Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00202/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00202-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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 - 07cv202

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALIA LOH WOO, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07-CV-202 H (POR)

ORDER FINALLY APPROVING

SETTLEMENT AND

GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’

FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES

vs.

THE HOME LOAN GROUP, L.P.

CHASE VENTURES HOLDINGS, INC.,

a New Jersey corporation,

Defendants.

On May 14, 2007, named plaintiff Alia Loh Woo filed a first amended complaint

against The Home Loan Group, L.P. and Chase Ventures Holdings, Inc. (Doc. No. 10.)

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of the California Labor Code and Business &

Professions Code, as well as a claim for conversion. (Id.) The first amended complaint arose

out of Defendants’ alleged failure to reimburse certain business related expenses.

On July 27, 2007, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. No. 22.) Defendants filed an

answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on August 10, 2007. (Doc. No. 23.) 

In November of 2007, the parties engaged in arms-length negotiations before a

respected and experienced wage and hour mediator. (Decl. of Isam C. Khoury ISO Motion for

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Khoury Decl.”) ¶ 9.) Following those

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 10
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 - 07cv202

negotiations, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The parties’ agreement calls for

a total settlement of up to $500,000, with a net settlement amount of approximately $301,000

after deduction of attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, an enhancement award to the named

plaintiff, the costs of administering the settlement, and payroll taxes. (See Khoury Decl. ¶¶

10-12.) The settlement fund will be distributed to class members who submit a valid and

timely claim form pursuant to a formula to determine the class member’s proportional share

of the net settlement amount based upon the number of weeks the individual worked for

Defendants during the class period in relation to the number of weeks worked by all members

of the class during the class period. (Khoury Decl. ¶ 12.) Based on this formula, participating

class members will receive approximately $32.81 for each week worked during the class

period. (Id.) 

On February 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional class certification and

preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. (Doc. No. 31.) On February 29,

2008, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 32.) The Court conditionally certified

a class for settlement purposes only, granted preliminary approval to the parties’ proposed

settlement, and ordered that the Court-approved notice of the proposed settlement, see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), be directed to class members. (Doc. No. 32.) 

On April 14, 2008, the Court-approved notice and claim form was mailed to the 134

members of the class. (See Khoury Decl. ¶ 14.) On June 6, 2008, a reminder postcard was

mailed to each member of the class who by that date had not returned a claim form or request

for exclusion. (Id. ¶ 15.) As of June 16, 2008, the deadline to submit claim forms, 51 class

members had submitted claim forms and no class member requested exclusion from the

settlement class or objected to the proposed settlement. (Id. ¶ 17.) Two class members

submitted late claim forms, but the parties negotiated for the acceptance of those claims as

timely to be paid pursuant to the settlement. (Khoury Decl. ¶ 17.) 

On July 16, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement

and a motion for award of attorneys’ fees, costs, class representative enhancement and claims

administration expenses. (Doc. Nos. 33, 34.) The Court held a hearing on August 18, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 10
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 - 07cv202

Timothy Cohelan and Diana Khoury appeared for Plaintiff. Michael Aparicio represented

Defendant. No individual appeared to object to the proposed settlement. (See Doc. No. 38.)

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court submitted the motions and requested a

supplemental brief from Plaintiff regarding the amount of attorneys’ fees requested. On

August 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed a brief in accordance with the Court’s order. (Doc. No. 39.)

After due consideration of the evidence and arguments presented to the Court in the

parties’ moving papers as well as at the August 18, 2008 hearing, the Court concludes that

good cause exists to finally approve the proposed settlement. Additionally, as discussed

below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of

$125,000. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for costs, a class representative enhancement

and claims administration expenses. 

Discussion

I. CLASS CERTIFICATION

A. Rule 23(a) – Prerequisites

The Court’s “threshold task is to ascertain whether the proposed settlement class

satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable

to all class actions, namely: (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4)

adequacy of representation.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.

