Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 19STCV36472, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36472    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 19, 2022               TRIAL DATE:  None Set

CASE:                         Tawajanae Stevenson v. Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV36472           

(1)   MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

(2)   MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:               (1) (2) Plaintiff Tawajanae Stevenson

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition on eCourt as of 9/14/22

CASE HISTORY:

• 10/11/19 Complaint filed
• 03/02/20 Request for dismissal as to class action claims filed.
• 03/03/20 First Amended Complaint Filed
• 11/30/21 Second Amended Complaint Filed

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            Plaintiff Tawajanae Stevenson filed a complaint on October 11, 2019 against Defendant Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc., alleging unfair competition, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide wages at termination, and violation of the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

The Parties now move for final approval of a Class Action Settlement in which Defendant shall pay $420,000 for settlement of all of Plaintiff’s claims. Class Counsel moves for attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and payment of the service award pursuant to the terms of the Class Action Settlement.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of class settlement is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

            Plaintiff moves for final approval of the Class Action Settlement.

Analysis

Settlement of a class action requires court approval to prevent fraud, collusion, or unfairness to the class. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800-1801.) The court acts as a fiduciary of absent class members by inquiring into the fairness of a proposed class action settlement. (See Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 129; Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Com’n, etc. v. City and Cty. of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1982) 688 F.2d 615, 624 [purpose of court approval is “the protection of those class members, including the named Plaintiff, whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties”].) “The trial court must determine whether a class action settlement is fair and reasonable, and has broad discretion to do so.” (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 791.) 

Here, in preliminarily certifying the settlement class and preliminarily approving the settlement, the Court found that the settlement appeared to be within in the range of reasonableness of settlements and the product of arms-length, informed negotiations, subject to any written objections postmarked within the allotted time period. (May 13/2021 Order.)

As of August 23, 2022, when this motion was filed, no objections had been received from any class member. (Declaration of Christina Fowler ¶ 13.) The deadline to submit written objections was July 25, 2022. (Id.) Furthermore, Defendant has not raised any objections to this motion. The Court therefore affirms the findings in the May 13, 2022 Revised Order Certifying Class for Settlement Purposes and Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and finds the settlement to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The Court is required to retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment and may not enter an order dismissing the action. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.769.) 

If the court approves the settlement agreement after the final approval hearing, the court must make and enter judgment. The judgment must include a provision for the retention of the court's jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. The court may not enter an order dismissing the action at the same time as, or after, entry of judgment. 

(Cal. Rule of Court 3.769(h), bold emphasis and underlining added.) Here, the proposed final order and judgment includes a provision stating that the Court retains jurisdiction. ([Proposed] Final Order and Judgment p.7:23-26.) The proposed final order and judgment is therefore compliant with the rules of court.

            Accordingly, the Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement is GRANTED.

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

            Plaintiff moves for payment of attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and payment of the service award pursuant to the terms of the Class Action Settlement.

Defective Notice

            Plaintiff did not properly notice the amount of attorney’s fees, costs, and service award requested in the Notice of Motion. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, notice must be given of any relief sought in connection with a motion. Plaintiff’s failure to do so ordinarily would implicate grave due process concerns that would be a sufficient basis to deny the motion in its entirety. However, given the nature of the motion and the fact that the requested awards are within the terms of the settlement agreement, the Court will overlook this defect and address the motion on its merits.

Analysis

           Class Counsel seeks an award of $140,000 in attorney’s fees (amounting to 1/3 of the gross settlement amount) and $14,763 in litigation costs.

           Whether an attorney’s fee is fair depends on whether the fee bears a reasonable relationship to the value of the attorney’s work. (Robbins v. Alibrandi (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.) In fee-shifting cases, the primary method is the lodestar method; in common fund cases, the primary method is the percentage of the fee method. (Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1270; Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 833.) In class action cases, 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 n. 12.)   

           Here, class counsel is requesting attorney’s fees in the amount of $140,000. The Declaration of Kyle Nodrehaug states that Class Counsel’s billing records state that Class Counsel has incurred total fees of $139,755.30, detailing more than 240 hours prosecuting these claims at hourly rates between $325 and $795. (Declaration of Kyle Nodrehaug ISO Mot ¶ 6.) Class Counsel has also included a detailed breakdown of the fees and services performed. (Id., Exhs. 3-4.) In light of the nature of this case, the relative strength of the parties’ positions, and the total settlement amount, the Court finds that the requested fee award of $140,000 is fair and reasonable.

           Accordingly, the request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $140,000 is approved. The request for costs in the amount of $14,763 is also approved.

The Court also approves the requested class representative incentive award of $10,000 to Plaintiff Tawajanae Stevenson based on the time spent assisting counsel and the risk in bringing this action. (Nodrehaug Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)  

 “[T]he rationale for making enhancement or incentive awards to named plaintiffs is that they should be compensated for the expense or risk they have incurred in conferring a benefit on other members of the class.” . . . An incentive award is appropriate “ ‘if it is necessary to induce an individual to participate in the suit[.]’ … [Citation.]” . . . “[C]riteria courts may consider in determining whether to make an incentive award include: 1) the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise; 2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; 3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; 4) the duration of the litigation and; 5) the personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation. [Citations.]” . . . These “incentive awards” to class representatives must not be disproportionate to the amount of time and energy expended in pursuit of the lawsuit.  
 

(Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1394-1395.)  The Court finds that the enhancement award here satisfies these standards.

           Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for payment of attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and payment of the service award is GRANTED. Class Counsel is awarded $140,000 in attorney’s fees and $14,763 in litigation costs, to be paid from the gross settlement fund. Plaintiff is awarded $10,000 for her services, to be paid from the gross settlement fund.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of class settlement is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, costs and Plaintiff’s service award is GRANTED.

            Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   September 19, 2022                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.