Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01499/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01499-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX MALLIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE INC., et

al., and DOES 1-200, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-1499 SC

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

RE: PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO ENFORCE

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

The Court previously issued an Order Granting in Part

Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Order and Judgment. See Docket No.

131 ("Order"). Contrary to Defendant's interpretation, that Order

was not tentative. The Court's ruling regarding the

interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and the Formula used to

calculate payments to each class member stands as issued. 

Similarly, the Court's holding that Plaintiffs are entitled to

recover $32,061.50 in attorney's fees for work on this motion

remains undisturbed.

The parties appeared March 7, 2008, to resolve the remaining

dispute over who is responsible for the underpayment to certain

class members. After recalculating the payment due each class

member pursuant to the Order, the parties agree that class members

Case 3:05-cv-01499-SC Document 140 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

are due an additional $405,713.90. The Settlement Fund now

contains only $349,940.92. The question then is who should cover

the additional $55,772.98. 

The deficiency appears to be the result of a miscalculation

by CPT Group, the Claims Administrator. Under the terms of the

Settlement Agreement, the parties jointly selected the

Administrator. Therefore, the parties shall be jointly

responsible for the Administrator's error, and shall each be

responsible for 50% of the $55,772.98 deficiency. 

Plaintiffs' request for additional attorney's fees incurred

since the Court issued the Order is DENIED. Plaintiffs' counsel

has already received $1,350,000.00 in fees and $48,100.94 in costs

from the Settlement, as well as $32,061.50 in fees from the prior

Order. That amount is sufficient.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 7, 2008

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01499-SC Document 140 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2