Judge Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case 37-2022-00019578-CU-OE-CTL 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2022-00019578-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023 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) 37-2022-00019578-CU-OE-CTL NGUYEN VS TRILINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 10/05/2023

The unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted.

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.

A. The litigation costs of $18,118.16, payable to class counsel, and the settlement administration costs of $9,250, payable to Phoenix, are reasonable for a case of this type. Moreover, the litigation costs awarded are significantly less than the amount originally estimated in the preliminary approval papers ($27,500). The costs are therefore approved.

B. The proposed service award to plaintiff of $10,000 is disproportionate when considering that the average recovery for each settling class member is less than $500.00. While the court understands the risks associated with agreeing to be named as a class representative [see Early v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1433 (cost burden falls on class reps, not absent class members)], the court concludes that $7,500.00 is a reasonable award for plaintiff. The remainder ($2,500.00) will be poured over into the net settlement sum fund for distribution to the class members.

C. Finally, the attorneys' fees proposal of $146,553.23 represents one-third 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. In addition, upon performing a 'cross-check' using the lodestar method, the court finds that the requested attorneys' fees are reasonable. According to the declaration of class counsel, the attorneys assigned to this matter billed a total of 283 hours. (Ferraro Decl., ¶ 9.) This results in a blended hourly rate of approximately $517.86 per hour ($146,553.23 divided by 283), which is 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.'). The requested fee award of $146,553.23 is therefore approved.

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

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3037119 43