

3

expenses is fair and reasonable (Loeser Decl. ¶¶ 22–46). Accordingly, subject to the timing

4

restrictions set forth below, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP’s request for attorney’s fees and

5

expenses is GRANTED.

6

Moreover, the request to reimburse the settlement administrator’s fees, capped at

$12,420.59 on this action, and estimates another $13,015.61 in costs to distribute the initial

9

checks to class members (Solorzano Decl. ¶¶ 24, 25). The request to pay the $12,420.59 amount

10

and reserve the $13,015.61 amount from that total settlement fund is accordingly GRANTED. In

11
For the Northern District of California

$28,604, is reasonable. To date, the settlement administrator declares that it has spent

8

United States District Court

7

the event that there is a second distribution of checks to class members, the fees and costs

12

associated with the second distribution will be paid from the remaining settlement funds to be

13

issued in that distribution.

14

Here the order pauses to address Guerrero’s request for a $7,500 service award. In short,

15

this award is sought as “reimbursement for [Guerrero’s] significant time and effort as Class

16

Representative” (Br. 15). There is no declaration, however, specifying how much time or effort

17

Guerrero spent on this action. At most, class counsel declares that Guerrero (Loeser Decl. ¶¶

18

10–13) (emphasis added):

19

[A]greed to invest considerable time in the process of
interviewing and selecting replacement Class Counsel . . . .

20
21

[I]nterviewed four sets of interested counsel and had multiple
teleconferences with each team.

22

[P]repared several letters concerning the process and submitted
her views to the Court.

23
24

[I]mmediately became involved in the litigation and was of
substantial assistance to Class Counsel in prosecuting this action
on behalf of all Class Members.

25
26
27
28

as of substantial assistance to Class Counsel in prosecuting this
action on behalf of all Class Members . . . .
[T]ook on significant risk, real and percieved, in suing a large
bank that serviced her home mortgage loan, and performed her
duties admirably over the course of this case.
6

1

A class representative should not get a bonus. If the settlement is not good enough for

2

the representative, it should not be good enough for the class. Only where the class

3

representative has actually incurred genuine out-of-pocket costs should those costs be

4

considered, and even then we must be careful to avoid an incentive to support a marginal

5

settlement. In this case, given the thin record of what Guerrero actually did, she will be awarded

6

$1,000, nothing more. Guerrero’s request is therefore GRANTED IN PART.

7

3.

FORMER COUNSEL’S RESPONSE.

8

Guerrero’s former counsel have filed a response to the request for attorney’s fees and

9

costs, arguing that it would be unfair for the undersigned judge to consider certain statements
made by class counsel in their declaration without allowing former counsel to respond and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

submit evidence. The disputed statements are as follows (Loeser Decl. ¶ 4):

12

Ms. Guerrero had sought the assistance of counsel but had been
told that Wells Fargo was too big to fight. Ultimately, Ms.
Guerrero responded to a notice by prior counsel in this case who
were seeking additional class representatives. That notice
campaign occurred after this Court had dismissed the
over-insurance claims. Ms. Guerrero was enlisted as a class
representative plaintiff, but she was not told by prior counsel
that the over-insurance claims, the claims that were most
important to Ms. Guerrero, had already been dismissed.

13
14
15
16
17

*

18

*

Ms. Guerrero learned that there were no over-insurance claims in
this case only after she read the Court’s Order on Conditional
Certification[.]

19
20

*

This order, however, does not consider the above statements in deciding the present

21

motion for attorney’s fees and expenses. Prior counsel’s request to respond and submit evidence

22

is thus DENIED AS MOOT.
CONCLUSION

23
24

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:

25

1.

The notice of settlement, as well as the manner in which it was sent to class

26

members, fairly and adequately described the proposed class settlement, the

27

manner in which class members could object to or participate in the settlement,

28

and the manner in which class members could opt out of the class; was the best
7

1

notice practicable under the circumstances; was valid, due, and sufficient notice

2

to class members; and complied fully with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

3

due process, and all other applicable laws. A full and fair opportunity has been

4

afforded to class members to participate in the proceedings convened to determine

5

whether the proposed class settlement should be given final approval. As such,

6

the undersigned hereby determines that all class members who did not exclude

7

themselves from the settlement by filing a timely request for exclusion are bound

8

by this settlement order and judgment.

9

2.

Class counsel shall file a final list of names and cities for class members whose
class notices were returned as undeliverable with no new addresses found. These

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

individuals are deemed excluded from participating in the proposed class

12

settlement, and thus are not bound by either the settlement or its release of claims.

13

Class counsel shall also file a final list of name and cities for those individuals

14

who will be receiving a settlement distribution.

15

3.

This order also finds that the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and

16

adequate as to the class, plaintiffs, and defendants; that it is the product of good

17

faith, arms-length negotiations between the parties; and that the settlement is

18

consistent with public policy and fully complies with all applicable provisions of

19

law. The settlement is therefore approved.

20

4.

Having considered class counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees and expenses, this

21

order hereby awards Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP attorney’s fees and

22

expenses in the amount of $143,750. Both the attorney’s fees and expenses will

23

be paid from the total settlement amount. Defendant is authorized to pay half of

24

the amount for attorney’s fees to Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

25

immediately. The rest of the attorney’s fees is authorized to be paid only after

26

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP certify that all other funds have been

27

distributed to the class. Furthermore, class counsel’s remaining expenses may be

28

paid immediately.
8

1

5.

This order also grants the request to pay the settlement administrator’s fees,

2

capped at $28,604, such that $12,420.59 is authorized to be paid immediately to

3

the settlement administrator. Moreover, $13,015.61 shall be held in reserve from

4

the total settlement fund, for future payment of the settlement administrator’s

5

fees.

6
7

6.

In addition, this order grants $1,000 for class representative Mercedes Guerrero in
this matter (in addition to her settlement distribution).

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: September 2, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9