Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc.
Filing
487
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting in part and denying in part 478 Motion for Attorney Fees.(mll, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2023)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JULIA BERNSTEIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 15-cv-02277-JST
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO APPROVE
THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION,
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES,
AND SERVICE AWARDS TO CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES
Re: ECF No. 478
12
13
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to approve the plan of allocation,
14
attorney’s fees and expenses, and service awards. The factual and procedural background to this
15
case is well known to the parties and is set forth in greater detail in several of this Court’s prior
16
orders. See, e.g., ECF No. 456; ECF No. 121. On January 24, 2023, the Court entered an
17
amended judgment in the amount of $30,976,831.87. After the addition of prejudgment and post-
18
judgment interest, the total judgment is now $31,637,391.85 (“Common Fund Judgment”). ECF
19
No. 468 ¶ 15. The parties subsequently reached an agreement with respect to an award of
20
statutory fees. See id. ¶ 9. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on May 18, 2023. The Court held a
21
hearing on the motion on August 17, 2023. The Court will now grant the motion.
22
A.
23
“[T]he plan of distribution in [an] adjudicated class action is subject to the same standards
Plan of Allocation
24
that apply to the allocation of a class settlement fund, i.e., ‘the distribution plan must be fair,
25
reasonable and adequate.’” Rodman v. Safeway Inc., No. 11-CV-03003-JST, 2018 WL 4030558,
26
at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018) (quoting In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litig., 145 F. Supp. 2d 1152,
27
1154 (N.D. Cal. 2001)). “A plan of allocation that reimburses class members based on the type
28
and extent of their injuries is generally reasonable.” Id.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Plaintiffs’ Plan of Allocation will reimburse class members based on the extent of their
2
injuries. The Plan provides that each class member shall receive their pro rata share of the “Net
3
Distribution Amount”—the Common Fund Judgment less attorney’s fees, costs, service awards,
4
and the amount payable to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”)—
5
based upon that class member’s payroll data. ECF No. 469-1 ¶ 1.3.1; ECF No. 470 ¶ 13. Once
6
the class administrator calculates the amount distributable to each class member and notifies class
7
members of their respective amounts, class members will have 75 days to submit additional
8
information or documentation to the class administrator to challenge that calculation. ECF No.
9
469-1 ¶ 1.3.2. The Plan further provides that the class administrator will issue checks to class
10
members that will remain valid for 120 days and that, after 90 days, the class administrator will
11
attempt to contact all class members that have not cashed their checks. Id. ¶¶ 1.3.2, 1.4.
12
The Plan also calls for unclaimed funds to be distributed to Legal Aid at Work as a cy pres
13
beneficiary. See id. ¶ 1.7. There is a clear “driving nexus between the plaintiff class and the cy
14
pres beneficiar[y],” as the plaintiff class comprises aggrieved employees who were denied wages
15
owed, and Legal Aid at Work provides legal assistance to workers and working families. Dennis
16
v. Kellogg Co., 679 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034,
17
1038 (9th Cir. 2011)). Accordingly, the cy pres award is “guided by the objectives of the
18
underlying” California labor laws and “the interests of the silent class members,” id. at 865
19
(quoting Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1034), and it does not “benefit a group ‘too remote from the
20
plaintiff class,’” id. (quoting Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301,
21
1308 (9th Cir. 1990)).
22
23
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and approves the Plan.
Attorney’s Fees
24
B.
25
“Calculation of attorney’s fees awards in cases brought under state law is a substantive
26
matter to which state law applies.” Rodriguez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 809 (9th Cir.
27
2018). This case “is a ‘hybrid’ class action” insofar as “it was initiated under a statute with a fee-
28
shifting provision, but it reached a judgment creating a common fund.” Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart
2
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Stores Inc., 269 F. Supp. 3d 975, 982–83 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 53 F.
2
Supp. 3d 1319, 1324 (D. Nev. 2014)). “In such instances, California courts permit plaintiffs to
3
seek both attorneys’ fees both under the fee-shifting law and through the common fund.” Id.; see
4
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The award of
5
attorneys’ fees in a class action settlement is often justified by the common fund or statutory fee-
6
shifting exceptions to the American Rule, and sometimes by both.”). In California, “regardless
7
whether the percentage method or the lodestar method is used, fee awards in class actions average
8
around one-third of the recovery.” In re Consumer Privacy Cases, 176 Cal. App. 4th 545, 558
9
(2009) (quoting Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 4th 43, 66 n.11 (2008)). And “while the
10
California Supreme Court recognized the Ninth Circuit’s 25% benchmark for percentage awards
11
in common fund cases, it did not adopt such a benchmark for California cases.” Ridgeway, 269 F.
12
Supp. 3d at 999. Courts consider “the risks and . . . value of the litigation” as a function of
13
“contingency, novelty, and difficulty,” as well as “the skill shown by counsel, the number of hours
14
worked[,] and the asserted hourly rates.” Lafitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480, 504
15
(2016).
