Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02691/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02691-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT; Armstrong v. 

Bauer’s Intelligent Transportation, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02691-MMC 

1

THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM 

STEVEN G. TIDRICK, SBN 224760 

JOEL B. YOUNG, SBN 236662 

2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 308 

Berkeley, California 94704 

Telephone: (510) 788-5100 

Facsimile: (510) 291-3226 

E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com 

E-mail: jby@tidricklaw.com 

Attorneys for Individual and Representative 

Plaintiff RORY ARMSTRONG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RORY ARMSTRONG, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BAUER’S INTELLIGENT 

TRANSPORTATION, INC.; and DOES 1-50, 

Defendants. 

Civil Case Number: 3:13-cv-02691-MMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

(1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 

AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

INCENTIVE AWARD, AND 

REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS 

Hearing Date: September 18, 2015 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Place: 450 Golden Gate Avenue 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

 Courtroom 7, 19th Floor 

The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

 Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Motion for 

Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Incentive Award, and Reimbursement of Costs came on regularly 

for hearing on September 18, 2015, at 9:00AM, in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney presiding. All parties 

were represented by counsel. 

 Having considered the memoranda and declarations, oral arguments of counsel, and 

the relevant statutory and case law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions and orders and 

finds as follows: 

Case 3:13-cv-02691-MMC Document 72 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT; Armstrong v. 

Bauer’s Intelligent Transportation, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02691-MMC 

2

1. The Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement is GRANTED. 

2. The Parties’ proposed Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release and the 

attachment thereto entitled Notice of Class Action Settlement, filed April 10, 2015 (“Settlement”) 

(Docket No. 57), which the Court preliminarily approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable, and 

within the range of possible approval, is approved with certain modifications as set forth in the 

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (Docket No. 66), 

and incorporated with those modifications by reference as if fully set forth herein, and the 

definitions used therein are adopted for use herein as fair and reasonable as set forth herein. 

3. This ruling is based on federal common and statutory law, including 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as federal and other authority, 

including the Federal Judicial Center’s Manual For Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2004) and 

Annotated Manual For Complex Litigation - Fourth (2005). 

In determining whether the proposed settlement should be approved, the 

Court has considered the following eight factors: "(1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case; 

(2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of 

maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; 

(5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the 

experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) 

the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement." See Churchill Village, 

LLC v. General Electric, 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court also has 

considered whether the proposed settlement is "the product of collusion among the 

negotiating parties." Id. at 576. 

3.5. The notice provided constituted the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances and met the requirements of due process and Rule 23 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

4. The proposed Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable and therefore approved; 

The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 

 ^,

adequate,

Case 3:13-cv-02691-MMC Document 72 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT; Armstrong v. 

Bauer’s Intelligent Transportation, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02691-MMC 

3

and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), a settlement class defined as follows: All current and former employees 

of Bauer’s Intelligent Transportation, Inc. who worked in the State of California and were 

employed as a bus operator or in an equivalent position at any time within the Class Period, i.e., 

the time period from March 29, 2009 through the Date of Preliminary Approval. 

5. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, Steven G. Tidrick, Esq. and Joel Young, Esq. of The Tidrick 

Law Firm are appointed Class Counsel, and Plaintiff Rory Armstrong is appointed as the Class 

Representative. 

6. Gilardi & Co. LLC is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. 

7. The cy pres recipient shall be Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center, 

180 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California. 

8. The Settlement Administrator shall distribute the awards to the class members as 

specified in the Settlement Agreement. 

9. No member of the Rule 23 class has objected to the Settlement Agreement. 

Twelve putative class members, as listed in Exhibit B to the Declaration of Kathleen 

Wyatt, have timely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class and are hereby 

excluded.

10. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h)(1) and 54(d)(2), Plaintiff in this 

class action has moved for an award of attorneys’ fees, incentive award, and reimbursement of 

costs. Pursuant to Rule 23(h)(3), the Court must make findings of fact and state its conclusions of 

law. 