1998). “The prerequisite of numerosity is discharged if the class is so large that joinder of

all members is impracticable.” Id. Sufficient commonality exists “if there are questions of

fact and law which are common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2); see Hanlon, 150

F.3d at 1019. “The typicality prerequisite of Rule 23(a) is fulfilled if the claims or defenses

of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Hanlon, 150

F.3d at 1020. The representative’s claims “need not be substantially identical” to all class

members’ claims. Id. Based upon the allegations of the first amended complaint and the

evidence provided to the Court, the Court concludes that the settlement class meets the

prerequisites of numerosity, commonality and typicality.

Rule 23(a) also requires that all class members’ interests be adequately represented. 

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 3 of 10
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 - 07cv202

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do

the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class

members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously

on behalf of the class?” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. Based on the evidence presented to the

Court, the Court concludes that these requirements are satisfied.

B. Additional Requirements – Rule 23(b)

In addition to the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the parties must show that the action is

maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1), (2) or (3). Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S.

591, 614 (1997); Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022. A class meets the requirements of Rule

23(b)(3) whenever it is in the parties’ best interests to settle their differences in a single

action. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022. The class must satisfy two conditions: “common

questions must predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and

class resolution must be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the controversy.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The first requirement is

distinct from the “commonality” prerequisite of Rule 23(a) and may be satisfied by

showing that the litigation is dominated by a “common nucleus of facts and potential legal

remedies.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022. The Court concludes that these requirements are

satisfied in this case. Accordingly, the Court finally certifies for settlement purposes the

proposed class.

II. FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court must

approve any settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise of the claims, issues, or

defenses of a certified class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(A). The Rule further states, “[t]he

court may approve a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise that would bind class

members only after a hearing and on finding that the settlement, voluntary dismissal, or

compromise is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C); see Class

Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). In evaluating a settlement

the Court must “balance a number of factors: the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk,

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 4 of 10
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

- 5 - 07cv202

expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class

action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery

completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the

presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the

proposed settlement.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026; see Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8

F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993). “The relative degree of importance to be attached to any

particular factor will depend upon . . . the nature of the claim(s) advanced, the type(s) of

relief sought, and the unique facts and circumstances presented by each individual case.” 

Officers For Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n., 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982); see also

Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 (“It is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual

component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness.”).

Here, upon review of all the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court concludes

that the settlement considered as a whole is fair, adequate and reasonable. In addition to

uncertainty regarding whether a class would be certified and, if so, whether class action

status could be maintained for the duration of a trial, the parties faced many hotly contested

legal issues regarding an employer’s obligation to reimburse business-related expenses. 

The proposed settlement was reached after sufficient factual investigation and legal

research for counsel for both sides, who possess substantial experience in this type of

litigation, to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. (See

Khoury Decl. ¶¶ 8, 20, 22.) The proposed settlement was the produce of informed armslength negotiations before an experienced and respected mediator. Class counsel reached

the informed judgment that the proposed settlement is in the best interest of the class. 

(Khoury Decl. ¶ 21.) Finally, the Court notes that the class members’ reaction to the

proposed settlement has been favorable. A significant portion of the class has elected to

participate in the settlement by submitting valid and timely claim forms, and no class

member has objected to the proposed settlement or requested exclusion from the settlement

class. (See Khoury Decl. ¶ 17.) In light of the above, as well as the Court’s own review of

the proposed settlement, the Court concludes that the settlement is fair and reasonable and

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 5 of 10
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

- 6 - 07cv202

therefore warrants final approval at this time. 

III. Attorneys’ Fees, Enhancement Award, Costs and Expenses

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order approving payment of

attorneys’ fees, an enhancement award of $7,500 to the named plaintiff, reimbursement to

class counsel of $13,099.14 in litigation expenses, and payment to the claims administrator

of $15,221.47 for services rendered in connection with the administration of the settlement. 

(Doc. No. 34.) 

In a class action the court upon motion “may award reasonable attorney fees and

nontaxable costs authorized by law or by agreement of the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). 