16
Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,441,409, which equals 33% of the
17
Common Fund Judgment. ECF No. 469 ¶ 10. However, Defendants have agreed to pay
18
$6,395,874.95 in statutory fees, id., to which Plaintiffs are entitled under Sections 218.5, 1194,
19
and 2699(g)(1) of the California Labor Code, and under Section 1021.5 of the California Code of
20
Civil Procedure. See MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., 142 F. Supp. 3d 884, 895 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
21
That $6,395,874.95 payment will be credited against the $10,441,409 fee request such that only
22
$4,045,534.49 will be paid from the $31,637,391.85 Common Fund Judgment. ECF No. 469 ¶ 10.
23
Plaintiffs thus functionally seek a fee payment of 12.8% of the Common Fund Judgment.
24
The Court finds the fee award to be reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiffs’
25
counsel litigated this case through to judgment over a span of nearly eight years. The case itself
26
concerned complex and novel questions of law, see generally Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc., 3
27
F.4th 1127 (9th Cir. 2021), one of which was undecided by the California Supreme Court until
28
after the parties litigated the case through summary judgment, see ECF No. 456 at 3 (noting that,
3
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
in partially reversing this Court’s grant of summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit “rel[ied] on a
2
California Supreme Court decision issued while [Defendants’] appeal was pending”), and another
3
of which the California Supreme Court has not decided at all, see Bernstein, 3 F.4th 1133
4
(“[T]here is no California Supreme Court case specifically interpreting the reach of the waiting
5
time penalties statute for interstate employers . . . .”). This difficulty was exacerbated by the
6
heavily contested nature of the proceedings in this case, which included motions for class
7
certification, class decertification, reconsideration, sanctions, summary judgment, judgment, as
8
well as an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, and a
9
motion to amend the judgment. Prior defense counsel sometimes persisted in repeating arguments
10
that the Court had previously rejected, unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings. Throughout
11
these proceedings, Plaintiffs’ counsel demonstrated commendable skill, largely prevailing at each
12
juncture and eventually securing a sizable judgment of $31,637,391.85. That judgment represents
13
100% of the losses incurred by 1,869 class members as to the successful claims. ECF No. 469 ¶¶
14
11, 26. Counsel also represented Plaintiffs “on a purely contingent basis,” id. ¶ 85, and thus
15
expended over 7300 hours of attorney time at the risk of obtaining no compensation for their
16
efforts, see ECF No. 469-2 at 2. The value of this litigation in relation to the substantial risks
17
undertaken by counsel justify an award in the amount requested, particularly given that class
18
members will pay only part of the fees, functionally representing 12.8% of the Common Fund
19
Judgment.
20
The reasonableness of the award is confirmed by counsel’s lodestar. See Vizcaino v.
21
Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Calculation of the lodestar . . . provides a
22
check on the reasonableness of the percentage award.”). Courts frequently award “[m]ultiples
23
ranging from one to four . . . in common fund cases when the lodestar method is applied.”
24
Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1052 n.6 (quoting In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent
25
Actions, 148 F.3d 283, 341 (3d Cir. 1998)). California courts consider the following factors in
26
determining the appropriate multiplier: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved,
27
(2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation
28
precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.”
4
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1132 (2001). Here, counsel’s lodestar is $5,844,319.50, see
2
ECF No. 469-2, and counsel’s hours are sufficiently documented, see id.; ECF No. 469-3; see also
3
Ridgeway, 269 F. Supp. 3d at 987 (“California courts have . . . approved fee awards based on
4
declarations describing the hours worked on various tasks, without providing underlying time
5
records of the hours worked and the type of work performed.”). Counsel’s requested fee award of
6
$10,441,409 produces a lodestar multiplier of 1.79, which is appropriate for the reasons discussed
7
above. The Court therefore approves counsel’s fee request.
8
C.
Expenses
9
“[C]ourts throughout the Ninth Circuit regularly award litigation costs and expenses—
10
including photocopying, printing, postage, court costs, research on online databases, experts and
11
consultants, and reasonable travel expenses.” Thomas v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., No.
12
14-cv-01160-JST, 2018 WL 2234598, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2018) (quoting Destefano v.
13
Zynga, Inc., No. 12-cv-04007-JSC, 2016 WL 537946, at *22 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016)). To
14
support an award of costs and expenses, Plaintiffs should file an itemized list of their expenses by
15
category, listing the total amount advanced for each category, allowing the Court to assess whether
16
the expenses are reasonable. Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, No. 06-cv-05778-JCS, 2011 WL
17
1230826, at *29–30 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011), supplemented, No. 06-cv-05778-JCS, 2011 WL
18
1838562 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2011).
19
Counsel requests $575,293.38 in litigation expenses to be paid from the Common Fund
20
Judgment. Plaintiffs support that request with an itemized list of expenses and copies of receipts,
21
all of which detail expenses incurred in relation to this litigation. See ECF Nos. 469-4 & 469-5.
22
Plaintiffs will also receive $40,000 from Defendants as reimbursement for costs recoverable under
23
the applicable statutes. ECF No. 469 ¶ 4. The Court finds counsel’s expenses reasonable and
24
grants the request.
25
D.
