Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01648/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01648-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441wt Removal- Employment (Wrongful Termination)

---

1

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

CECIL FRENCH, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated current 

and former employees of First Transit, 

Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FIRST TRANSIT, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-1648-CAB-MSB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

and MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ 

FEES, COSTS, ADMINISTRATIVE 

FEES, AND SERVICE AWARDS

[Doc. No. 51]

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for final approval 

of class action settlement and motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, administrative fees and 

service awards [Doc. No. 51]. The Court held a telephonic hearing on these motions on 

April 13, 2020.

1

 Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq. and Abbey M. Jahnke, Esq., appeared for 

Plaintiffs. David Dow, Esq. and Matthew B. Riley, Esq., appeared for Defendant. As 

discussed below, the motion for final approval of the class action settlement and the motion

for attorneys’ fees, costs, administrative fees, and service awards are granted.

 

1 Due to the current COVID-19 national health emergency, all civil matters are being handled by 

telephonic appearances. Order of the Chief Judge, No. 18-A. Notice was provided to the public of the 

telephonic procedures at Doc. Nos. 52 and 53. 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 14
2

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

BACKGROUND

This case involves California labor law violation claims against Defendant, First 

Transit Inc., a paratransit transport company. Plaintiffs’ claims flow from the following 

nucleus of factual allegations:

• Plaintiffs and all other para-transit bus drivers have been forced by Defendant to 

work four-hour increments without being provided with a lawful ten-minute rest 

period.

• Defendant has failed to comply with IWC Wage Order 9-2001(7) and Labor Code 

section 226(a) by failing to maintain accurate time records.

• Defendant willfully failed to pay all wages earned by Plaintiffs and the class at the 

time of discharge.

Based on those factual issues, named Plaintiff Cecil French brought suit against 

Defendant in 2018, alleging the following causes of action: (1) failure to provide 

uninterrupted rest periods; (2) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and 

(3) unlawful business practices.

Plaintiff Cecil French originally filed this action in the Superior Court of California 

on May 2, 2018. [Doc. No. 1-2.] On July 19, 2018, Defendant removed the action to this 

Court. [Doc. No. 1.] On April 12, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion for leave to file a 

first amended complaint (“FAC”) to include an additional named Plaintiff, Kathleen 

Breisacher. [Doc. No. 22.] On April 17, 2019, the Court granted leave [Doc. No. 23] and 

Plaintiffs filed the FAC on that same day. [Doc. No. 25.] On August 23, 2019, the parties 

filed a notice of settlement. [Doc. No. 33.] On September 10, 2019, the parties filed a joint 

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) to add a cause of action 

under the California Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code sections 2698, 

et seq. (“PAGA”), for settlement purposes. [Doc. No. 35.] The Court granted leave [Doc. 

No. 36], and Plaintiffs filed the SAC that same day. [Doc. No. 37.]

On November 26, 2019, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the 

proposed settlement and the proposed notice of settlement to class members (“Notice”). 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 14
3

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

[Doc. No. 46.] On December 6, 2019, the Court issued an Order preliminarily approving 

class settlement and approved the proposed Notice. [Doc. No. 48.] The Final Approval 

Hearing was set for April 13, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. [Doc. No. 50]

Currently before the Court is the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Administrative Fees, and Service 

Awards [Doc. No. 51.]

OVERVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT

A. Class Definition.

The proposed class consists of First Transit, Inc.’s non-exempt employees who 

drove para-transit bus routes out of its San Diego, California location during the period of 

May 2, 2014, through December 6, 2019. [Doc. No. 51-2 at 11; Doc. No. 51-5 at ¶¶ 2.3, 

2.10.]

B. Settlement Terms.

Under the proposed Settlement, the claims of all Class Members who did not timely 

request exclusion from the Settlement shall be settled for the Maximum Settlement Amount 

of two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000.00). [Doc. No. 51-5 at ¶ 2.21.]

