Dulberg v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 178

ORDER DENYING 175 MOTION FOR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT AND RESOLVING 176 MOTION FOR EXTENSION. By Judge Alsup. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2020)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

MARTIN DULBERG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

No. C 17-00850 WHA

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
15

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
RAISER, LLC,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT

Defendants.

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
In this settled class action, plaintiff moves for amendment of the judgment pursuant to

19

Rule 56(e) or for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) on an issue decided twice before. No

20

newly discoverable evidence is presented, no judicial mistake shown, no law changed, and no

21

other justification for extraordinary relief made. The motion is DENIED.

22
23

STATEMENT
Prior orders detail the facts of the case and the history of settlement proposals (see, e.g.,

24

Dkt. Nos. 52, 169). Briefly, an order certified the class in February 2018. Six months later,

25

plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of a class settlement. The settlement proposed

26

divvying up $345,622 between the 4,594 class members after the fund paid class counsel’s fees

27

and expenses. The parties left determination of those fees and expenses entirely within the

28

district judge’s discretion. The only significant change to the settlement approved over a year

1

later added a feature ensuring no class member received less than $20 after deducting the

2

court-determined fees and costs.

3

In reviewing the settlement, several orders asked class counsel to clarify how much it

4

intended to seek from the fund for its fees and expenses. Initially, counsel sought $30,232 in

5

“expert costs.” When asked for clarification, counsel lowered that amount to $30,136 and

6

explained that some portion of that “relate[d] to . . . the third-party administrator retained to

7

distribute class notice, notice of settlement, and handle opt-outs and objections” (Dkt. No. 141

8

at 16). When asked for further detail, counsel again lowered the amount, this time to $29,793,

9

and explained that $5,701.23 derived from class administrator expenses. When combined with
other expenses, the costs totaled $40,430 (Dkt. No. 145). Ultimately, however, the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

undersigned rejected that settlement because it failed to provide a reasonable recovery to the

12

absent class members.

13

When plaintiff renewed his motion for preliminary approval with a better deal for the

14

class, counsel left out any mention of expenses. An order required changes to the revised class

15

notice (Dkt. No. 161):

16

21

Counsel submitted a declaration in April 2019 which sought
approximately $40,000 in expenses (Dkt. No. 141 ¶ 12). After
subtracting these expenses from the settlement, 25% of the net
settlement amount translates to approximately $76,000. As these
amounts are known to the parties, vaguely writing that counsel will
seek “reasonable” fees and expenses will not suffice. To this end,
Section 6 must state: “Class Counsel will move the Court for:
[$XX.XX] in attorney’s fees, [$XX.XX] in expenses incurred in the
action, and to award Plaintiff a $5,000 service payment for his
participation in the case. These amounts must first be approved by
the Court.”

22

Counsel made these changes but deviated from the April 2019 declaration. Class counsel now

23

planned to seek “$78,344.00 in expenses incurred in this action ($40,430.00 in Plaintiff’s

24

attorneys’ costs and $37,914 in estimated Settlement Administrator expenses).” An order

25

approved the revised notice and Uber agreed to pay mailing costs (Dkt. Nos. 162, 163, 177).

17
18
19
20

26
27

Despite the revised notice, plaintiff’s motion left off the additional $37,914. Instead,
counsel requested the same $40,430 previously requested, including $30,232 to pay “expert

28
2

1

costs.” As explained, the $30,232 amount actually totaled $29,793.03 and included $5,701.23

2

to pay administrator expenses.
The order finally approving the settlement provided:

3
4

7

Angeion Group charged $5,701.23 for its third-party administrator
services. Angeion Group set up lists of e-mail addresses and other
databases, sent e-mail class notices, processed responses, set up a
call center, and continued to maintain that call center (id. ¶¶ 9–11).
This expense did not include the most recent mailing of class notice.
This expense is reasonable to organize and streamline the orderly
distribution of this class action involving thousands of Uber drivers.

8

Two days later, after review of “the Court’s proposed order[,]” class counsel filed a

9

notice drawing attention to a supposed issue with the “the Court’s present accounting,” noting

10

that “on November 19, 2019, and in its Proposed Order, the expenses related to the third-party

11

administrator, Angeion Group [were] listed as $5,701.23” (Dkt. No. 170 at 2–3).

