Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00018300-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 15, 2024

02/16/2024  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  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00018300-CU-NP-CTL JOHNSON VS INVESTMENT CONCEPTS INC [EFILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Class Representative Service Awards (ROA 134) is CONTINUED to March 8, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

After reviewing the settlement administrator's declaration, the court is concerned whether the class notice process complied with the terms of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provides all class members are to receive the class notice by first class mail, postage pre-paid. (Hogue Decl., Exh. 1, ¶¶ 13, 45-46.) Supplementally, the administrator is also to 'email copies [of the class notice] to those for whom an email address is available.' (Id. at ¶ 46.) A representative for the settlement administrator states the administrator 'delivered the Class Action Settlement Notice to all 21,530 Class Members for whom we had a mailing address or email address.' (Paul Decl. ¶ 10.) It appears, however, that although first class mailing to all Class Members was required, the administrator mailed the notice to only 11,463 'Primary Tenants' via first-class mail. (Id. at ¶ 11.) This appears to indicate a total of 10,067 class members did not receive a class notice by first-class mail. There is no explanation for why such a large number of class members did not receive the required notification. It is also not clear whether any of the roommates of the Primary Tenants received notification by mail, and the settlement agreement does not provide any reason why Class Members who are not Primary Tenants, a term not even defined in the agreement, would not be entitled to direct notification by first-class mail.

The court is also concerned that so many of the class notices that were sent by first-class mail evidently did not reach their intended recipients. Of the 11,463 Primary Tenants who were sent notice by mail, 1,855 notices (about 16%) were initially returned as undeliverable. (Paul Decl. ¶ 12.) Of those, the administrator was able to obtain updated addresses for 611 Primary Tenants after performing a skip trace (about 33% of the initially undeliverable notices). (Ibid.) Of the 611 new addresses obtained, 44 notices were still returned undeliverable. (Ibid.) Accordingly, notices to 1,288 Primary Tenants, or over 11%, did not get notice of this class action settlement. There is no indication of how many, if any, of these Primary Tenants, or any other Class Members in the same situation, were notified by email instead. Nor is there any indication of how many Class Members were notified by both first class mail and e-mail, and, correspondingly, how many were never notified by either method.

The court is also concerned that the amount of attorney's fees requested requires the court to apply a multiplier of 1.86, as the lodestar cross-check produced an amount that is only 53% of the amount requested. The Court does not see a justification for a multiplier of this size, and believes that a more reasonable fee award is $1,050,000.00, or 28% of the settlement. Plaintiffs stress the careful review required of a large volume of documents, and the need to conduct discovery against 42 entities, but the time spent performing such review and conducting such discovery is already reflected in the lodestar amount.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042451  2 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  JOHNSON VS INVESTMENT CONCEPTS INC [EFILE]  37-2022-00018300-CU-NP-CTL Plaintiffs are to submit 1) a supplemental declaration from the settlement administrator, 2) a supplemental declaration from Plaintiffs' counsel (if needed), and 3) a supplemental memorandum of no more than five pages (if needed) addressing the court's concerns on or before February 28, 2024.

The court also notes Plaintiffs have requested service awards but did not provide declarations supporting their request. Any supporting declarations regarding Plaintiffs' request for service awards that may deemed necessary or appropriate may also be submitted on or before February 28, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042451  2