Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03579/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03579-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-03579-JD 

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 

 

Diane L. Webb (SBN 197851) 

Carole Vigne (SBN 251829) 

LEGAL AID SOCIETY- EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 864-8848 

Facsimile: (415) 593-0096 

Email: dwebb@las-elc.org 

 cvigne@las-elc.org 

Aaron D. Kaufmann (SBN 148580) 

David P. Pogrel (SBN 203787) 

Giselle Olmedo (SBN 294750) 

LEONARD CARDER LLP 

1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 272-0169 

Fax: (510) 272-0174 

Email: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com 

dpogrel@leonardcarder.com 

golmedo@leonardcarder.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANED LOPEZ and CRISTIAN ALAS, on 

Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

P.W. STEPHENS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 3:15-cv-03579-JD

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND 

CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE 

AWARDS 

Date: December 8, 2016 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Ctrm: 11, 19th Floor 

Before: Hon. James Donato 

Case 3:15-cv-03579-JD Document 83 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 6
- 1 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-03579-JD 

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 

On December 8, 2016, this Court heard Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Approving Attorneys’ 

Fees, Expenses, and Class Representative Service Awards, at which Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 

settlement Class appeared. Based on the papers filed with the Court and presentations made to the 

Court at the hearing, the Court hereby grants Class Counsel’s request for an award of $375,000 in 

attorneys’ fees, $13,800 in litigation expenses, and an aggregate of $5,000 in class representative 

service payments to the two named Plaintiffs. 

I. THE REQUESTED AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES IS APPROPRIATE AND IS 

APPROVED. 

1. Plaintiffs request an award of $375,000 in attorney’s fees for Class Counsel’s work 

in this case. In a class settlement, courts may calculate an appropriate award of fees under the 

“lodestar” method or the “common fund” method, using either one as a cross check on the other. 

Hanlon v. Chrysler Group, 150 F. 3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998) (courts have discretion to apply 

the “lodestar/multiplier” method to determine a reasonable attorneys’ fee or as a crosscheck on the 

percentage fee calculation). Here, the requested fee award of $375,000 is reasonable under both 

methods. 

2. Plaintiffs’ fee request is reasonable and appropriate under the lodestar method. The 

lodestar is the product of the reasonable hours expended times the reasonable hourly rate. “The 

court may then enhance the lodestar with a ‘multiplier,’ if necessary, to arrive at a reasonable fee.” 

In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1295 fn. 2 (9th Cir. 1994). 

3. Class Counsel has presented evidence that they have devoted nearly 1,500 hours of 

time investigating, prosecuting and settling this case, and that all of these hours were necessarily 

and appropriately incurred. Vigne Dec., ¶¶ 13-14; Kaufmann Dec., ¶¶ 4-6, 8-9. This evidence 

reflects significantly fewer hours than what Counsel dedicated to the case, as it (1) reflects an 

across-the-board deduction of five-percent (5%) of all reported hours on the case in the interest of 

exercising billing judgment; (2) excludes timekeepers at each firm who recorded less than 25 hours 

on this matter as well as law students, fellows, and volunteer attorneys; and (3) excludes substantial 

hours yet to be incurred in securing final approval of this settlement and overseeing 

Case 3:15-cv-03579-JD Document 83 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 6
- 2 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-03579-JD 

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 

implementation of the settlement (if approved). Vigne Dec., ¶¶ 13, 20; Kaufmann Dec., ¶¶ 7, 9, 11. 

The Court finds that this amount of time spent resolving this case is reasonable and appropriate. 

4. The Court further finds that Class Counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable in light of 

their experience, and comparable to those of other class action attorneys with similar experience 

and years of practice. Vigne Dec., ¶¶ 16, 18 & Exh. 1; Kaufmann Dec., ¶ 11. 

5. Class Counsel’s collective lodestar as of July 30, 2016 is $704,530.50. This 

represents almost twice the $375,000 in fees requested for approval in this motion. 

6. Plaintiffs’ request for approval of $375,000 is reasonable, as it represents 

substantially less than Class Counsel’s lodestar. Vigne Dec., ¶ 9; Kaufmann Dec., ¶ 11 

7. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ fee request is reasonable and appropriate under 

the common fund method. Under the common fund doctrine, “‘a litigant or a lawyer who recovers 

a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable 

attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.’” In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 497 F.Supp.2d 1166, 

1175 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 967 (9th Cir. 2003); Boeing 

Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980). 

8. The typical range of acceptable attorneys' fees in the Ninth Circuit under the 

common fund method is 20% to 33 1/3% of the total settlement value, with 25% considered the 

benchmark. Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 271 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 

with approval benchmark of 25% and noting that common fund fee awards generally range from 

20% to 30%); Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing with approval 

benchmark of 25%);

9. Here, the requested fee award of $375,000 is supported by a percentage-of-the-fund 

cross-check, as it constitutes only 25% of the total settlement fund of $1,500,000, which is 

consistent with the benchmark in the Ninth Circuit. 

10. Likewise, Class Counsel’s fee request is more modest than the fees awarded in other 

cases in the Ninth Circuit. The typical range of acceptable attorneys’ fees in the Ninth Circuit 

under this method is 20 to 33.3 percent of the total settlement value, with 25 percent considered the 

Case 3:15-cv-03579-JD Document 83 Filed 01/27/17 Page 3 of 6
- 3 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-03579-JD 

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 

benchmark. Paul, 886 F.3d at 271 (citing with approval benchmark of 25% and noting that 

common fund fee awards generally range from 20% to 30%); Powers, 229 F.3d at 1256 (citing 

with approval benchmark of 25%); Bluetooth, 654F.3d at 942 (“courts typically calculate 25% of 

the fund as the ‘benchmark’ for a reasonable fee award”); Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 

266 F.R.D. 482, 492 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (fee awards of 30-33% typical for wage and hour class 

actions); Rigo v. Kason Industries, Inc., 2013 WL 3761400, *7 (S.D. Cal., July 16, 2013) 

(approving 30% fee award; noting that “in a study of 287 settlements ranging from less than $1 

million to $450 million, “[t]he average attorney’s fees percentage is shown as 31.71%, and the 

median turns out to be one-third.”); In re Activision Sec. Litig., 723 F. Supp. 1373, 1377-78 (N.D. 

