Barrera v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 125

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 05/20/2015. (lhklc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JOHN BARRERA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND
CLASS REPRESENTATIVE
ENHANCEMENT

v.

14
15

Case No. 12-CV-05199-LHK

THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION
On February 19, 2015, this matter came for hearing before this Court on Plaintiff Edgar

20

Padilla’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Class Representative

21

Enhancement. As set forth in this Court’s Order dated February 19, 2015, the Court deferred

22

ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Class Representative

23

Enhancement, as well as the Parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,

24

pending expiration of the 90-day notice period to appropriate federal and state officials in the

25

Class Action Fairness Act Notice of Proposed Settlement (“CAFA Notice”) dated February 13,

26

2015. ECF No. 103.

27
28

1
Case No. 12-CV-05199-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT

After considering the moving papers, the pleadings, and the record in this case, IT IS

1
2

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Class

3

Representative Enhancement is GRANTED for the reasons set forth herein.

4

II.

THIS COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO AWARD PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS
THEIR ATTORNEYS’ FEES ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS

5
Courts have discretion to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff if: “(1) fee-shifting

6
7

is expressly authorized by the governing statute; (2) the opponents acted in bad faith or willfully

8

violated a court order; or (3) the successful litigants have created a common fund for recovery or

9

extended a substantial benefit to a class.” In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litig., 654
F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011). In determining the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees, courts

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

should consider the factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir.

12

1975), which include:
(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal
service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the
attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6)
whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed
by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the
results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the
attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and
length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12)
awards in similar cases.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866, 868-69 (9th Cir. 2014).
Here, the gross settlement amount is $1.5 million. There is no reversion of any funds to

20
21

the Defendant. All settlement class members who do not opt out will receive their pro rata share

22

of the settlement amount without having to submit a claim form. Plaintiff’s counsel request

23

$375,000, or 25% of the settlement fund, as compensation for attorneys’ fees. Upon consideration

24

of the Kerr factors as applied to this case, the Court determines that this request is reasonable.

25

III.

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S ATTORNEYS’ FEE REQUEST IS REASONABLE IN
COMPARISON TO THE LODESTAR

26
27
28

2
Case No. 12-CV-05199-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT

It has been noted that it is sometimes helpful to courts to “cross-check” a percentage award

1
2

by employing a lodestar with a multiplier analysis. While the lodestar method is generally

3

considered inappropriate in a common fund case where real cash benefits (as opposed to coupons

4

or non-monetary benefits) are made available to class members, its use can provide further

5

validation of the appropriateness of the percentage award approach. See In re Prudential Ins. Co.

6

of America Sales Practice Litigation, 106 F. Supp. 2d 721 (D.N.J. 2000).
The declarations of Class Counsel state that they devoted approximately 513.5 hours of

7
8

time to this litigation. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 92-1 (“Lee Decl.”), 92 (“Marder Decl.”), 91-1 (“Hyun

9

Decl.”). Applying the various hourly rates of the law firms and lawyers who dedicated their
efforts to this matter, a lodestar of $338,120 is established for the amount of work spent through

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

final approval. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 6-8, 10-13; Marder Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 7-14; Hyun Decl. ¶¶ 7-9, 11-14).

12

The percentage award sought by Class Counsel, if converted to the lodestar method, would entail

13

a multiplier of approximately 1.1, which is reasonable in this case.

14

IV.

THE COURT APPROVES THE REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS
The request for reimbursement of costs, in the amount of $16,391.53 is fair and

15
16

reasonable. Here, the costs consists of all litigation related costs, which have been detailed in the

17

supporting declarations of Class Counsel. (Lee Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. B; Marder Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. B;

18

Hyun Decl. ¶¶ 10). The authority for the court to award this is the parties’ Settlement Agreement

19

and Labor Code § 218.5. Further, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendant has agreed

20

not to oppose any request for reimbursement of costs up to $25,000.

21

V.

22

THE COURT APPROVES THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT
This Court approves the class representative enhancement award of $2,500 to Plaintiff

23

Edgar Padilla. Courts have found it appropriate to recognize the role of the representative

24

plaintiffs without whose actions and courage the benefits of the settlement, which are conferred

25

on the class as a whole, would never have been achieved. The criteria courts may consider in

26

relation to incentive payments include: 1) the risk to the class representative in commencing the

27
28

3
Case No. 12-CV-05199-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT

1

suit, both financial and otherwise; 2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the

2

class representative; 3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; 4) the

3

duration of the litigation; and 5) the personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the class

4

representative as a result of the litigation. See Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los

5

Angeles, 186 Cal. App. 4th 399, 412 (2010) (citing Stanton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 975 (9th

6

Cir. 2003)); see also Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 299-300 (N.D.

7

Cal. 1995) (approving award of $50,000 to named plaintiff).
Upon the facts of this case, this Court finds that an enhancement payment of $2,500 to

8
9
10

Plaintiff is fair and reasonable.
VI.

CONCLUSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and

12

Class Representative Enhancement is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

The Court APPROVES payment of Class Representative Enhancement Award to

14

Plaintiff Edgar Padilla in the amount of $2,500.00 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement

15

Agreement.

16

2.

The Court APPROVES payment of Attorneys’ Fees in the amount of $375,000.00

17

and Costs in the amount of $16,391.53 to Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the

18

Settlement Agreement.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: May 20, 2015

___________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 12-CV-05199-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT