Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2018-00059972-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 08, 2023
11/09/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00059972-CU-OE-CTL MINTER VS BOMBARDIER MASS TRANSIT CORPORATION [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement, 10/16/2023
The unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED.
A. The court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the court approves the parties' proposed settlement, subject to some qualifications discussed below.
B. The litigation costs of $48,089.86, payable to class counsel, and the settlement administration costs of $10,000, payable to CPT Group, are reasonable for a case of this type. Moreover, the litigation costs awarded are less than the amount originally estimated in the preliminary approval papers ($48,500).
The costs are therefore approved.
C. The proposed the service awards ($7,500 to each plaintiff) and individual release payments ($7,500 to each plaintiff) are reasonable and approved.
D. Finally, the attorneys' fees proposal of $4,833,333 represents one-third of the gross settlement. At first blush, the requested amount – which includes a multiplier of 3.09 – is not out of line with class action fee awards calculated using the percentage-of-the-benefit method. See Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 fn. 11. However, '[w]here the class settlement is for a very large amount, a percentage fee may be criticized as providing counsel a windfall in relation to the amount of work performed.' Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 490. Such is the case here.
According to the declarations of class counsel, the attorneys assigned to this matter billed a total of 2,449.5 hours. (Donahoo Decl., ¶ 74; Letizia Decl., ¶ 26.) This results in a blended hourly rate of approximately $1,973.19 per hour ($4,833,333 divided by 2,449.5 hours), which is significantly higher than what is reasonable for similar work in San Diego County. None of the six attorneys who worked on this file have the level of experience or prominence that would command an hourly rate of nearly $2,000.
Nor is there evidence suggesting that any of them have ever been awarded anything close to $2,000 per hour. To the contrary, all six attorneys utilize hourly rates well below the proposed blended hourly rate.
(Donahoo Decl., ¶ 74; Letizia Decl., ¶ 26.) A blended rate of over $1,900 per hour is hard to justify under these circumstances.
The court, however, does not believe that a multiplier is unwarranted. To the contrary, a multiplier is appropriate here to properly compensate plaintiffs' counsel for their exceptional skill, the contingent nature of the litigation, and the excellent results achieved. In light of the foregoing, the court is persuaded that a multiplier of 2.5 should be applied. This results in a fee award of $3,909,909.38 (lodestar of $1,563,963.75 multiplied by 2.5), which is approximately 27% of the gross settlement fund.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3038028 25 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MINTER VS BOMBARDIER MASS TRANSIT CORPORATION [E-FILE] 37-2018-00059972-CU-OE-CTL Thus, the attorneys' fee request is granted, but only to the extent of $3,909,909.38. The remainder ($4,833,333 minus $3,909,909.38 equals $932,423.62) is poured over into the net settlement fund for distribution to the class members. See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 ('To the extent a trial court is concerned that a particular award is excessive, it has broad discretion to adjust the fee downward[.]').
E. Class counsel must prepare and submit a modified proposed order and proposed final judgment consistent with the foregoing.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3038028 25