Cal. 1989) (noting that benchmark is 25% but also stating “nearly all common fund awards range 

around 30%”). 

11. Accordingly, the percentage-of-the-fund cross-check supports approval of the 

requested fee award, as does the lodestar cross-check method. Accordingly, this Court finds that 

Class Counsel’s request for a fee award of $375,000 is reasonable and shall be granted. 

II. CLASS COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF OUT-OF-POCKET 

EXPENSES IS REASONABLE AND IS APPROVED 

12. Class Counsel attests that it has or will incur $13,800 in litigation costs and 

associated expenses for items such as filing fees, deposition costs, mediator’s fees, copying 

charges, legal research charges, travel expenses, and delivery charges. See Vigne Dec., ¶ 21; 

Kaufmann Dec., ¶ 10,12. Class Counsel further attests that all of these costs were relevant and 

necessary to the litigation, reasonable in amount, and expended with no assurance that they would 

be recovered. Id. 

13. The Court finds that expenditure of these costs was reasonable and approves 

reimbursement of these costs to Class Counsel from the settlement fund. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h); 

see also Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 580 (9th Cir. 2010) (approving out-ofpocket expenses as part of attorney fee award under a fee-shifting statute); Covillo v. Specialtys 

Café, 2014 WL 954516, *7 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 6, 2014) (“Class counsel is also entitled to 

Case 3:15-cv-03579-JD Document 83 Filed 01/27/17 Page 4 of 6
- 4 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-03579-JD 

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 

reimbursement of reasonable expenses.”). 

III. PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS 

IS REASONABLE 

14. Plaintiffs seek class representative service awards of $4,000 to Plaintiff Lopez and 

$1,000 to Plaintiff Alas, for an aggregate payment of $5,000 from the settlement fund. In support 

of this request, the named Plaintiffs have tendered declarations to the Court variously describing 

the tasks they performed as representative plaintiffs in actively participating in assisting in the 

prosecution of this case., their service to the class, and the risks they undertook in placing their 

names on the Complaint and delay due to class action litigation, and their willingness to forgo their 

own individual action – and in the case of Plaintiff Lopez, to withdraw his Labor Commissioner 

wage claim for over $52,000, without waiting time penalties and interest, pending for over a year 

and a half at the time it was withdrawn. See Declaration of Aned Lopez (“Lopez Dec.”); 

Declaration of Cristian Alas (“Alas Dec.”). 

15. The service awards that Plaintiffs seek are at the low end of the range of class 

representative awards approved by other federal judges in class actions. “Numerous courts in the 

Ninth Circuit and elsewhere have approved incentive awards of $20,000 or more where . . . the 

class representative has demonstrated a strong commitment to the class.” Garner v. State Farm 

Mut. Auto. Ins., No. CV 08 1365 CW (EMC), 2010 WL 1687832, at *17 n.8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 

2010) (collecting cases); Kairy v. SuperShuttle Int’l, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-02993 JSW (Dkt. No. 405 at 

¶ 15 quoting Garner, approving service awards ranging from $4,000 to $18,000 to 8 plaintiffs); 

Gilmer v. A-C Transit, No. 4:08-cv-05186 CW (N.D. Cal. 2012) (Dkt. No. 269 at 5:7-19 approving 

$10,000 service awards to each of the five plaintiffs); Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 

F.Supp. 294, 299-300 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (approving $50,000 to one named plaintiff). Accordingly, 

courts have found a service award of $5,000 to be “presumptively reasonable.” See Dyer v. Wells 

Fargo Bank N.A., 303 F.R.D. 326,335 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. 

08-cv-5198 EMC, 2012 WL 381202, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012)). 

16. The requested service awards are modest in light of the total value of the settlement. 

Case 3:15-cv-03579-JD Document 83 Filed 01/27/17 Page 5 of 6
- 5 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-03579-JD 

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 

The aggregate amount of requested service awards ($5,000) is only 0.0033% of the total settlement 

value of $1,500,000. Vigne Dec., ¶ 10. Given the robust payouts class members are receiving—

which will average $4,600 for workers who did not sign releases and $1,500 who did, these 

requested amounts are reasonable. 

17. The Court finds the proposed class service representative payments are fair 

and reasonable, in recognition of the time and effort that the named Plaintiffs invested in assisting 

Class Counsel with the investigation, prosecution, and settlement of the case, as well as the risks 

they bore in serving as plaintiffs, and the service they rendered to the unnamed class members. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorneys’ fees of 

$375,000. 

2. The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement of litigation costs and 

expenses in the amount of $13,800. 

3. The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs’ request for service awards in the amount of 

$4,000 to Plaintiff Lopez and $1,000 to Plaintiff Alas, for an aggregate service reward of $5,000. 

3. The awarded attorneys’ fees, costs, and class representative service payments shall 

be paid pursuant to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Settlement Agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: January 2, 2017 ____________________________ 

Hon. James Donato 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

APPROVED

Judge James Donato

Case 3:15-cv-03579-JD Document 83 Filed 01/27/17 Page 6 of 6