This Maximum Settlement Amount shall include: (1) all Individual Settlement Payments 

to Participating Class Members and all related employer - and employee-side tax 

obligations; (2) the Class Counsel Costs Award; (3) the Class Counsel Fees Award; (4) all 

Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs; (5) the PAGA Award to the Labor and Workforce 

Development Agency (“LWDA”); and (6) all Settlement Administration Costs. The 

Maximum Settlement Amount shall be allocated as follows:

1. Individual Settlement Payments. 

The Net Distribution Fund2approximates One Million Seven Hundred Forty-Seven 

Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Eight Dollars and Thirty Cents ($1,747,358.30). Class 

 

2 The Net Distribution Fund is the amount remaining after subtracting Class Counsels’ attorneys’ fees and 

costs, Service Awards, PAGA Penalties, and Settlement Administration Costs.

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 14
4

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

members are not required to file a claim to receive an Individual Settlement Payment. The 

Individual Settlement Payments will be computed for each Participating Class Member by 

multiplying the number of Compensable Workweeks he/she worked during the Class 

Period by the work week valuation.

2. LWDA Payment. 

Subject to the Court’s approval, one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) from 

the Maximum Settlement Amount shall be allocated to penalties under the Private 

Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Of this amount, seventy-five percent (75%), or seventyfive thousand dollars ($75,000.00) is to be paid directly to the LWDA. The remaining 

twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) is allocated to the aggrieved employees and, 

pursuant to the Settlement, is included in the Net Distribution Fund. [Doc. No. 51-5 at ¶

3.9.]

3. Class Counsel Fees and Expenses. 

Subject to Court approval, Defendant agreed not to oppose Class Counsel seeking 

up to twenty-five percent (25%) or Six Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars and Zero 

Cents ($625,000.00) of the Maximum Settlement Amount for attorneys’ fees and up to 

Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($50,000.00) for reimbursement of Class Counsel’s 

costs in prosecuting this matter. [Id. at ¶¶ 3.3, 3.4.] In the motion, Class Counsel seek

$32,641.71 in costs. 

4. Class Representative Incentive Award. 

Subject to Court approval, in exchange for release of their claims, and in recognition 

of the time and effort in litigating this matter, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to payment of a 

Class Representative Incentive Award up to and not to exceed five thousand dollars 

($5,000.00) each.

5. Claims Administration Costs. 

Claims Administration Costs, in an amount not to exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars 

and Zero Cents ($20,000.00), shall be paid to the Claims Administrator from the Maximum 

Settlement Amount. In the motion, administration costs sought are $15,000.

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 14
5

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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. Taxes. 

All Individual Settlement Payments paid to Participating Class Members will be paid 

in a net amount after deducting that individual’s applicable state and federal tax 

withholdings, applicable payroll deductions, any other deductions required by state and 

local law, and social security withholdings, and any employer-side payroll taxes owed.

7. Release

Upon final approval of the Settlement Agreement, Class Members who have not 

opted out of the settlement will be barred from bringing any cause of action or asserting 

any claim for unpaid wages or penalties during the Class Period. Named Plaintiffs have 

consented to a general release of any and all claims arising during the Class Period.

C. Notice to Class Members

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Notice described the lawsuit 

and settlement, instructed Class Members how to participate in or opt-out of the settlement, 

instructed Class members how to object to the settlement, provided details on the final 

approval hearing and contact information for class counsel, and instructed Class Members 

how to obtain court records.

The Settlement Administrator, American Legal Claim Services, LLC (“ALCS”), 

was responsible for preparing and mailing the Class Notice. First Transit provided ALCS 

with the last known address for each Settlement Class Member. The Settlement 

Administrator used various processes and search engine databases to update Settlement 

Class Members’ addresses.

On December 27, 2019, ALCS mailed the Class Notice to 560 Settlement Class

Members. Fifty-Nine (59) Class Notices were returned to ALCS by the United States 

Postal Service. ALCS performed address traces and mailed out new Class Notices; 

ultimately, 25 Class notices were undeliverable. ALCS and Class Counsel have not 

received any requests from Settlement Class Members to be excluded from the settlement. 

Moreover, ALCS and Class Counsel have not received any objections to the settlement.

The Court finds that this notice procedure afforded adequate protections to Class 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 14
6

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed decision regarding 

approval of the Settlement based on the responses of the Class Members. The Court finds 

and determines that the notice provided in this case was the best practicable, which 

sufficiently satisfied the requirements of law and due process. Finally, the 

Court APPROVES the Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $15,000.00 as 

reasonable.