26
Counsel requests that the Court approve service awards to Class Representatives Julia
Service Awards
27
Bernstein, Esther Garcia, and Lisa Marie Smith in the amount of $25,000 each, or 0.001% of the
28
Common Fund Judgment. “Such awards are discretionary and are intended to compensate class
5
1
representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk
2
undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as private
3
attorney general.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
4
citation omitted). The Court should consider:
(1) the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the
class; (2) the degree to which the class has benefitted from those
actions; (3) the duration of the litigation and the amount of time and
effort the plaintiff expended in purs[u]ing it; and (4) the risks to the
plaintiff in commencing the litigation, including reasonable fears of
workplace retaliation, personal difficulties, and financial risks.
5
6
7
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Wren, 2011 WL 1230826, at *32 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011). “[C]ourts must be vigilant in
10
scrutinizing all incentive awards to determine whether they destroy the adequacy of the class
11
representatives.” Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 715 F.3d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013).
In this district, an incentive award of $5,000 “is presumptively reasonable.”1 Harris v.
12
13
Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2012 WL 381202, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012). A
14
$25,000 service award significantly “exceeds the typical incentive award in the Ninth Circuit[.]”
15
Louangamath v. Spectranetics Corp., No. 18-cv-03634-JST, 2023 WL 3579319, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
16
Feb. 16, 2023) (collecting cases). “Courts will, however, grant an award that exceeds $5000 when
17
it is warranted.” Id. at *2 (collecting cases); see Coates v. Farmers Group, Inc., No. 15-CV-
18
01913-LHK, 2016 WL 5791413, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016) ([T]he request for service
19
awards . . . in the amount of $25,000 each is reasonable given the risks these Plaintiffs assumed
20
and the amount of time they spent in conjunction with prosecuting this case”). For example, in In
21
re: High-tech Employer Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-cv-2509-LHK, 2014 WL 10520478, at *2–3
22
(N.D. Cal. May 16, 2014), the court granted a $20,000 service award to each of six class
23
representatives from a $20,000,000 settlement fund, or 0.1% of the fund. The court reasoned that
24
“the Class Representatives have expended substantial time and effort pursuing this litigation, and
25
26
27
28
1
At some point, the common law will have to reckon with inflation. $5,000 in February 2012,
when the Harris decision was issued, had the same buying power as $6,790 has today. Bureau of
Labor Stat., CPI Inflation Calculator, https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (measured
as of September 2023). Because the Court approves incentive awards that greatly exceed the
presumptive amount, it does not address the question of inflation further.
6
1
in doing so have protected the interest in the class”; that “the Class has benefitted from the efforts
2
of the Class Representatives” who “face some risk of retaliation, particularly in the employment
3
context”; and that “[e]ach Class Representative expressed a fear that other . . . companies or
4
clients might not want to work with them in the future due to their role in this case.” Id.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
Here, similar considerations favor an award in excess of $5,000 for each of the three Class
6
Representatives. The Class Representatives have expended substantial time and effort pursuing
7
this litigation over a span of nearly eight years. They worked with counsel to pull documents,
8
gather case-related information, respond to discovery, attend phone and in-person meetings,
9
discuss strategy, attend mediation and other court proceedings, attend their depositions, read case-
10
related filings, and communicate with class members about the status of the case. ECF No. 471 ¶¶
11
7, 10; ECF No. 472 ECF No. 473 ¶¶ 8, 11; ECF No. 472 ¶ 11, 14. In connection with this case,
12
Bernstein spent approximately 150 hours, ECF No. 473 ¶ 11, Garcia spent approximately 130
13
hours, ECF No. 471 ¶ 10, and Smith spent over 500 hours, ECF No. 472 ¶ 4. The Class
14
Representatives’ efforts have also benefitted a class of approximately 1,869 members, ECF No.
15
469 ¶ 26, and resulted in a sizable judgment of $31,637,391.85, which represents 100% of the
16
losses incurred by class members as to the successful claims, id. ¶ 11. The average pro rata
17
distribution of that judgment is approximately $8,900, and 20% of the class will receive
18
distributions that exceed $15,000. ECF No. 486 at 4.
19
Further, the Class Representatives also face a risk of retaliation as employees in the airline
20
industry. Smith, for example, is still employed by Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc. (“Alaska”).
21
ECF No. 472 ¶ 6. After the amended complaint listing Smith’s name was filed, Alaska began to
22
investigate Smith for uniform violations and performance concerns. Id. Smith additionally
23
expressed a fear of losing her job because of her active participation in this litigation. Id. Finally,
24
the Class Representatives’ willingness to act as private attorneys general warrants recognition.
25
The judgment secures more than $12 million in civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General
26
Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2699 et seq., 75% of which will be paid to the LDWA.
27
28
However, courts adjust the amount of service awards “commensurate with the time they
each expended” in connection with the litigation. Wren, 2011 WL 1230826, at *35. Smith’s 500
7
1
hours far exceeds Bernstein’s 150 hours and Garcia’s 130 hours. Additionally, Bernstein and
2
Garcia did not express similar fears of retaliation as did Smith. Accordingly, the Court approves
3
service awards of $25,000 for Smith, $12,000 for Bernstein, and $12,000 for Garcia.
CONCLUSION
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part for the
reasons set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 3, 2023
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?