In “common fund” cases like this one, the Ninth Circuit has stated that “the district court

has discretion to use either a percentage or lodestar method” to determine what constitutes

a reasonable fee. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029. The Court concludes that the percentage

method is appropriate in this case, particularly because counsel has not provided

information from which counsel’s lodestar could be determined. 

Under the percentage method, “the court simply awards the attorneys a percentage

of the fund sufficient to provide class counsel with a reasonable fee.” Id. The Ninth

Circuit has established 25% of the common fund as a “benchmark” for what constitutes a

reasonable fee. Id.; see Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301,

1311 (9th Cir. 1990). The benchmark percentage can be adjusted based on the

circumstances of a particular case. Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Gaulty, 886 F.2d 268,

272 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, counsel originally requested attorneys’ fees of $150,000, which

is 30% of the settlement fund amount. (Doc. No. 34.) After the August 18, 2008 hearing,

Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a supplemental brief in which counsel clarified that it would

not seek an award above the benchmark amount of 25%, and that counsel therefore accepts

an award of $125,000 consistent with the benchmark amount. (Doc. No. 39.) After

carefully reviewing the request and considering all the circumstances of this case, the Court

concludes that 25% constitutes a reasonable fee. The Court concludes that the settlement

confers a significant benefit on the members of the settlement class and that class counsel

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 6 of 10
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

- 7 - 07cv202

adequately represented the plaintiff class. The Court concludes that the circumstances of

this particular case do not justify exceeding the 25% amount that the Ninth Circuit has

established as the benchmark for a reasonable fee. See Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona

Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d at 1311. Accordingly, the Court approves an award of attorneys’

fees in the amount of $125,000.

The Court approves for good cause shown the requested awards of $13,099.14 in

litigation expenses, a $7,500 enhancement award for the named plaintiff, and $15,221.47 in

settlement and claims administration expenses. 

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement was entered into in good faith

and that it constitutes a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise between the Parties.

2. The Court finds and finally certifies the for the purposes of this settlement

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, a class defined as “All The Home Loan Group, L.P.,

employees employed as Loan Officers at any time from January 31, 2003 through January

31, 2008.”

3. If the Judgment and the settlement do not become final and effective in

accord with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, then the Judgment and all orders

entered in connection therewith shall be deemed null and void and shall be vacated. 

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Litigation and over

all Parties to this litigation.

5. Distribution of the Notice of Pending Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and

Hearing ("Notice") to members of the Settlement Class as described in the Settlement

Agreement and as preliminarily approved by the Court, has been completed in conformity

with the Order of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed February 29,

2008. Such individual Notice was mailed to all members of the Class who could be

identified through reasonable effort, and was the best notice practicable under the

circumstances. This Notice provided due and adequate notice of the proceedings and of the

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 7 of 10
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

 The effective date of settlement has been defined in Paragraph 1 as follows: “Effective

Date” means the date by which this Settlement is finally approved as provided herein, and the Court’s

Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (“Final Judgment” or “Judgment”) becomes

final. For purposes of this paragraph, the Court’s Final Judgment “becomes final” upon the later of:

(i) the date of final affirmance on an appeal of the Final Judgment; (ii) the expiration of the time for

a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Final Judgment and, if certiorari be granted, the date

of final dismissal of any proceeding on certiorari to review the Final Judgment; (iii) if no petition for

writ of certiorari is filed, the date of final dismissal of any appeal from the Final Judgment; or (iv) if

no appeal is filed, the expiration date of the time for the filing or noticing of any appeal from the

Court’s Final Judgment. 

 

- 8 - 07cv202

matters set forth therein, including the proposed terms set forth in the Settlement

Agreement, to all persons entitled to such Notice. The Notice fairly and adequately

described the settlement and provided the members of the Class adequate instructions and a

variety of means to obtain additional information. The Notice fully satisfied the

requirements of due process and applicable law as to the settlement. No member of the

Settlement Class objected to the settlement and no members requested to be excluded from

the settlement in a timely manner. Thus, all Class Members are bound by this Order and

the Judgment. 