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

1. Legal Standard.

Courts require a higher standard of fairness when settlement takes place prior to class 

certification to ensure class counsel and defendants have not colluded in settling the case. 

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Ultimately, “[t]he court’s 

intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated between the 

parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment 

that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the 

negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and 

adequate to all concerned.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 

(9th Cir. 1982).

A court considers several factors in determining whether a proposed settlement is 

“fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Rule 23(e). Such factors may include: (1) the 

strength of the case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further 

litigation and the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (3) the stage 

of the proceedings (investigation, discovery, and research completed); (4) the settlement 

amount; (5) whether the class has been fairly and adequately represented during settlement 

negotiations; and (6) the reaction of the class to the proposed settlement. Staton v. Boeing 

Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court need only consider some of these 

factors—namely, those designed to protect absentees. See Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 

953 (9th Cir. 2003) (overruled in part on other grounds).

Judicial policy favors settlement in class actions and other forms of complex 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 14
7

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

litigation where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and 

rigors of formal litigation. In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 720 F. Supp. 

1379, 1387 (D. Ariz. 1989).

2. Analysis.

A. Strength of the Case, and the Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely 

Duration of Further Litigation.

To determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the 

Court must balance the continuing risks of litigation (including the strengths and 

weaknesses of the Plaintiffs’ case), with the benefits afforded to members of the Class, and 

the immediacy and certainty of a substantial recovery. See In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. 

Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000). In other words:

The Court shall consider the vagaries of litigation and compare the 

significance of immediate recovery by way of the compromise to the mere 

possibility of relief in the future, after protracted and expensive litigation. In 

this respect, “it has been held proper to take the bird in hand instead of a 

prospective flock in the bush.”

Nat'l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 526 (C.D. Cal. 2004) 

(citations omitted).

Plaintiffs contend they have a strong case that was appropriately settled for $2.5 

million. [Doc. No. 51-2 at 17.] While Plaintiffs strongly believe in the case, the risk of 

continued litigation of the issues in their case could have significantly reduced their 

damages. Id. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of approving the settlement.

B. The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial.

Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court may revisit a prior order granting certification of a 

class at any time before final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C) (“An order that 

grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.”). 

Where there is a risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial, this factor 

favors approving the settlement. Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964, 

976 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (finding that the complexity of the case weighed in favor of approving 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 14
8

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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 settlement).

Plaintiffs contend that although they do not foresee any direct risk to certifying a 

class and maintaining certification through trial, by reaching a favorable settlement prior 

to a motion for certification they avoid significant expense and delay. [Doc. No. 51-2 at 

19.] Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of approving the settlement.

C. The Stage of the Proceedings.

“A settlement following sufficient discovery and genuine arms-length negotiation is 

presumed fair.” DIRECTV, 221 F.R.D. at 528. In the context of class action settlements, 

as long as the parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision about 

settlement, “formal discovery is not a necessary ticket to the bargaining table.” Linney v. 

Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting In re Chicken 

Antitrust Litig., 669 F.2d 228, 241 (5th Cir. 1982)).

Based on the parties’ representations, it appears that the Settlement Agreement 

resulted from arms-length negotiations and was not the result of collusion. The parties 

negotiated the proposed Settlement at arm’s length with the assistance of an experienced 

mediator, Joel Grossman, Esq. As part of the discovery process, First Transit provided 

Class Counsel with hundreds of pages of documents containing thousands of data entries 

regarding the Named Plaintiffs’ and Settlement Class Members’ manifests; timing, accrual, 

usage, and forfeiture of rest breaks; payment roll records; and payment of additional wages 

when rest breaks were not provided in accordance with California law. Class Counsel also 

spent a considerable amount of time interviewing witnesses, conferring with co-counsel, 

preparing to take depositions, and preparing a draft class certification motion and draft joint 

motion to resolve discovery disputes. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel had adequate 

information to gauge the value of the Settlement Class Members’ claims and assess 

whether the proposed Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Therefore, this factor 

weighs in favor of approving the settlement.

D. The Settlement Amount.

“In assessing the consideration obtained by the class members in a class action 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 14
9

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

settlement, it is the complete package taken as a whole, rather than the individual 

component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness.” DIRECTV, 221 F.R.D. at 

527 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “[I]t is well-settled law that a proposed 

settlement may be acceptable even though it amounts to only a fraction of the potential 

recovery that might be available to the class members at trial.” Id. (citations omitted).

