Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2020-00046696-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00046696-CU-MC-CTL SAUL VS OTAY LANDFILL INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement, 04/18/2024

Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (ROA 82) is GRANTED.

The court's minute order granting preliminary approval and scheduling this final approval hearing expressly stated that the hearing reservation 'contemplates one set of moving papers and the papers are to be within page limits.' (ROA 75.) Despite this, Plaintiff submitted a separate Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Costs, and Incentive Award for the Class Representative (ROA 79) with its own separate, second memorandum. The court has exercised its discretion on this occasion to consider the excessive briefing. However, Plaintiff's counsel is to follow all court rules going forward.

(Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1113(d), (e).) Plaintiff's request for a service award is granted but reduced to $1,500.00. No declaration from Plaintiff was filed in support of the request, and counsel's declaration provides no specific details justifying the amount requested. (Liddle Decl. ¶37.) Plaintiff's request for attorney fees is granted but reduced to $155,000.00 after the court conducted an analysis under both the percentage-of-the-common-fund approach and a lodestar cross-check. Here, the settlement included a cash fund of $500,000.00 as well as 'non-monetary benefits in the form of improvement measures valued at $1,200,000.00.' (Fee Mtn. at 3:14-15.) Plaintiff was represented by two firms in this case, and an attorney from each firm filed a declaration in support of their respective fee requests. (ROA 80, 81.) While Plaintiff's counsel may opt to rely on declarations rather than billing records (Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1309, 1324), here the filed declarations were very thin, providing little detail regarding the tasks performed during the litigation. The declarations were not sufficient to justify application of the requested multiplier of 1.42.

Settlement administration costs are granted in the amount of $10,000.00 per class counsel's prior representation to the court that they 'will not seek more than $10,000.00 for the costs of providing Notice and administration [of] the settlement.' (ROA 71, Liddle Decl. at ¶ 37.) Each of the firms representing Plaintiff submitted their own cost sheet. Attorney Liddle's cost sheet included costs for settlement administration in excess of the $10,000.00 that counsel previously agreed not to seek. (ROA 71, Liddle Decl. at ¶ 37.) Those costs are not approved. In addition, Attorney Liddle's cost sheet lacked sufficient detail for the court to evaluate some of the requested costs.

$831.90 is billed for 'Lists' without explanation; these costs are not approved. (ROA 80; Liddle Decl, Exh. A.) $3,150.00 was billed for 'Court call,' which is excessive; these costs are also not approved.

(Ibid.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042015  7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SAUL VS OTAY LANDFILL INC [E-FILE]  37-2020-00046696-CU-MC-CTL Attorney Wang's cost sheet includes costs for Attorney Coulson's pro hac vice application and annual renewal thereof. (ROA 81; Attorney Wang Decl. at Exh. A.) However, according to Attorney Liddle's declaration, Attorney Coulson did not perform any work in this case. (ROA 80, Liddle Decl. at ¶¶ 27-28.) These costs ($50.00 certificate of good standing, $1.25 payment processing fee, $540.67 ($1622.00/3) pro hac vice application, $564.32 ($1,692.95/3) pro hac vice renewal, and $562.95 'motion' (renewal) to appear pro hac vice are not approved.

Litigation costs are approved in the reduced amount of $21,200.42 (Attorney Liddle's firm) plus $2,831.02 for a total costs award of $24,031.44.

The court sets a compliance hearing for December 6, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff is to file a declaration by class counsel acting as the administrator regarding the status of disbursement and the status of the Improvement Measures on or before November 26, 2024.

Plaintiff is to submit a revised Proposed Order and Judgment to reflect the reduced service award of $1,500.00, reduced attorney fees of $155,000.00, actual litigation expenses of $24,031.44, and compliance hearing/deadline within five (5) days. The total number of participating class members, including the named Plaintiff, is to be included in the Proposed Order and Judgment. In addition, paragraph 15 of the proposed judgment is to be deleted; the case is not to be dismissed. (See Cal. R.

Court, rule 3.770(a).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042015  7