Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00029632-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024

04/26/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00029632-CU-OE-CTL WILLIAMS VS ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Tyrone Williams's unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED.

The settlement terms are fair and in compliance with the requirements of Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1800-1801.

Plaintiff also requests $500,00.00 in attorney fees, $13,347.74 in costs, and for a $15,000.00 incentive award to Plaintiff. Based on experience with the southern California legal markets, including Los Angeles and San Diego, and the evidence and legal authority provided in the moving papers, the court concludes the cost request is reasonable. However, the requests for $500,000 in attorney fees, based on 1/3 of the $1,500,000 settlement, and the request for a $15,000 service award, are not.

In a common fund case such as this, the percentage method is the preferred method of determining attorney fees. (Laffitte v. Robert Half & Associates (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 494.) The percentage method has recognized advantages in these circumstances, including the 'relative ease of calculation, alignment of incentives between counsel and the class, a better approximation of market conditions in a contingency case, and the encouragement it provides counsel to seek an early settlement and avoid unnecessarily prolonging the litigation.' (Id. at p. 503.) This court has frequently approved fee awards equal to one-third the common fund. Nonetheless, the court has discretion to use a lodestar crosscheck to assist its analysis of the reasonableness of the requested fee award. (Laffitte, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 503-06.) Here, a lodestar crosscheck raises serious questions as to the reasonableness of the fee award because the lodestar was calculated using high hourly rates ranging from $475 for associates to $950 for the senior partner, yet still requires a 2.03 multiplier to bring it within the range of the percentage amount, and this case was filed less than two years ago, never reached class certification, and was settled within a year of it being filed (ROA #32).

A comparison of the factual circumstances in the cases cited by Plaintiff to the circumstances in this case leads the court to conclude a reduced fee amount should be awarded. (See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp. (9th Cir. 2002) 290 F.3d 1043, 1051 [affirming fee award of 28% of $97 million settlement ($27 million fee award) and approving use of 3.65 multiplier in lodestar crosscheck only because the ERISA case was highly complex and lengthy (9 years at time of award, 10 years at time of appeal)]; Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 495, 512 [approving multiplier of 2.52 in lodestar crosscheck because fee award of nearly $4 million was only 1.4 percent of the $276 million recovery, and the eight-year case was 'hotly contested']; Willner v. Manpower Inc. (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2015), no. 11-cv-02846-JST, 2015 WL 3863625, at *7 [reducing $3 million fee request based on 1/3 of common fund to $2,625,000 fee award based on 30% of common fund, and using 2.1 multiplier in Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3071271  15 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WILLIAMS VS ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00029632-CU-OE-CTL lodestar crosscheck in the four-year case]; Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal., Oct. 22, 2014) 303 F.R.D. 326, 333-34 [request for nearly $3.7 million in fees and costs based on 25% of $14.74 million settlement, allowing use of 2.83 multiplier in lodestar crosscheck to confirm reasonableness]; Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp. (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2013), no. 11-cv-02786-LHK, 2013 WL 496358 at *3-5 [$1.4 million fee request based on 1/3 of $4,250,000 settlement fund reduced to $1,275,000 based on 30% of settlement fund, and allowing use of 2.76 multiplier in lodestar crosscheck because the plaintiffs achieved class certification].) The court will award fees of $375,000, which is 25% of the $1.5 million settlement. The 1.52 multiplier required to align this amount with the base lodestar is acceptable under the circumstances.

Plaintiff's request for payment of $12,250 to CPT Group, Inc., the Settlement Administrator, is reasonable and within the parameters defined by the settlement agreement. Accordingly, this payment is approved.

Plaintiff's request for a $15,000 service award is not reasonable. Nothing in Plaintiff's declaration indicates he provided more to this case beyond what every lead plaintiff provides, and just like every other lead plaintiff, he signed a broad general release. The award is therefore reduced to $10,000, which is still 10x greater than the average recovery to each class member. (See, e.g., Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., supra, 303 F.R.D. at p. 335 [$5k award is presumptively reasonable in Ninth Circuit, and 'courts consider the proportionality between the incentive payment and the range of class members' settlement awards.'].) Plaintiff's counsel's is awarded $375,000.00 in fees and $13,347.74 in costs. Plaintiff's request for a $15,000.00 incentive award is denied. The court will allow a $10,000 incentive award. The $130,000 difference between the requested attorney fee and service award amounts and the awarded amounts must be added to the net class recovery. The court calculates the new net recovery as $1,009,402.26 ($1,500,000 - $375,000 - $13,347.74 - $10,000 - $80,000 - $12,250).

Plaintiff is instructed to revise the proposed order to be consistent with this ruling and submit the revised order for the court's signature. The court will sign the revised proposed order after the tentative ruling is confirmed.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3071271  15