Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01009/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01009-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

BRANDON LO, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV1009 JLS (MDD)

ORDER (1) GRANTING JOINT

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

OF CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT AND

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S

FEES AND COSTS AND SERVICE

AWARD TO NAMED PLAINTIFF

(ECF Nos. 28, 31)

vs.

OXNARD EUROPEAN MOTORS, LLC and

OXNARD MB, LLC,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court are the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action

Settlement, (Mot. Final Approval Class Settlement, ECF No. 31), and Plaintiff’s Motion for

Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Service Award to Named Plaintiff, (Mot. Att’y Fees, ECF No. 28). 

This case arises out of Defendant Oxnard European Motors’s (“Defendant”) allegedly negligent

and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et

seq., by sending advertising and other commercial text messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone

without first obtaining Plaintiff’s “prior express consent.” The parties reached a settlement, and

now move for final approval of their settlement agreement and for approval of Plaintiff’s request

for attorney’s fees, costs, and for a $1,500 service award to the named class representative. 

Having considered the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS both motions.

//

- 1 - 11cv1009

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 33 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 6
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

FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

On November 28, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class

Action Settlement Agreement, (Mot. Prelim. Approval Class Settlement, ECF No. 23), which the

Court granted on December 15, 2011, (Order, Dec. 15, 2011, ECF No. 27). This Order

incorporates by reference the summary of the proposed settlement agreement and the settlement

class certification and fairness determination analyses as set forth in the Court’s Preliminary

Approval Order. (Order, Dec. 15, 2011, at 2–10, ECF No. 27) Pursuant to the Preliminary

Approval Order, the Court preliminarily certified the class for settlement purposes only,

preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, appointed Plaintiff Brandon Lo as class

representative, appointed Hyde & Swigart, the Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion and the

Kazerouni Law Group, PC as class counsel, and set the final approval hearing for May 25, 2012, at

2:00pm. 

Shortly after the Court preliminarily approved the class action settlement on December 15,

2011, the claims administrator, CPT Group, Inc., sent individual notices to the 203 settlement class

members by mailing postcard-type notices providing a summary of the terms of the settlement,

instructions for making a claim, and a Web address and toll-free telephone number by which

settlement class members could receive information about the settlement. The full notice and

complete text of the settlement agreement was also posted on the Website. 

Pursuant to the above notice procedures, settlement class members were advised that in

order to receive a portion of the settlement funds, they needed to submit a claim via phone, online,

or mail on or before March 20, 2012. They were further advised that the deadline to be excluded

from or to object to the settlement was March 30, 2012. No objections were filed before the

March 30, 2012, deadline, nor have any been filed as of the date this Order is electronically

docketed. There were no requests for exclusions. A total of twenty-two claims were timely made,

entitling each claimant to $1,331.23.1

1

 The amount Defendant will pay into the settlement fund is $49,100. After the requisite

deductions for attorneys’ fees, costs (including the costs of notice and claims administration), and

the incentive payment to the class representative, the amount remaining in the fund will total

$29,287.66. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, this amount is divided amongst the settlement

- 2 - 11cv1009

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 33 Filed 05/29/12 Page 2 of 6
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 Court held a fairness hearing on Friday, May 25, 2012. At the hearing, the Court

addressed whether there were any updates since the filing of the motion for final approval and

declarations in support, the planned distribution of settlement checks to settlement class members,

whether the low percentage (10.84%) of eligible settlement class members filing claims reflects on

the fairness of the settlement or the adequacy of the notice procedure, as well as the

reasonableness of the requested attorneys’ fees and service award, among other things. 

As to the low percentage of claims filed, the Court notes that regardless of the number of

settlement class members who file claims, Defendants submit the same amount into the settlement

fund. Thus, Defendants are sufficiently deterred from future (alleged) TCPA violations no matter

the number of claimants. See Goodrich Mgmt. Corp. v. Afgo Mech. Servs., Inc., 2009 WL

2602200, at *5 (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2009) (“Although actual out-of-pocket monetary loss to the

recipient . . . is slight . . . the TCPA provides for a recovery of $500 per violation or $1500 if the

conduct was wilful or knowing. Therefore, the TCPA contains a punitive element to deter such

conduct and motivate private lawsuits.”). Moreover, given the pro rata payment structure and the

low number of claimants, each claimant will receive over $1,000, which—according to the

parties—constitutes a settlement amount much greater than is typically obtained in other TCPA

settlements. See, e.g., Bellows v. NCO Fin. Sys., 2008 U.S. Dist. LECIS 103525 (S.D. Cal. 2008)

(Hoffman, Special Master) (noting that each settlement class member “is entitled to receive a $70

settlement check”). The amount also constitutes a high percentage of what each class member

might have recovered had they ultimately been successful in this lawsuit. Given this payment

structure, the Court is less troubled by the low percentage of claims filed. 