5

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

This order pauses to note that the district judge did not actually propose an order to the

12
13

parties. Instead of filling in the blanks of plaintiff’s proposed order, the undersigned took the

14

time to prepare a twelve-page order explaining the evidence, law, and arguments considered in

15

coming to the decision, including the amount counsel could deduct from the fund to pay its

16

bills.

17

The supposed accounting error stemmed from counsel “inadvertently omit[ing]” $39,714

18

in additional administrative expenses from its final motion. Counsel also noted that the

19

$5,701.23 approved in the “proposed order” — to be clear, the final order — “did not include

20

the most recent mailing of class notice” and explained that the mailing was sent via first-class

21

mail as ordered in July 2019. True. Per the parties’ agreement, Uber agreed to and in fact did

22

pay for that mailing (Dkt. No. 161 at 4).

23
24
25
26
27
28

An order denied plaintiff’s late request, providing in full (Dkt. No. 172):
The Court has received class counsel’s notice filed on November 21,
2019 (Dkt. No. 170). In this notice — which “does not object” to
the order granting final approval of settlement, attorney’s fees, and
expenses — counsel informed the Court that the motion for final
approval “inadvertently omitted” an itemized request for $37,914 in
expenses. Now, only after the motion had been granted and on the
eve of the entry of final judgment, counsel realize the error. Without
filing a formal motion, counsel inexplicably request that the Court
slink this $37,914 out of the settlement fund when entering final
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

judgment, and hand the money over to counsel. Counsel have
submitted no receipts, no declarations, and no specific information
on this purported $37,914 in expenses. Whatever this large amount
was for should have been identified in counsel’s motion for fees and
expenses so that class members could have had their chance to
scrutinize it and to object to it.
Counsel’s request also comes too late. Counsel moved for final
approval on October 3, the hearing occurred on November 14, and
an order granted the motion on November 19. In all this time,
counsel stayed quiet, while the Court took the time to carefully
review counsel’s motion. Counsel’s request is DENIED.
Twenty-eight days later, plaintiff filed a formal motion again asking for more

8

administrator expenses to be reimbursed by the fund. Plaintiff’s motion claims that “as the

9

Court did not have a complete submission related to certain past and estimated future
settlement administration expenses, the Court did not award any amounts to satisfy the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

incurred costs” (emphasis added). As such, plaintiff seeks “reconsideration of the Order to

12

include the authorization of payment of the settlement administrator expenses” (Dkt. No. 175

13

at 2). In support, plaintiff now provides thirty pages of invoices issued to class counsel or

14

Uber totaling $47,353.91. All but two invoices predate the hearing on plaintiff’s fee motion.

15

Plaintiff does not clearly explain what expenses need authorization or if plaintiff instead

16

seeks a blank check from the fund for any and all administrator expenses billed. According

17

now to plaintiff, the following amounts are due to the administrator: Class counsel owes

18

$4,857.09, Uber owes $9,020.50, and the fund owes $33,476.32. Counsel misrepresents what

19

the first amount is. That amount is a portion of the $5,701.23 already awarded from the fund

20

for the administrator’s expenses. And, the second amount needs no authorization as Uber

21

already paid it, separate from the settlement fund. Thus, the only amount that needs

22

authorization is the additional $33,476.32. Still, that amount is inaccurate as it includes the

23

estimated costs of mailing and postage of the settlement, at least $7,500, that Uber later agreed

24

to pay separately (Dkt. No. 177-1). Thus, the additional amount sought is closer to $25,000.

25

After plaintiff filed this motion, another issue arose. On January 21, the day set for

26

distribution of the settlement, the administrator applied for an extension of time to do so. In a

27

brief response, Uber explained that the administrator notified the parties on January 21 that it

28

would not distribute the funds until (1) after the court ruled on plaintiff’s motion and (2) it
4

1

received at least $7,500 for the administrative cost of postage and mailing of the settlement.

2

Uber agreed to pay the additional $7,500 over and above its obligations under the settlement.

3
4
5
6

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration. Uber does not oppose. The administrator applies for
an extension of time to distribute the funds. This order follows.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s motion is based on the same arguments under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). “Under
Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment if (1) the district court is presented

8

with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial

9

decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

10

United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). This is

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

“an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634

12

F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (same). Rule 59(e) “may not be used to relitigate old matters,

13

or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of

14

judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008).

