Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02748/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02748-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-02748-LHK 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHELLE NARANJO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-02748-LHK 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 79, 82

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Class 

Representative Award and for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. ECF No. 79 (“Mot. for 

Att’y Fees”); ECF No. 82 (“Mot. for Final Approval”). 

WHEREAS, a class action is pending before the Court in Naranjo v. Bank of America 

National Association, No. 14-CV-02748-LHK; 

WHEREAS, the Court has received and reviewed the Joint Stipulation of Class Action 

Settlement and Release entered into between Representative Plaintiffs Michelle Naranjo and 

Mathan Jayme, on the one hand, and Defendant Bank of America National Association, on the 

other hand, dated on or about August 6, 2015 (the “Settlement Agreement”), ECF No. 65, and has 

Case 5:14-cv-02748-LHK Document 85 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 14-CV-02748-LHK 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

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

considered the terms of the proposed settlement set forth therein; 

WHEREAS, all terms contained herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise defined herein; 

WHEREAS, on December 3, 2015, this Court held a preliminary approval hearing and 

subsequently issued an Order requesting that the parties amend the Settlement Agreement and 

Notice to (1) clarify the payment amount to the California Labor and Workforce Development 

Agency (“LWDA”) and to (2) simplify the process to object, ECF No. 75;

WHEREAS, on December 7, 2015, the parties stipulated to the Court’s proposed changes 

to the Settlement Agreement, as set forth in the Court’s December 3, 2015 Order, ECF No. 77;

WHEREAS, on December 7, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the 

Settlement Agreement, conditionally certifying classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, approving the form and method of the Amended Notice, and setting a date and time for 

a fairness hearing to consider whether the Settlement should be finally approved by the Court as 

being fair, adequate, and reasonable, ECF No. 78 (“Preliminary Approval Order”); 

WHEREAS, the Preliminary Approval Order further directed that all Settlement Class 

members be given notice of the Settlement Agreement and of the date for the final fairness 

hearing; 

WHEREAS, the Court has received the declaration of the Claims Administrator attesting 

to the mailing of the Amended Notice in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order; 

WHEREAS, no objections have been made to the Motion for Final Approval, and there 

has been one opt out to the Settlement; and

WHEREAS, the Court having conducted a final fairness hearing on May 5, 2016 (the 

“Fairness Hearing”), and having considered the arguments presented, all papers filed and all 

proceedings had therein; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, all Settlement 

Class members, and Defendants. 

2. In accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Case 5:14-cv-02748-LHK Document 85 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 14-CV-02748-LHK 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

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

requirements of due process, all Settlement Class members have been given proper and adequate 

notice of the Settlement. Based upon the evidence submitted by the parties, the Settlement 

Agreement, the arguments of counsel, and all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, the 

Court finds that the Amended Notice and notice methodology implemented pursuant to the 

Settlement Agreement and the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order: (a) constituted the best 

practicable notice under the circumstances; (b) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, 

under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class members of the pendency of the litigation, 

their right to object to the Settlement, and their right to appear at the Fairness Hearing; (c) were 

reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice; and 

(d) met all applicable requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any 

other applicable law. 

3. The Settlement Agreement in this action warrants final approval pursuant to Rule 

23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it is fair, adequate, and reasonable to those it 

affects, and resulted from contested litigation, substantial discovery, motion practice, and arm’s 

length negotiations between the parties, and is in the public interest considering the following 

factors: 

(a) the strength of Plaintiffs’ case; 

(b) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; 

(c) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; 

(d) the amount offered in settlement; 

(e) the extent of discovery completed; 

(f) the experience and views of counsel; and 

(g) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. See Hanlon v. 

Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).

4. The Final Approval Motion is hereby GRANTED, and the Settlement Agreement is 

hereby APPROVED as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the Settlement Class members. The 

Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms. 

5. The Court APPROVES payment of the Class Settlement Amount in accordance 

Case 5:14-cv-02748-LHK Document 85 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 14-CV-02748-LHK 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

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

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

6. The Court APPROVES payment of Class Representative Awards to Michelle 

Naranjo in the amount of $2,500.00 and Mathan Jayme in the amount of $2,500.00, in accordance 

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

7. The Court APPROVES payment to Michelle Naranjo in the amount of $2,500.00 

and Mathan Jayme in the amount of $2,500.00 to settle Naranjo and Jayme’s individual claims, in 

accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

8. The Court APPROVES payment of Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $63,750.00 

and Costs in the amount of $4,470.87 to Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court observes that Class Counsel’s 

request represents 25% of the Gross Settlement Amount, which the Ninth Circuit has established 

is a “benchmark” rate under the percentage-of-recovery calculation. See, e.g., In re Bluetooth 

Headset Products Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[C]ourts typically calculate 

25% of the fund as the ‘benchmark’ for a reasonable fee award, providing adequate explanation in 

the record of any ‘special circumstances’ justifying a departure.”).