Here, the Maximum Settlement Amount is $2,500,000.00, with a Net Distribution

Fund of at least $1,747,358.30 available to pay Class Members. The average estimated 

payment is $3,080.50. Plaintiffs contend that the settlement amount is reasonable when 

balanced against the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs’ claims:

“Although Named Plaintiffs believe this case had merits, Named Plaintiffs realize 

they had a long and arduous road before them that was fraught with risk. After deducting 

Named Plaintiffs’ Service Awards, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of administration, 

the Net Distribution Amount remaining is $1,747,358.30. This amount represents 

approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum amount of damages recoverable 

under Named Plaintiffs’ theory of the case.” [Doc. No. 51-2 at 25.]

Thus, this factor favors approval.

E. Fair and Adequate Representation During Settlement Negotiations.

“Great weight is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely 

acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation. This is because parties represented 

by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that fairly 

reflects each party’s expected outcome in the litigation.” DIRECTV, 221 F.R.D. at 528 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Class Counsel assert that their significant, 

collective trial and class action litigation experience supports Final Approval. Mr. Ostroff 

has more than twenty-seven (27) years of experience litigating class and representative 

actions involving California labor law and I.W.C Wage Orders, many of which involved 

failure to provide rest periods in accordance with California law. Moreover, based on Class 

Counsel’s extensive experience, they have collectively and without reservation concluded 

that this settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, this factor weighs in 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 14
10

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

favor of approval of the settlement.

F. Class Reaction to the Proposed Settlement.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the number of class members who object to a 

proposed settlement is a factor to be considered. Mandujano v. Basic Vegetable Prods. Inc., 

541 F.2d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 1976). The absence of a large number of objectors supports the 

fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. See In re Austrian & German 

Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164, 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“If only a small number 

of objections are received, that fact can be viewed as indicative of the adequacy of the 

settlement.”) (citations omitted); Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 624 (N.D. Cal. 

1979) (finding “persuasive” the fact that 84% of the class did not file an opposition).

To date, no Settlement Class Member has objected to the settlement and no 

Settlement Class Member has excluded himself or herself from the settlement. Given the 

overall positive reaction from Settlement Class Members, this factor also favors final 

approval.

3. Conclusion.

Because the factors outlined above favor approving the Settlement, the Court 

GRANTS the motion and finds that the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under 

Rule 23(e).

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, AND

SERVICE AWARDS

Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $625,000, 25% of the $2,500,000 

Maximum Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $32,641.71 to 

Class Counsel, Administrative Costs for ACLS of $15,000 and Class Representative 

Service Awards in the amount of $5,000 to each Plaintiff in this action. The uncontested 

motion is made on the following grounds:

1. Attorneys’ Fees

Courts have an independent obligation to ensure that the amounts requested for 

attorneys' fees and any class representative service award, like the settlement, are 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 14
11

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

reasonable. In re Bluetooth Headsets Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Where a settlement produces a common fund for the benefit of the entire class, courts have 

the discretion to employ a “percentage of recovery method.” Id. at 942. Typically, courts 

calculate 25% of the fund as a “bench mark” for a reasonable fee award. Id. Injunctive 

relief should generally be excluded from the value of the common fund when calculating 

attorneys’ fees because most often the value of the injunctive relief is not measurable. 

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2003).

“The 25% benchmark rate, although a starting point for the analysis, may be 

inappropriate in some cases.” Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 

2002). Thus, courts are encouraged to cross-check this method by employing the “lodestar 

method” as well. In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 949.

In the “lodestar method,” the court multiplies the number of hours the prevailing 

party reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate for the work. In re Bluetooth, 654 

F.3d at 941. The hourly rate may be adjusted for the experience of the attorney. Id. “Time 

spent obtaining an attorneys’ fee in common fund cases is not compensable because it does 

not benefit the plaintiff class.” In re Wash. Public Power Supply Sys. Secs. Litig., 19 F.3d 

1291, 1299 (9th Cir. 1994). The resulting amount is “presumptively reasonable.” In re 

Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 949. However, “the district court . . . should exclude from the initial 

fee calculation hours that were not ‘reasonable expended.’” Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 

1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) (Hensley v. Eckerhart, 401 U.S. 424, 433–34 (1983)). The 

court may then adjust this presumptively reasonable amount upward or downward by an 

appropriate positive or negative multiplier reflecting a whole host of reasonableness factors 

including the quality of the representation, the complexity and novelty of the issues, the 

risk of nonpayment, and, foremost in considerations, the benefit achieved for the class. In 

re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942.