11. This class action settlement resolves a wage-and-hour dispute on a class-wide 

basis. 

12. The Court’s May 29, 2015 order granted preliminary approval of the class-wide 

settlement agreement, an agreement which specified that Class Counsel could request 

reimbursement from the settlement fund for up to $37,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs, up to 

$12,000 in costs, and up to $4,000 as an incentive award to the Class Representative. 

13. Rule 23(h) provides that, “[i]n a certified class action, the court may award 

^

in accordance with

Case 3:13-cv-02691-MMC Document 72 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT; Armstrong v. 

Bauer’s Intelligent Transportation, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02691-MMC 

4

reasonable attorney's fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by . . . the parties’ agreement.” 

The Rule further provides that "[a] claim for an award must be made by motion under Rule 

54(d)(2)," notice of which must be "directed to class members in a reasonable manner" and that 

the Court "must find the facts and state its legal conclusions under Rule 52(a)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(h)(1) & (3). In turn, Rule 54(d)(2) requires a claim for fees to be made by motion, and 

specifies its timing and content, including, in relevant part, “the grounds entitling the movant to 

the award" and "the amount sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). Notice of this fee-award 

motion was provided in the class notice. 

14. When “the settlement produces a common fund for the benefit of the entire class, 

courts have discretion to employ either the lodestar method or the percentage-of-recovery 

method” of calculating attorneys’ fees awards. In Re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 

F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). 

15. Under the percentage-of-the-fund method, it is appropriate to base the percentage 

calculation on the gross settlement amount. See generally Boeing v. Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 479, 

100 S. Ct. 745, 62 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1980); Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commc'ns Co., 129 F.3d 1026, 

1027 (9th Cir. 1997). 

16. The Court adopts the percentage-of-the-fund approach here and finds that the feeand-expense amount is reasonable. The fee award of 25% of the fund is within the range of 

reasonable percentage-fee awards in this Circuit. See, e.g., Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y 

of the U.S., 307 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We have established a 25 percent benchmark in 

percentage-of-the-fund cases that can be adjusted upward or downward to account for any 

unusual circumstances involved in [the] case.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); In 

re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[t]wenty-five percent is the 

'benchmark' that district courts should award in common fund cases” (citation omitted)). 

17. In terms of a lodestar cross-check, the attorneys’ fees requested, 25% of the 

common fund amount of $150,000, equates to $37,500, which is less than 30% of the lodestar 

amount of $128,226. The Court finds that Class Counsel’s hours and hourly rates are reasonable, 

thus, the requested fee award results in a “negative multiplier” and supports a finding that the 

Case 3:13-cv-02691-MMC Document 72 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT; Armstrong v. 

Bauer’s Intelligent Transportation, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02691-MMC 

5

requested percentage of the fund, 25%, is reasonable and fair. 

18. “The prevailing view is that expenses are awarded in addition to the fee 

percentage.’” Jefferson v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2875 at *9 

(C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 7, 2013) (quoting 1 ALBA CONTE, ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS § 2:08 at 50–51). 

To date, Class Counsel have advanced all costs incurred in this case. The Tidrick Law Firm’s 

total incurred litigation expenses were $6,592.52 as of June 22, 2015, and do not include modest, 

but real, expenses subsequently incurred. These costs are reasonable. 

19. An “enhancement” payment to Plaintiff Rory Armstrong of $4,000 is justified. 

20. Therefore, the Court orders an award of $37,500 in attorneys’ fees and $6,592.52 

in incurred litigation costs to The Tidrick Law Firm, and an “enhancement” payment to Plaintiff 

Rory Armstrong of $4,000, from the common-fund settlement of $150,000. 

21. The above-titled action is hereby dismissed, and the claims of the Class 

Members and the Class Representatives are released as provided in the Settlement 

Agreement. 

It is so ORDERED. 

DATE:__________________, 2015. _________________________________ 

 The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Court

September 21

Case 3:13-cv-02691-MMC Document 72 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 5