Additionally, as to the lodestar cross-check, the Court has reviewed the declarations and 

the requested hourly rate for each attorney. Under Class Counsel’s requested rates and reported 

hours, Class Counsel’s total lodestar is $262,535.00.

1

 

Class Counsel William Marder (“Marder”), Larry Lee (“Lee”), and Dennis Hyun (“Hyun”) 

each request an hourly rate of $650.00 per hour. Courts in the Northern District of California 

previously have approved these rates for these attorneys. However, for the reasons stated below, 

this Court DECLINES to approve Nicholas Rosenthal’s (“Rosenthal”) requested $500.00 hourly 

rate. 

First, Rosenthal presented no evidence to support his requested $500.00 hourly rate in 

 

1

This lodestar total is based on a lodestar of $130,845.00 for Dennis Hyun. Although Hyun 

reported a lodestar of $136,695.00, ECF No. 79-4 at 7, that number is incorrect. Hyun reported 

spending 201.3 hours on this action at $650.00 per hour; taken together, that yields $130,845.00. 

Case 5:14-cv-02748-LHK Document 85 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 14-CV-02748-LHK 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

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

Class Counsel’s February 18, 2016 motion for attorney’s fees. Moreover, Rosenthal presented no 

such evidence even after the Court’s March 28, 2016 order specifically requested that Rosenthal 

“provide[] any documentation in support of this purported billing rate.” ECF No. 80. No court in 

the Northern District of California has previously approved a $500.00 hourly rate for Rosenthal, 

who has been a practicing attorney for 5.5 years. ECF No. 81-2 at 3. Thus, no evidence in the 

record supports a $500.00 hourly rate for Rosenthal. 

Second, Class Counsel request $63,750.00 in fees. However, even excluding Rosenthal’s 

hours, Class Counsel’s lodestar would be $233,285.00. Thus, Class Counsel’s lodestar multiplier, 

excluding Rosenthal’s hours, would therefore be 0.27. As a result, excluding Rosenthal’s hours 

would not impact the overall reasonableness of Class Counsel’s request for attorney’s fees. 

Third, a considerable amount of Rosenthal’s hours was spent preparing for and attending 

the mediation in San Francisco. However, Hyun and Marder, who each request an hourly rate of 

$650.00 in this action, also attended the mediation. Lee, who did not attend the mediation, spent 

time drafting the mediation brief. In total, Rosenthal (13.8 hours), Lee (5.6 hours), Marder (12.0 

hours), and Hyun (25.2 hours) spent 56.6 hours preparing for, traveling to, and/or attending the 

mediation, at a total lodestar of $34,720.00. This figure represents a significant percentage of the 

Gross Settlement Amount of $255,000.00. Even excluding Rosenthal’s hours, Class Counsel’s 

fees for work related to the mediation are reasonably compensated. 

9. The Court APPROVES payment of fees by Defendants to the Claims Administrator 

in the amount of $20,000.00, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

10. The Court APPROVES payment of $46,875.00 to the California Labor Workforce 

& Development Agency (“LWDA”) as required under California law for settlement of penalties 

under the Private Attorney General Act.

11. The allocation plan is hereby APPROVED as being fair, adequate, and reasonable. 

The Class Settlement Amount, Class Representative Awards, Claims Administrator fees, payment 

to the LWDA, and Attorney’s Fees and Costs shall be distributed in accordance with the terms of 

the Settlement Agreement and any further orders of this Court. 

Case 5:14-cv-02748-LHK Document 85 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 14-CV-02748-LHK 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

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

12. In consideration of the Class Settlement Amount, and for other good and valuable 

consideration, each of the Settlement Class members who have not validly excluded 

himself/herself from this Settlement shall, by operation of this Judgment, have fully, finally, and 

forever released, relinquished, and discharged all claims against Defendants in accordance with 

the terms of the Settlement Agreement and as the released claims are defined in the Settlement. 

13. This Judgment is the Final Judgment in the suit as to all Settlement Class members 

who have not excluded himself/herself from this Settlement. 

14. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court retains 

jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of the Settlement Agreement and its terms; (b) distribution of 

the Class Settlement Amount, the Class Representative Awards, Claims Administrator fees, 

LWDA payment, and Attorney’s Fees and Costs; and (c) all other proceedings related to the 

implementation, interpretation, administration, consummation, and enforcement of the terms of 

the Settlement Agreement, and the administration of claims by Settlement Class members. 

15. In the event that the Effective Date does not occur, this Judgment shall be rendered 

null and void and shall be vacated, nunc pro tunc, except insofar as expressly provided to the 

contrary in the Settlement Agreement, and without prejudice to the status quo ante rights of 

Plaintiffs, Class Members, and Defendants. 

16. This Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs 

Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02748-LHK Document 85 Filed 05/05/16 Page 6 of 6