Here, the Court notes that the settlement amount is an exceptional amount with a 

significant average payout. After deducting Named Plaintiffs’ Service Awards, attorneys’ 

fees, expenses, and costs of administration, the Net Distribution Amount remaining is 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 14
12

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

$1,747,358.30. This amount represents approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of the 

maximum amount of damages recoverable under Named Plaintiffs’ theory of the case. The 

Class Members will receive an average Settlement Payment of $3,080.50. Therefore, the 

Court APPROVES attorneys’ fees in the amount of $625,000.00.

2. Litigation and Administrative Expenses.

Class Counsel seek reimbursement of their costs in the amount of $32,641.71. Rule 

of Civil Procedure 23(h) provides that, “[i]n a certified class action, the court may award 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties’

agreement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). Class counsel are entitled to reimbursement of the outof-pocket costs they reasonably incurred investigating and prosecuting this case. See In re 

Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Mills v. 

Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 391-92 (1970)); Staton, 327 F.3d at 974.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel may seek reimbursement of 

reasonable costs in an amount not to exceed $50,000. Here, Class Counsel’s costs were 

only $32,641.71, which includes court fees, service costs, expert costs, the cost of class 

notice, and travel-related expenses. Accordingly, because Class Counsel’s out-of-pocket 

expenses were reasonably incurred in connection with the prosecution of this litigation and

were advanced by Class Counsel for the benefit of the Class, the Court APPROVES costs 

in the amount of $32,641.71. As stated previously above, the Court also APPROVES

administrative expenses for ACLS of $15,000.00.

2. Class Representative Service Awards.

Plaintiffs Cecil French and Kathleen Breisacher each seek a class representative 

service award of $5,000. “[I]ncentive awards that are intended to compensate class 

representatives for work undertaken on behalf of a class are fairly typical in class actions 

cases” and “do not, by themselves, create an impermissible conflict between class members 

and their representative[ ].” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 943 

(9th Cir. 2015). Nonetheless, the court has an obligation to assure that the amount 

requested is fair. In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941. “The propriety of incentive payments 

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 14
13

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

is arguably at its height when the award represents a fraction of the class representative’s 

likely damages . . . But we should be more dubious of incentive payments when they make 

the class representative whole, or (as here) even more than whole.” In re Dry Pampers 

Litig., 724 F.3d 713, 722 (6th Cir. 2013).

Here, Named Plaintiffs met with Class Counsel on several occasions to discuss the 

claims asserted; attempted to locate witnesses and provided all documentation, including 

pay stubs and employee handbooks, which they received during the tenure of their 

employment with First Transit to Class Counsel; reviewed and approved the complaints 

and Settlement Agreement; assisted Class Counsel with the preparation of written 

discovery propounded to First Transit; arranged telephone conversations between Class 

Counsel and other First Transit employee witnesses; and responded to telephone and email inquiries made by Class Counsel during the pendency of this action. Accordingly, the 

Court APPROVES a service award of $5,000.00 to each Named Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action 

settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Court finds 

that the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, 

arms-length negotiations, and that the settlement was entered into in good faith, 

and that Plaintiffs have satisfied the standards for final approval of a class 

action Settlement under federal law. 

2. The Court APPROVES the Claims Administration costs in the amount 

$15,000.00.

3. The Court APPROVES the LWDA payment and employer taxes payment 

pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

4. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and class 

representative service awards as follows:

a. The Court APPROVES Plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorneys’

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 14
14

18cv1648-CAB-MSB

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

fees in the amount of $625,000.00.

b. The Court APPROVES the requested costs in the amount of $32,641.71.

c. The Court APPROVES class representative service awards of $5,000.00.

5. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall submit a proposed judgment for the Court’s review and 

execution no later than April 20, 2020.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01648-CAB-MSB Document 55 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 14