Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV36654, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV36654    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Daniel Analco

RESPONDING PARTY:       n/a

(1)   Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

(2)   Plaintiff’s Application for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

            The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with each motion.  No opposition papers to the motions were filed.  

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Daniel Analco (“Plaintiff”) seeks final approval of the “Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement” (the “Settlement Agreement”) entered into by and between Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, the State of California, and the settlement class members, on the one hand, and defendant Felix Chevrolet, LP (“Defendant”), on the other hand.

Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) have agreed to settle the class action and PAGA claims for $337,500.  (Genish Decl., Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 15.)

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

California Rules of Court, rule 3.769, subdivision (g) provides that the court must conduct an inquiry into the fairness of a proposed class action settlement prior to final approval.  The trial court has broad powers to determine whether a proposed settlement is fair.  (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal. App. 3d 434, 438.)  The standard for approval of class settlements in California is that the settlement be fair, reasonable, and adequate for class members overall.  (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1801.) 

To determine the fairness of a settlement, the court must consider certain factors, as set forth in Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244-45, disapproved by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260 on other grounds.  “[A] presumption of fairness exists where:  (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.”  (Id. at p. 245.)  “[T]he test is not the maximum amount plaintiffs might have obtained at trial on the complaint but, rather, whether the settlement is reasonable under all of the circumstances.”  (Id. at p. 250; see also City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp. (2d Cir. 1974) 495 F.2d 448, 455 [stating that a proposed settlement that amounts to a fraction of the potential recovery does not in itself render the proposed settlement grossly inadequate].) 

The court already determined on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement that the Settlement Agreement is fair.  In addition to the factors discussed in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, Plaintiff presents evidence establishing that the claims administrator has received only one request for exclusion and has received zero objections.  (Quiroz Decl., ¶¶ 10-11.)

Based on the facts set forth above, and based on the reasoning and findings set forth in the court’s August 4, 2022 order granting preliminary approval of the class action and PAGA settlement, the court finds that Plaintiff has established that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.  In light of the fact that there are no objections to the Settlement Agreement, the court finds that it is appropriate to approve it.  The court further finds that the PAGA settlement amount, consisting of $25,000 (of which 75%, or $18,750, will be paid to the California LWDA, and the remaining 25%, or $6,250, will be distributed to the aggrieved employees on a pro rata basis) is fair, adequate, and reasonable.  (Genish Decl., Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 50.) 

The court also approved conditional certification of the class for purposes of settlement in its order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.  (August 4, 2022 Order, p. 4:6-26.)  Because Plaintiff does not contend that the class should not be certified, or that the court should reconsider its preliminary determination, the court finds it appropriate to certify the class for settlement purposes.  (Genish Decl., ¶ 18 [the Parties agree that the settlement class may be certified for settlement purposes]; See Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1807, fn. 19 [finding that the court may use a lesser standard to determine the appropriateness of a settlement class for settlement purposes].)

The court notes that Plaintiff requests the court award class counsel $112,500 for attorney’s fees incurred in litigating this action, and reimbursement for costs in the amount of $11,241.61.  The court addresses this request below, in connection with Plaintiff’s concurrently filed Application for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

The court finds that Plaintiff’s declaration is sufficient to establish that his requested enhancement payment of $7,500 is fair and reasonable, and within the amount provided for by the Settlement Agreement.  (Analco Decl., ¶¶ 4-10, 12-13; Genish Decl., Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 49.)  The court therefore finds it appropriate to approve the award.

Finally, the court finds that the request for costs to be paid to the claims administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., is sufficiently supported by the declaration of Krystal Quiroz, and is within the amount provided for by the Settlement Agreement.  (Quiroz Decl., ¶ 14; Quiroz Decl., Ex. B; Genish Decl., Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 36.)  The court therefore finds it appropriate to approve the award.

The court therefore finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

APPROVAL OF AWARD FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order finally approving and awarding Plaintiff’s counsel (1) $112,500 in attorney’s fees, and (2) $11,241.61 in litigation costs, pursuant to the terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and California Rules of Court, rule 3.769.

 “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. . . . .  The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.  The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.”  (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 [internal citations omitted].)  The primary factor for determining the fairness of fees is “whether the fees bear a reasonable relationship to the value of the attorneys’ work.”  (Robbins v. Alibrandi (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)  Courts have adopted a practice of cross-checking the lodestar against the value of the class recovery because the award is then “anchored” in the time spent by counsel.  (Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 45.) 

Here, class counsel seeks $112,500 in attorney’s fees, representing one-third of the total gross settlement fund.  (Genish Decl., Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 15 [defining the gross settlement fund to be $337,500], ¶ 48 [providing for attorneys’ fees of up to one-third of the gross settlement payment and costs of up to $30,000].)

Plaintiff presents evidence establishing that his attorneys have a total adjusted lodestar amount between $92,003.50 and $95,978.50.  (Schimmel Decl., ¶ 10 [counsel have spent approximately 121.3 total hours litigating this case, representing fees incurred in the amount of $84,053.50, and expect to bill an additional 10-15 hours in bringing the pending motions].)  Plaintiff’s counsel attests to the education, experience, and qualifications of the attorneys who worked on this matter.  (Schimmel Decl., ¶¶ 4-7, 12-14.)  The court finds that the facts presented by Plaintiff support a multiplier of approximately 1.17 to adjust the lodestar.  Based on this evidence and finding, the court finds that Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $112,500 is reasonable.

Plaintiff also requests approval of litigation costs in the amount of $11,241.62.  The Settlement Agreement provides for costs of up to $30,000.  (Genish Decl., Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, ¶ 48.)  The court finds that the litigation costs incurred are supported by the declaration of Jonathan M. Genish, and therefore finds it appropriate to approve the award of costs requested.  (Genish Decl., ¶ 40, Ex. D.)

ORDER

The court grants plaintiff Daniel Analco’s (1) motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement, and (2) application for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs, claims administration and class representative’s enhancement award.

The court will sign and file the proposed “Judgment and Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,” lodged by plaintiff on November 22, 2022.

The court orders plaintiff Daniel Analco to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 16, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court