Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00038/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00038-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARRIS RANCH BEEF COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00038-LJO-SAB

ORDER RE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

ECF NO. 64, 68, 73

On August 19, 2015, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued a Findings and 

Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of class action 

settlement and motion for attorneys’ fees be denied. (ECF No. 73.) The Findings and 

Recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

days. Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed objections on August 24, 2015. (ECF No. 74.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case.

Plaintiff’s objections do not contest the analysis set forth in the Findings and 

Recommendations. Instead, in the interest of expediting resolution of this matter, Plaintiff 

requests that final settlement of the class action be approved under the terms deemed fair, 

adequate, and reasonable by the magistrate judge. Specifically, in the Findings and 

Recommendations, the magistrate judge noted that the attorneys’ fees and the class 

representative enhancement were too high. The parties requested that 30% of the gross 

settlement be allocated to attorneys’ fees for Plaintiffs’ counsel and Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez be 

paid an enhancement of $5,000. The magistrate judge found that these amounts did not appear to 

be warranted based upon the facts submitted by Plaintiffs and found that a 25% attorney fee 

Case 1:14-cv-00038-LJO-SAB Document 75 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

award and $2,500 enhancement award would be more appropriate. The magistrate judge 

recommended that the motion for final approval be denied without prejudice to the parties’ 

resubmitting a motion under those terms.

Instead of resubmitting a motion requesting final approval based with terms adjusted 

according to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, Plaintiffs’ request that the Court approve 

final settlement with the reduced attorneys’ fees and enhancement award. Defendants have not 

objected to Plaintiffs’ proposal. The Court will approve Plaintiffs’ proposal.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The August 19, 2015 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN PART 

AND REJECTED IN PART;

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees and motion for final approval are GRANTED 

IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

3. Final approval of the class settlement in this action is APPROVED on the terms 

submitted by the parties, except that Plaintiffs’ are awarded no more than 25% of 

the gross settlement amount in attorneys’ fees ($46,250) and Plaintiff Jose 

Gonzalez is awarded an enhancement not to exceed $2,500. The difference in the 

amount originally requested for attorneys’ fees and the enhancement award shall 

be added to the cy pres distribution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00038-LJO-SAB Document 75 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 2