Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2021-00006863-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 11, 2024

04/12/2024  09:00:00 AM  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) 37-2021-00006863-CU-OE-CTL PHILLIPS VS PROVIDIEN THERMOFORMING INC [E-FILED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement, 03/20/2024

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 claims administration costs of $16,250, payable to CPT Group, are reasonable for a case of this type and are approved. The same cannot be said, however, about the litigation costs of $54,115.21.

Not only are the requested costs higher than what was estimated in the preliminary approval papers ($50,000), they exceed the maximum amount permitted by the Settlement Agreement. (See Hollis Preliminary Approval Decl., Ex. 1 at ¶ 1.9.) Accordingly, the litigation costs are approved, but only to the extent of $50,000. The remainder ($54,115.21 minus $50,000 equals $4,115.21) is poured over into the net settlement fund for distribution to the class members.

C. The proposed the service award of $10,000 to each of the three plaintiffs is reasonable under the circumstances and is hereby approved.

D. Finally, the attorneys' fees proposal of $1,925,000 represents thirty-five percent of the gross settlement fund. This 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.

Turning to the lodestar 'cross-check' (see Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503-06), the evidence before the court shows that the attorneys assigned to this matter billed a total of 2,212 hours. (Han Decl., ¶ 10; Hollis Decl., ¶ 28.) This results in a blended hourly rate of approximately $870.25 per hour ($1,925,000 divided by 2,212), which is higher than what the court considers reasonable for similar work in San Diego County. See Cordero-Sacks v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1286 ('The trial court is in the best position to determine the reasonableness of the hourly rate of an attorney appearing before the court and the value of the attorney's professional services.'). There is also evidence that the case was not properly staffed, as there were too many timekeepers and too many 'transitory billers.' (See, e.g., Hollis Decl., ¶¶ 27-28.) Both are indicative of inefficiency.

Nevertheless, the court finds that the requested attorneys' fees are reasonable to properly compensate counsel for the contingent nature of the litigation and the excellent result achieved on behalf of the class.

There is no objection to the requested fees, which is evidence of the class members' approbation of the efforts of counsel. Moreover, the multiplier for the lodestar (1.39) is relatively low and the class size Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3063844  8 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PHILLIPS VS PROVIDIEN THERMOFORMING INC [E-FILED]  37-2021-00006863-CU-OE-CTL (1,099) is fairly substantial. Accordingly, the requested attorneys' fees award of $1,925,000 is hereby approved.

E. Class counsel must prepare and submit a revised proposed order and proposed final judgment consistent with the foregoing.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3063844  8