Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01332/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01332-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

Page 1

 Case No. 13cv1332

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM GREENE and DEIDRE

JONES, individually, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly 

situated,

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

GINO MORENA ENTERPRISES, LLC, a 

California limited liability company, and 

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 13cv1332 JM(NLS) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT AND ENTERING 

JUDGMENT

This is a wage-and-hour class action law suit brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 23, on behalf of individuals who are or were employed as nonexempt 

barbers, stylists and beauticians by Gino Morena Enterprises, LLC (“Defendant” or “GME”). The 

parties are presently before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for an Order Granting 

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Entering Judgment (the “Motion”). (Dkt. 27.) 

Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully 

informed, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for the reasons set forth below. The Court, in its 

discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1.d.1. 

///

///

Case 3:13-cv-01332-JM-NLS Document 29 Filed 11/04/14 Page 1 of 6
Page 2

 Case No. 13cv1332 

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

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs William Greene and Deidre Jones (“Plaintiffs”) seek final approval of a 

proposed Class Action Settlement on behalf of Plaintiffs and the proposed class of individuals who 

are/were employed by GME in California as nonexempt barbers, stylists and beauticians (the 

“Class”) between May 1, 2009 and January 21, 2014 (the “Class Period”). This wage-and-hour 

putative class action was initially filed in San Diego Superior Court on May 1, 2013 (the “Action” 

or “Complaint”). On June 7, 2013, Defendant removed the Action to federal court based on the 

Federal Enclave Doctrine and subsequently answered the Complaint on June 14, 2013. The Class 

involves a total of 752 current and former employees of GME. On January 21, 2014, the parties 

participated in a full day of mediation before Judge William Pate (ret.), at the end of which the 

parties ultimately reached a negotiated settlement. 

On May 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Class Action Settlement, 

which was granted by the Court. (Dkt. Nos. 24, 25.) 

The terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) call for GME to 

pay a Gross Common Fund (“GCF”) of $575,000, from which the following sums are to be 

deducted: (1) attorneys’ fees in an amount of $189,750; (2) litigation costs of $18,321.98; 

(3) incentive awards of up to $10,000 for each of the two named Plaintiffs; and (4) claims 

administration expenses to ILYM, Group, Inc. (“ILYM”) in the amount of $15,560. The Net 

Common Fund (“NCF”) (i.e., the GCF less the aforementioned deductions) will be distributed to 

class members based on the proportionate number of hours they worked in relation to the total 

hours worked by the Class during the Class Period. The average class member payment will be 

$662.68, with the highest payment estimated at $2,428.42. Any unclaimed funds will be first 

deposited into a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) for six months to pay out late claims. If there 

is any residue, the funds will be used to reimburse Defendant for payroll tax obligations, and any 

remainder will be donated to the Wounded Warrior Project.

The Court’s preliminarily approval order directed Plaintiffs to disseminate notice of the 

settlement, “opt out” form, and claim form to members of the Class. The Class was also advised 

Case 3:13-cv-01332-JM-NLS Document 29 Filed 11/04/14 Page 2 of 6
Page 3

 Case No. 13cv1332 

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

of the manner and the deadline to file objections. Not a single member of the Class has filed an 

objection to the fee request or to the Settlement, itself. (Molina Decl., ¶ 18.) In accordance with 

the Court’s order preliminarily approving the settlement, Plaintiffs have timely filed this 

unopposed Motion for Final Approval.

II. DISCUSSION 

A. CLASS SETTLEMENT 

Settlement of the class action claims require court approval. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. 

United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). In reviewing a settlement, the district court’s 

“[o]bligation is not to act as caretaker but as gatekeeper; [rather,] it must ensure that private ... 

settlements are appropriate ...” Goudie v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., No. CV 08-507-AC, 2009 WL 

88336, *1 (D. Or. Jan. 12, 2009). The salient question for purposes of approving a class settlement 

is whether it constitutes a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Lynn’s Food 

Stores, supra, 679 F.2d at 1353. “If the settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over issues 

that are actually in dispute, the Court may approve the settlement ‘in order to promote the policy of 

encouraging settlement of litigation.’” McKeen-Chaplin v. Franklin American Mortg. Co.,

No. C 10-5243 SBA, 2012 WL 6629608, *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012), quoting in part Lynn’s 

Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. 

