Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02410/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02410-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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 07cv2410

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT BOVA, an individual; on behalf of

himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., solely

and exclusively as successor to

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK and Does

1 to 10,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv2410 AJB (JMA)

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF

SETTLEMENT CLASSES, FINAL

APPROVAL OF A CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT, AND AN AWARD OF

ATTORNEYS' FEES, REIMBURSEMENT

OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE

AWARDS

The Court has heard a motion by Plaintiff VINCENT BOVA (“Plaintiff” or “Class

Representative”) for Certification of Settlement Classes and Final Approval of a Class Action

Settlement ("Motion for Final Approval"). Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as acquirer

of certain assets and liabilities of WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK (“WMB”) from the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), acting as receiver (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed a Notice of

Non-Opposition to the motion. 

Legal Standard:

Under Rule 23(e), the Court may approve a class settlement only upon finding that it is “fair,

reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). To determine whether a proposed settlement meets

these standards, the Court must evaluate a number of factors, including:

Case 3:07-cv-02410-AJB-JMA Document 104 Filed 10/14/11 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

2 07cv2410

(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.

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also Officers for Justice

v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). These factors are not exclusive, and in some

circumstances, one factor may deserve more weight than others or alone may even prove to be

determinative. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982); Nat’l Rural

Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525-26 (C.D. Cal. 2004). In addition, the

settlement may not be the product of collusion among the negotiating parties. Ficalora v. Lockheed

California Co., 751 F.2d 995, 997 (9th Cir. 1985); In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458

(9th Cir. 2000).

Having considered the Motion for Final Approval, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, the

supporting memoranda, the oral argument presented at the [Insert Date] fairness hearing, and the

complete record in this matter, for the reasons set forth therein and stated on the record at the fairness

hearing, and for good cause shown,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

I. Approval of the Settlement Classes:

1. The Court hereby certifies the settlement classes as set forth in the Court's April 29, 2011

Order granting preliminary approval of a proposed class and collective action settlement.

(See Docket Entry 95.)

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-02410-AJB-JMA Document 104 Filed 10/14/11 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

3 07cv2410

II. Approval of the Settlement Agreement:

2. The Court hereby grants the Motion for Final Approval and finally approves the

settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 2 to the

September 16, 2011 Motion for Certification of Settlement Classes and Final Approval

of a Class Action Settlement, under Rule 23 and the FLSA. The Court for purposes of

this Order adopts all defined terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The settlement

is fair, reasonable, adequate, and not a product of collusion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

3. The $463,000 settlement amount is substantial. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is

satisfied that the settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated. It was the result of

contentious arm's-length negotiations, which were undertaken in good faith by counsel

with significant experience litigating wage and hour class actions, and serious questions

of law and fact exist such that the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere

possibility of further relief after protracted and expensive litigation.

4. The Court gives weight to the parties' judgment that the settlement is fair and reasonable,

as well as to the Class Members’ favorable reaction to the settlement.

5. Pursuant to this Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the Notice was sent by first-class

mail to each identified class member at his or her last known address (with a re-mailing

of returned Notices). This Court finds that the Notice fairly and adequately advised the

members of Class of the terms of the settlement, as well as the right of members of the

Class to be excluded from the Class, to object to the settlement, and to appear at the

fairness hearing conducted on [Insert Date]. Class Members were provided the best

notice practicable under the circumstances.

6. The Court further finds that the Notice and distribution of such Notice comported with all

constitutional requirements, including those of due process.

Case 3:07-cv-02410-AJB-JMA Document 104 Filed 10/14/11 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

4 07cv2410

7. Excluded from the settlement are those persons who have submitted valid and timely

requests for exclusion. There are no persons who opted out from the Settlement and

therefore none are excluded. Every person in the Settlement Class who did not opt out is

a Settlement Class Member. 

III. Dismissal of the Action with Prejudice:

8. The Court hereby dismisses with prejudice the action of Vincent Bova, et al. v.

Washington Mutual Bank, CASD Case No. 07-cv-2410 AJB-JMA.

IV. Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs to Class Counsel and Service Award for Class 

Representative:

9. On April 29, 2011, the Court appointed the law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, and

Bhowmik as Class Counsel because they met all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(g).

10. Class Counsel did substantial work identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and settling

Plaintiff’s and the Class Members' claims.

11. Class Counsel have substantial experience prosecuting and settling employment class

actions, including wage and hour class actions and are well-versed in wage and hour law

and in class action law.

12. The work that Class Counsel have performed both in litigating and settling this case

demonstrates their commitment to the Class Members and to representing the Class'

interests.

13. Class Counsel have committed substantial resources to prosecuting this case.

14. The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awards Class Counsel

$138,900 in attorneys' fees or 30% of the Settlement Amount.

Case 3:07-cv-02410-AJB-JMA Document 104 Filed 10/14/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\Even Numbers - Erin's Cases\Bova\07cv2410.Bova.FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT.wpd 5 07cv2410

15. The Court finds that the amount of fees requested is fair and reasonable using the

"percentage-of-recovery" method, which is consistent with the other wage and hour

litigation settlements in the 9th Circuit. The attorneys' fees requested were entirely

contingent upon success. Class Counsel risked time and effort and advanced costs and

expenses, with no ultimate guarantee of compensation.

16. Class Counsel are also awarded reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses in the

amount of $59,584.16.

17. The attorneys' fees awarded and the amount in reimbursement of litigation costs and

expenses shall be paid from the Settlement Amount.

18. The Court finds reasonable a Service Award in the amount of $20,000, payable to the

Class Representative Vincent Bova.

Due and adequate notice having been given to the Class, there being no objections to the

Settlement by any Class Member, and the Court having considered all papers filed and proceedings

conducted in this action and otherwise being fully informed and good cause appearing therefor, this

action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members and

FINAL JUDGMENT is entered herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 14, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02410-AJB-JMA Document 104 Filed 10/14/11 Page 5 of 5