Bell v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Filing
67
ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, SERVICE AWARD, CLASS ADMINISTRATION FEES AND ATTORNEYS FEES & COSTS [AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT] re 59 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Andrew Bell, 62 MOTION for Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Andrew Bell. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 11/20/14. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ANDREW BELL, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly-situated,
CASE NO. 13-CV-01199-YGR
Plaintiffs,
v.
DELTA AIR LINES, INC.; and DOES 1
TO 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT
GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT, SERVICE AWARD,
CLASS ADMINISTRATION FEES, AND
ATTORNEYS’ FEES & COST
*AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT*
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER & JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 13-CV-01199-YGR
1
The Court, having granted preliminary approval of class action settlement on July 22,
2
2014, directed notice of the proposed settlement to all Class Members, considered Plaintiff’s
3
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and accompanying declarations and Plaintiff’s Motion
4
for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and accompanying declarations, and conducted a fairness
5
hearing on October 14, 2014, and with GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, this Court HEREBY
6
ORDERS THE FOLLOWING:
1.
The provisions of the Settlement Agreement are hereby finally approved. The
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Court finds that the Settlement appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Class.
2.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and for purposes
of, and solely in connection with the Settlement, the Court finds that each of the requirements for
certification of the class are met and hereby certifies the following settlement class:
All Ready Reserve Employees who were employed by Defendant, in
California, beginning March 18, 2009 through March 17, 2014.
3.
The Court confirms the appointment and designation of named Plaintiff Andrew
Bell as Class Representative.
4.
The Court confirms the appointment and designation of Duckworth Peters
Lebowitz Olivier LLP and the Law Offices of Deborah C. England as Class Counsel.
5.
The Court confirms the appointment and designation of Dahl Administration, Inc.
as the Settlement Administrator in this case.
6.
The Court hereby finds that the Notice of Settlement, which has been mailed to all
23
class members as previously ordered by the Court, described the terms of the proposed Settlement
24
Agreement, provided the date of the fairness hearing, the manner in which class members could
25
object to or participate in the settlement, and the manner in which class members could opt out of
26
the class. The Court finds that it was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and
27
28
complied fully with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e)(1), due process and all
[PROPOSED] ORDER & JUDGMENT
-1-
CASE NO. 13-CV-01199-YGR
1
other applicable laws. The Court further finds that a full and fair opportunity has been afforded to
2
all class members to participate in the proceedings convened to determine whether the proposed
3
4
5
6
7
Settlement Agreement should be given final approval. Accordingly, the Court hereby determines
that all class members who did not file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the
settlement are bound by this final Order.
7.
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, is
8
the product of good faith, arm’s-length negotiations between the parties, and fully complies with
9
all applicable provisions of law. Accordingly, the Court hereby finally and unconditionally
10
11
12
13
14
approves the Settlement Agreement. Specifically:
a. Approves the Settlement Fund of $1,415,444 as provided for in the
Stipulation of Settlement.
b. Approves that $10,000 of the Settlement Fund be allocated to resolve
15
PAGA claims, and that under Labor Code section 2699(i), 75% of that amount, or $7,500,
16
will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency;
17
18
19
20
21
c. Approves the Named Plaintiff and Class Representative Andrew Bell’s
requested service award of $7,500, which is justified by the time and effort expended by
Plaintiff on behalf of the class and risk he assumed in bringing this action;
d. Approves Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fee request of $353,861 as 25% of the
22
$1,415,444 common fund settlement amount, finding that this amount is below Class
23
Counsel’s lodestar without any multiplier, and finding no reason to depart from the 25%
24
benchmark within the Ninth Circuit;
25
26
27
e. Approves Class Counsel’s request for reimbursement of litigation expenses
of $15,576.04;
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER & JUDGMENT
-2-
CASE NO. 13-CV-01199-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
f. Approves payment to Dahl Administration, Inc. of $13,367 as costs and
expenses of settlement administration;
g. Approves payment from the settlement fund of amounts determined by the
Settlement Administrator to be due to class members who did not opt out, as specified in
the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.
h. This Order shall have a res judicata effect and bar each Plaintiff and each
8
settlement class member from bringing any action asserting “Released Claims” as the
9
term is defined in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.
10
11
12
i. This Court shall retain jurisdiction for one year to enforce the terms of the
Joint Stipulation of Settlement. In all other respects, the action is dismissed.
13
This Order terminates Docket Nos. 59 and 62.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
15
16
17
18
November 20, 2014
DATED: ____________________
By: _____________________________
HON. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
19
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER & JUDGMENT
-3-
CASE NO. 13-CV-01199-YGR
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?