As the Court explained in its preliminary approval order, the proposed settlement 

constitutes a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. The settlement resulted from 

arms-length, non-collusive negotiations overseen by a neutral mediator after the parties had 

exchanged a substantial amount of documents and information. The GCF constitutes roughly 43% 

of recoverable damages, and affords the putative class members a tangible monetary benefit. See 

Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc., No. 08-01520 SC, 2009 WL 248367, *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009) 

[recovery of 50% of possible damages in a wage-and-hour action was a “substantial achievement 

on behalf of the class”]. Moreover, the fact that there are no objections to the settlement, at least 

48.01% of the Class submitted claims, and at least 72.19% of the NCF will be claimed by the Class 

weighs in favor of final approval. See Nat’l Rural Telecomms Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 

Case 3:13-cv-01332-JM-NLS Document 29 Filed 11/04/14 Page 3 of 6
Page 4

 Case No. 13cv1332 

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

221 F.R.D. 523, 529 (C.D. Cal. 2004) [“the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed 

class action settlement raises a strong presumption the terms of a proposed class settlement action 

are favorable to the class members”]. The Court therefore finds that final approval of the 

settlement is appropriate. 

B. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 

Here, Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees for $189,750.00 or 33% of the GCF. The 

Court notes that the amount of fees sought warrants an upward increase of 8% from the 

“benchmark” set by the Ninth Circuit in cases where, as here, the attorneys’ fees are calculated as a 

percentage of a common fund. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th 

Cir. 2011). The reasonableness of the fees requested is confirmed by the fact that the lodestar 

($411,405) is more than double the proposed, percentage-based fee award ($189,750.00). See 

Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that when applying the 

percentage-of-the-fund approach, the court should look to the lodestar as a cross-check to 

determine the reasonableness of the fee request). As for Plaintiffs’ request for recovery of 

litigation costs, the Court finds that the amounts requested (i.e., $18,321.98 in litigation-related 

expenses and $15,560 in claims administration expenses) are reasonable under the circumstances 

and appropriately documented. 

C. INCENTIVE AWARDS 

Although incentive awards are generally authorized as a matter of the court’s discretion, in 

reviewing whether an incentive award is appropriate, the Court should take into account “the 

actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to which the class has 

benefitted from those actions, ... [and] the amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended in 

pursuing the litigation.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 928, 977 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re 

Continental Illinois Secs. Litig., 962 F.2d 566, 571 (7th Cir. 1992).

Plaintiffs seek incentive awards in the amount of $10,000 each. Each plaintiff submitted a 

declaration regarding their substantial involvement in and contributions to the litigation. Each 

plaintiff spent considerable time consulting with counsel, collecting supporting documents and 

Case 3:13-cv-01332-JM-NLS Document 29 Filed 11/04/14 Page 4 of 6
Page 5

 Case No. 13cv1332 

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

discussing them with counsel, preparing responses to written discovery requests. They also 

participated in depositions, all-day mediation, and the review and revisions to the Agreement. 

Although the precise amount of time and effort Plaintiffs expended in advancing the litigation is 

not entirely clear, it is readily apparent that the class benefitted from Plaintiffs’ decision to file suit 

and pursue this action. As discussed, the settlement correlates to approximately 43% of 

recoverable damages, which, as noted above, is generally considered a favorable result. In 

agreeing to file suit, Plaintiffs assumed the risk of having a judgment entered against them in the 

event they did not prevail, and likewise faced repercussions from being identified as individuals 

who sued their employer on a class action basis. Thus, on balance, the Court finds, in its 

discretion, that the record supports approving an incentive award in the amount of $10,000 for 

each Plaintiff. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement and Entering Judgment is GRANTED. 

2. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and the findings set forth above, the Court 

approves the payment of: 

a) Attorneys’ fees in the sum of $189,750 and litigation expenses in the sum 

of $18,321.98 to Class Counsel, BISNAR|CHASE LLP and 

BRANIGAN ROBERTSON, INC.; 

b) An incentive award in the sum of $10,000 each to William Greene and 

Deidre Jones; and 

c) Claims administration costs in the sum of $15,560 to the appointed claims 

administrator, ILYM, Group, Inc. 

3. The parties are hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Agreement, 

forthwith. 

Case 3:13-cv-01332-JM-NLS Document 29 Filed 11/04/14 Page 5 of 6
Page 6

 Case No. 13cv1332 

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. A final judgment of dismissal is hereby entered in this case in accordance with the 

terms of the Agreement, Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and 

this Order. 

5. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, except as otherwise 

provided herein and by the Agreement. 

6. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 4, 2014 _______________________________________

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

United States District Judge

_________________________________

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01332-JM-NLS Document 29 Filed 11/04/14 Page 6 of 6