6. This Court hereby approves the settlement and finds that the settlement is, in

all respects, fair, adequate and reasonable, and directs the Parties to effectuate the

settlement according to its terms. The Court has considered numerous factors, including

the opinions and experience of counsel; the procedural history of the case including the

litigation status at the time of the settlement; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely

duration of further litigation; and the terms negotiated in the settlement. Accordingly, the

Court hereby approves the terms of the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the

best interests of the Parties and the Class. 

7. As of the Effective Date1

 of settlement, the released claims of each member

of the Class, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are and shall be deemed to

be fully, finally, and conclusively released as against Defendants, and each member of the

Class shall be forever barred and enjoined from prosecuting the released claims. 

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 8 of 10
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

- 9 - 07cv202

8. The Court hereby dismisses the Litigation on the merits and with prejudice,

pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, against the Named Plaintiff and all

members of the Class who have not requested exclusion in favor of Defendant as to all

claims asserted.

9. The Court finds that Class Counsel, having conferred a benefit on 

absent Class Members and having expended efforts to secure a benefit to the Class, is

entitled to a fee and accordingly, approves the application of Class Counsel, Law Offices of

Cohelan & Khoury and Michael J. Procopio for $125,000.00 for their attorneys’ fees and

$13,099.14 for their litigation expenses. 

10. The Court further approves a payment to the Class Representative, 

Plaintiff Alia Loh Woo as an enhancement in the amount of $7,500.00 for the initiation of

this action, services performed, and the risks undertaken for the payment of attorneys’ fees

and costs as set forth in the moving papers. 

11. The Court also hereby approves payment of the fees and costs of 

the appointed claims administrator, Administar, LLC of $15,221.47 for services rendered

and to be rendered in connection with the completion of its duties pursuant to the

settlement.

12. Any separate appeal from the portion of the Judgment regarding the 

attorneys’ fees and litigation costs awards or the Class Representative enhancement award

shall not operate to terminate or cancel the Settlement Agreement. 

13. Defendants shall deliver, within ten (10) days of the Effective Date, to

Administar, LLC., the appointed claims administrator, all sums necessary to pay the Courtawarded attorneys’ fees, costs, class representative enhancement, claims administration

expenses, claims of all members of the class who submitted valid and timely claims

approved for payment and the requisite employer’s share of payroll taxes all pursuant to the

terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

 14. The Court further approves and directs Administar Services Group, 

LLC., within (30) days of the Effective Date, to disburse to those persons and entities

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 9 of 10
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

- 10 - 07cv202

referenced below, in the manner set forth, the following sums: 

A. Class Representative Enhancement Award to Plaintiff Alia Loh Woo,

$7,500.00 by check mailed to Class Counsel Cohelan & Khoury;

B. Law Offices of Cohelan & Khoury and Michael J. Procopio, for Class

Counsel’s attorneys’ fees, $125,000.00, by wire transfer;

C. Law Offices of Cohelan & Khoury and Michael J. Procopio, for Class

Counsel’s litigation costs, $13,099.14, by wire transfer; 

D. Administar, LLC, the Claims Administrator, $15,221.47 for services

rendered in connection with its duties and responsibilities to process

claims and to disburse payments, perform the necessary tax reporting,

respond to continuing inquiries from the class and the Parties to

conclude its duties and responsibilities pursuant to the settlement;

 E. Individual Settlement Payment checks in accordance with the

Settlement Agreement to those members of the Class who submitted

valid Claim Forms, which were approved for payment, by U.S. First

Class Mail. 

15. The Court retains jurisdiction over the administration, interpretation and

effectuation of the Settlement including, but not limited to, the ultimate disbursal to the

participating Class Members, payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, the enhancement award

to the Class Representative, and the claims administration expenses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 25, 2008

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:07-cv-00202-H-POR Document 40 Filed 08/25/08 Page 10 of 10