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