Williams v. Supershuttle International, Inc. et al

Filing 56


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL WILLIAMS, et al., Case No. 12-cv-06493-WHO Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Defendants. 12 13 14 15 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ (1) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT; AND (2) MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, INCENTIVE AWARD, AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Incentive Award, and Reimbursement of Costs (hereinafter “Motions”) came on regularly for hearing on February 11, 2015 in the United States District 16 Court for the Northern District of California, the Honorable William H. Orrick presiding. All 17 parties were represented by counsel. 18 Having considered the memoranda and declarations, oral arguments of counsel, and the 19 relevant statutory and case law, and having conducted a fairness hearing on February 11, 2015, 20 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions and orders and finds as follows: 21 1. The Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement, filed January 7, 2015, is 22 GRANTED. 23 24 2. The Parties’ Proposed Settlement Agreement filed on July 11, 2014 (Docket No. 46) and the attachments thereto (hereinafter the “Settlement Agreement”), which the Court 25 preliminarily approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable, and within the range of 26 possible approval on September 11, 2014 (Docket No. 51), is incorporated by reference 27 as if fully set forth herein, and the definitions used in the Settlement Agreement are 28 1 adopted for use herein. 2 3. This ruling is based on federal common and statutory law, including 29 U.S.C. 3 § 216(b) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as federal and other 4 authority, including the Federal Judicial Center’s MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION 5 (4th ed. 2004) and ANNOTATED MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION - FOURTH (2005). 6 4. The proposed Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable and therefore approved. 7 The average payout per claim is significant and participation rate of the class in this 8 settlement of 40% is robust. 5. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), a settlement class defined as follows: All 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 individuals currently or formerly employed by Defendants SuperShuttle International, 12 Inc. or SFO Airporter, Inc. d/b/a/ Compass Transportation as bus drivers/operators in 13 California at any time from December 21, 2008, through the date of Preliminary 14 Approval of the Settlement. 15 6. Steven G. Tidrick, Esq., and Joel Young, Esq., of The Tidrick Law Firm are appointed 16 as Class Counsel and Plaintiff Michael Williams is appointed as the Class 17 Representative. 18 7. No member of the Rule 23 class has objected to the Settlement Agreement. 19 8. The Settlement Administrator shall distribute the awards to the class members as 20 21 specified in the Settlement Agreement. 9. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h)(1) and 54(d)(2), Plaintiff in this class 22 action has moved for an award of attorneys’ fees, incentive award, and reimbursement 23 of costs. Pursuant to Rule 23(h)(3), the Court must make findings of fact and state its 24 conclusions of law. 25 10. This class action settlement resolves a wage-and-hour dispute on a class-wide basis. 26 11. The Court’s September 11, 2014 order granted preliminary approval of the class-wide 27 settlement agreement, an agreement which specified that Class Counsel could request 28 reimbursement from the settlement fund for up to $90,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, 2 1 and up to $3,000 as an incentive award to the Class Representative. See Settlement 2 Agreement ¶¶ III(A)(2),(4) (Docket No. 46, at Page 9 of 37). 12. Rule 23(h) provides that, “[i]n a certified class action, the court may award reasonable 4 attorney's fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by . . . the parties’ agreement.” 5 The Rule further provides that "[a] claim for an award must be made by motion under 6 Rule 54(d)(2)," notice of which must be "directed to class members in a reasonable 7 manner" and that the Court "must find the facts and state its legal conclusions under 8 Rule 52(a)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)(1) & (3). In turn, Rule 54(d)(2) requires a claim for 9 fees to be made by motion, and specifies its timing and content, including, in relevant 10 part, "the grounds entitling the movant to the award" and "the amount sought." Fed. R. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). Notice of this fee-award motion was provided in the class notice. 12 13. When "the settlement produces a common fund for the benefit of the entire class, courts 13 have discretion to employ either the lodestar method or the percentage-of-recovery 14 method" of calculating attorneys' fees awards. In Re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. 15 Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). 16 14. Under the percentage-of-the-fund method, it is appropriate to base the percentage 17 calculation on the gross settlement amount. See generally Boeing v. Gemert, 444 U.S. 18 472, 479, 100 S. Ct. 745, 62 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1980); Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commc'ns 19 Co., 129 F.3d 1026, 1027 (9th Cir. 1997). 20 15. The Court adopts the percentage-of-the-fund approach here and finds that the fee-and- 21 expense amount is reasonable. The fee award of 25% of the fund is within the range of 22 reasonable percentage-fee awards in this Circuit. See, e.g., Fischel v. Equitable Life 23 Assur. Soc'y of the U.S., 307 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We have established a 25 24 percent benchmark in percentage-of-the-fund cases that can be adjusted upward or 25 downward to account for any unusual circumstances involved in [the] case.” (internal 26 quotation marks and citation omitted)); In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379 27 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[t]wenty-five percent is the 'benchmark' that district courts should 28 award in common fund cases” (citation omitted)). 3 1 16. In terms of a lodestar cross-check, the attorneys’ fees requested, 25% of the common 2 fund amount of $300,000, equates to $75,000, which is less than 52% of the lodestar 3 amount of $144,918. The Court finds that Class Counsel’s hours and hourly rates are 4 reasonable, thus, the requested fee award results in a “negative multiplier” and supports 5 a finding that the requested percentage of the fund, 25%, is reasonable and fair. 6 17. “The prevailing view is that expenses are awarded in addition to the fee percentage.’” Jefferson v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2875 at *9 (C.D. 8 Cal. filed Jan. 7, 2013) (quoting 1 ALBA CONTE, ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS § 2:08 at 50– 9 51). To date, Class Counsel have advanced all costs incurred in this case. The Tidrick 10 Law Firm’s total incurred litigation expenses were $911.44 as of November 25, 2014, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 and do not include modest, but real, expenses subsequently incurred. These costs are 12 reasonable. 13 18. An “enhancement” payment to Plaintiff Michael Williams of $3,000 is justified. 14 19. Settlement Administration Costs, as defined in the Settlement Agreement and described 15 in open court at the hearing, are justified, and shall be paid from the common-fund 16 settlement of $300,000. See Settlement Agreement ¶ A.1. 17 20. Therefore, the Court orders an award of $75,000 in attorneys’ fees and $911.44 in 18 incurred litigation costs to The Tidrick Law Firm, and an “enhancement” payment to 19 Plaintiff Michael Williams of $3,000, from the common-fund settlement of $300,000. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 Dated: February 12, 2015 ______________________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?