15

Under Rule 60(b), “the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment” for certain

16

reasons, including: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

17

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to

18

move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an

19

opposing party; (4) any other reason that justifies relief.” The last reason “is available only

20

where extraordinary circumstances prevented a litigant from seeking earlier, more timely

21

relief.” Johnson v. CFS II, Inc., 628 Fed.Appx. 505, 505 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States

22

v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)).

23

Nearly all of the twenty-five invoices plaintiff now provides predate plaintiff’s fee

24

motion, only two postdate the hearing, and one of those two is an estimate for over sixteen-

25

thousand dollars in future expenses. These invoices and an estimate for future expenses could

26

have been provided before filing the motion for final approval and before final judgment.

27

Counsel failed to do so. No remedy is available under Rule 59 or Rule 60. See Exxon

28

Shipping Co., 554 U.S. at 485 n.5 (2008), Johnson, 628 Fed. Appx. at 505.
5

1

Plaintiff makes three arguments for reconsideration anyway. First, plaintiff contends that

2

the revised class notice provided enough opportunity for the class to scrutinize and object to

3

the full expenses class counsel intended to seek, even though counsel did not in fact seek those

4

expenses. This argument responds to part of the November 22 order stating: “Whatever this

5

large amount was for should have been identified in counsel’s motion for fees and expenses so

6

that class members could have had their chance to scrutinize it and to object to it.” Counsel

7

provides no explanation for equating the class notice with their fee motion. To the contrary, a

8

diligent class member in receipt of the revised notice might reasonably decide against

9

objecting after seeing that plaintiff’s fee motion forewent the extra $37, 914.

10

Second, counsel argues that the “allocation of the settlement proceeds took into

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

consideration that the settlement administrator’s balance would be paid out of the fund[,]” so

12

“payment of these settlement administration costs was already factored into the allocation that

13

was communicated” to the class. In support, plaintiff relies on the order finally approving the

14

settlement, which provided (Dkt. No. 169 at 7):

18

[T]he net settlement will be distributed after expenses, attorney’s
fees, lead plaintiff’s award, and the settlement administrator’s
balance are paid out of the settlement fund. The parties do not
provide a renewed average settlement award, but the prior average
settlement award would be approximately $42.87. This average
provides a baseline for recovery as the amounts the class will receive
have since increased.

19

The balance referred to, however, was that amount requested in plaintiff’s motion, $5,701, not

20

a blank check for any balance racked up by the settlement administrator. Indeed, the last

21

sentence notes that class members will receive more than previously estimated, based on the

22

fees and expenses actually approved. Allowing plaintiff or the administrator a blank check

23

would put that recovery in jeopardy.

15
16
17

24

Counsel also relies on a non-binding district court decision, Demmings v. KKW Trucking,

25

Inc., 2018 WL 4495461 (D. Or. Sep. 19, 2018) (Jude Michael Simon), as an example of a

26

decision where, “although the information that was submitted to the court related to the

27

expenses was incomplete, the expenses were necessarily incurred, had been factored into the

28

allocation of funds and were communicated to the class” (Dkt. No. 175 at 8). Demmings is
6

1

inapposite: The decision considered a timely motion for final approval of a settlement, the

2

settlement agreement itself factored the expenses into the allocation of funds, and while the

3

plaintiff failed to describe or itemize the administrator expenses, he did timely request the full

4

amount he sought. Here, plaintiff’s submission was incomplete because plaintiff

5

“inadvertently omitted” over thirty-thousand dollars in administrator expenses, the court-

6

approved allocation did not factor in what plaintiff left out, and now plaintiff seeks post-

7

judgment equitable relief to fix this snafu. Rules 59 and 60 do not provide a remedy.

8
9

Third, plaintiff asserts that extraordinary equitable relief is appropriate primarily on the
ground that the Court ordered the administrator to distribute the money owed to the class
without also providing a blank check for the administrator’s expenses. Counsel emphasizes

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that the work is court ordered and refers to the administrator as the court-appointed

12

administrator. The undersigned appointed class counsel, not counsel’s administrator. This

13

final argument highlights a greater issue with plaintiff’s motion. There is no equity in counsel

14

refusing to pay the administrator it retained and preventing the distribution of the settlement to

15

the class it purports to represent.
CONCLUSION

16
17
18

For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The funds shall be
distributed to the class by FEBRUARY 14 at NOON.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: February 4, 2020.

23
24
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
7