Seebrook v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc.
Filing
84
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 74 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2013)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
GALINA SEEBROOK; MARIA ISABEL
BELTRAN; NICOLLE DISIMONE; and
KRISTEN HARTMAN,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES (Docket No.
74)
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CHILDREN’S PLACE RETAIL
STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
13
14
No. C 11-837 CW
________________________________/
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys’ fees,
15
expenses and incentive award payments.
The Court ordered
16
supplemental briefing on the effect of the Ninth Circuit's recent
17
decision in In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, 716 F.3d 1173 (9th
18
Cir. 2013), on this settlement.
Having considered all of the
19
parties’ papers and oral argument on the motion, the Court GRANTS
20
Plaintiffs’ motion.
21
DISCUSSION
22
A.
23
Whether the Settlement Agreement is a Coupon
Settlement Under CAFA
24
The terms of the settlement provide that class members
25
receive the choice of a ten dollar gift certificate with no
26
minimum purchase required or a thirty-five percent off voucher at
27
Defendant The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc.
28
whether the settlement qualifies as a coupon settlement, thus
At issue is
1
triggering the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1712, the Class Action
2
Fairness Act (CAFA).
3
In Inkjet, the Ninth Circuit addressed the calculation of
4
attorneys' fees in the context of a coupon settlement under CAFA.
5
The court held that, under § 1712(c), “If a settlement gives
6
coupon and equitable relief and the district court sets attorneys’
7
fees based on the value of the entire settlement, and not solely
8
on the basis of injunctive relief, then the district court must
9
use the value of the coupons redeemed when determining the value
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
of the coupons part of the settlement.”
Id. at 1184.
Although CAFA defines various terms, it does not define what
12
constitutes a “coupon.”
13
blurred the distinction between ‘coupons’ and ‘vouchers’ and have
14
considered, at times, that the terms are equivalent . . . . The
15
distinction between a coupon and a voucher is that a coupon is a
16
discount on merchandise or services offered by the defendant and a
17
voucher provides for free merchandise or services.”
18
Inc., 2013 WL 5352969, *4 (S.D. Cal.).
19
See 28 U.S.C. § 1711.
“Courts have often
Foos v. Ann,
In the present case, the thirty-five percent discount at The
20
Children’s Place Retail Stores is indisputably a coupon.
21
is whether the ten dollar merchandise certificate provided in the
22
alternative by the settlement is a coupon.
23
5352969 at *7 (noting that “coupon settlement” is not defined in
24
CAFA and finding that the option of a coupon does not “transform a
25
class action settlement into a coupon settlement under CAFA”).
26
The parties contend that, whereas the Inkjet settlement provided
27
non-transferable “e-credits” in the amount of two to six dollars,
28
the settlement here provides a transferable ten dollar merchandise
2
At issue
See Foos, 2013 WL
1
certificate without a minimum purchase amount.
2
parties note that “[m]ore than 50% of the merchandise at
3
California Children’s Place stores is priced for purchase at $10
4
or less.”
5
contrast, the parties argue that, in Inkjet, nothing could be
6
obtained for the coupon amounts.
7
noted evidence that the prices charged on the defendant’s website
8
--“the only retailer that will accept the settlement coupons--are
9
higher than those charged by other retailers.”
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Moreover, the
Parties’ Joint Letter Brief, Docket No. 72 at 2.
Id.
In
The Inkjet court further
716 F.3d at 1179
n.6.
11
Other courts have found that CAFA does not apply to
12
settlements that offer vouchers for free products.
13
distinguish vouchers from discounts on products where class
14
members are forced to purchase the products and pay the difference
15
between the full and coupon-discounted price.
16
similar case, recently assessed a settlement in which class
17
members were given the option of a fifteen dollar certificate and
18
a discount at the defendant store.
19
not constitute a coupon settlement because class members “have the
20
opportunity to receive free merchandise, as opposed to merely
21
discounted merchandise.”
22
similar reasoning, the court in Browning v. Yahoo! Inc., 2007 WL
23
4105971 (N.D. Cal.) concluded that in-kind relief was not a coupon
24
because it “does not require class members to spend money in order
25
to realize the settlement benefit.”
26
*5.
27
Inc., 2008 WL 3287154 (N.D. Cal.), for instance, the court stated
28
that a coupon could encompass a “noncash benefit” that “allows a
Such cases
Foos, an extremely
The court found that this did
Foos, 2013 WL 5352969, at *3.
Other courts disagree.
Employing
Browning, 2007 WL 4105971, at
In Fleury v. Richemont North America,
3
1
consumer to buy an entire product.”
2
*2.
3
Place stores is priced for purchase at ten dollars or less, class
4
members do not need to spend money in order to realize the
5
settlement benefit.
6
Fleury, 2008 WL 3287154, at
Nonetheless, because much of the merchandise at Children’s
Accordingly, the Court finds that the ten dollar certificate
7
is not a coupon and thus does not trigger the provisions of 8
8
U.S.C. § 1712.
9
which involved a nationwide class with multiple claims, the
Moreover, as the parties point out, unlike Inkjet,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
instant settlement involves a California class and a single state
11
law claim under California Civil Code § 1747.08.
12
that California law provides an independent statutory basis for
13
the award of attorneys’ fees in cases resulting in the
14
“enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest.”
15
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5.
16
are determined under the lodestar method.
17
class members suffered no actual out-of-pocket economic loss.
18
Court reviews Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys' fees under the
19
lodestar method.
The parties note
Fees awarded pursuant to § 1021.5
In addition, here,
20
B.
21
The
The parties have agreed that class counsel will receive
Calculation of Attorneys' Fees
22
$335,000.00 in attorneys' fees and costs.
23
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, “In a certified class
24
action, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and
25
nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties'
26
agreement.”
27
action agreements must be “fundamentally fair, adequate and
Rule 23(h) of the
Attorneys' fees provisions included in proposed class
28
4
1
reasonable.”
2
F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011).
3
In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig., 654
Reasonable attorney's fees must be calculated using the
4
“lodestar” method.
5
the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on
6
the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.”
7
San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996).
8
9
“The ‘lodestar’ is calculated by multiplying
Morales v. City of
Here, pursuant to the Court’s request on November 7, 2013,
class counsel provided an alternative calculation reducing the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
hourly fee of $675.00 to $650.00 and adjusting the lodestar.
11
Docket No. 80 at 4.
12
unreimbursed costs is $404,455.63 through August 27, 2013.
13
new lodestar amount remains higher than the $335,000.00 amount
14
sought.
15
Class counsel’s adjusted lodestar including
The
Having reviewed the evidentiary materials Plaintiffs have
16
provided, the Court finds that the reduced hourly rates are
17
reasonable.
18
detailed time records setting forth the hours expended, categories
19
of the hours expended, and the dates on which the time was
20
expended.
21
counsel's fees, costs and expenses of litigation is reasonable.
Counsel’s hours are supported with declarations and
The Court finds that a $335,000.00 award for class
22
C.
23
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ unopposed request of $2,750
24
incentive payments to compensate class representatives Galina
25
Seebrook, Maria Isabel Beltran, Nicolle DiSimone, Kristen Hartman
26
and Mario Arellano for their services as court appointed class
27
representatives.
28
time and effort that they have spent in litigating this case.
Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Award Payments
The awards are reasonable given the amount of
5
1
2
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion
for attorneys' fees and costs is granted.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
12/4/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?