In addition, the fairness of the terms of the settlement is bolstered by the fact that no

objections were made. In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal.

2007) (“It is established that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action

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

favorable to the class members.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Churchill Vill, LLC

class members who file a timely claim on a pro rata basis. Thus, because only twenty-two claims

were made, each claimant is entitled to a settlement check in the amount of $1,331.23. 

- 3 - 11cv1009

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 33 Filed 05/29/12 Page 3 of 6
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

v. Gen. Elec. Co., 361 F.3d 566, 567 (9th Cir. 2004). The lack of objections suggests to the Court

that the settlement class members found the terms of the settlement favorable. 

Finally, having reviewed the declarations of Julie Green on behalf of the claims

administrator filed in support of the motion for final approval, the Court finds that the procedures

used by the claims administrator to identify the most up-to-date mailing addresses for settlement

class members was extremely thorough. (Green Decl., ECF No. 29); (Green Decl., ECF No. 31-6) 

Thus, the Court is not concerned that the low percentage of claims is in any way due to an

inadequacy in the notice procedures.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS2

In the Court’s Order granting the parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of the class

action settlement agreement, the Court expressed concern over awarding attorneys’ fees in excess

of twenty-five percent of the settlement fund given the short duration of the action and the fact that

the complaint appears to be a boilerplate complaint that Plaintiff’s counsel need only amend

slightly in each case it files alleging a TCPA violation, of which there are many. (Order, Dec. 15,

2011, at 11, ECF No. 27) Perhaps in light of the Court’s concern, counsel now seeks just twentyfive percent of the settlement fund in attorneys’ fees, though the settlement agreement permits

them to seek up to thirty-three percent. Thus, the attorneys’ fee request is for $12,275.00, plus

$6,037.34 in costs (including costs of notice and claims administration), for a total of $18,312.34.

The fee request here is based on the “common fund doctrine,” whereby “a reasonable fee is

based on a percentage of the fund bestowed on the class.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 900

n.16 (1984). The Ninth Circuit has accepted as a benchmark for an attorneys’ fees awards a

2 The Preliminary Approval Order set the date for class counsel to file an application for

attorneys’ fees as May 10, 2012, though the deadline for settlement class members to file any

objections was March 30, 2012. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), however, “the

deadline for objections to counsel’s fee request [must be set] on a date after the motion and

documents supporting it have been filed.” Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig. v. Mercury

Interactive Corp., 618 F.3d 988, 993 (9th Cir. 2011). Notwithstanding the Court’s error in setting

the deadline to file a motion for attorneys’ fees, the motion was filed well in advance of the

objection deadline, on March 9, 2012. Thus, the Court believes that the settlement class members

had an adequate opportunity to object to the motion, especially in light of the fact that settlement

class members had ample opportunity to review the settlement agreement in its entirety, which set

forth the proposed attorneys’ fee request (and, in fact, suggested that class counsel could obtain far

more in fees than they have ultimately sought). 

- 4 - 11cv1009

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 33 Filed 05/29/12 Page 4 of 6
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

twenty-five percent of the common fund recovery. Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886

F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989). This benchmark may be adjusted upward or downward when

appropriate, at the Court’s discretion. See id. In assessing the reasonableness of counsel’s fee

request, the Court considers “relevant factors [such as] early settlement, achievement of an

excellent result, risk, and a showing of standard fees for similar litigation.” Wright v. Linkus

Enters., 259 F.R.D. 468, 476 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043,

1048–50 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

Here, the case settled within a very short period of time—just over two months. Counsel

represents that the settlement is exceptionally favorable to the settlement class members. Indeed,

the amount that each settlement class member who made a claim is entitled to appears to be

significantly more than class members typically receive in settlements of like actions, and

constitutes a significant percentage of what each class member might have received had they

ultimately been successful in this litigation. See In re Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1046 (noting

that “[t]he overall result and benefit to the class from the litigation is the most critical factor in

granting a fee award” and finding a “substantial achievement on behalf of the class” when the

settlement award constituted “approximately 9% of the possible damages, which is more than

triple the average recovery [in these types of] settlements”). Further, counsel asserts a substantial

risk of nonpayment in taking on this case, as Defendant denies liability for the claims asserted. 

Taken together, these factors favor the Court’s approval of the requested twenty-five percent of the

settlement fund attorneys’ fees award. 

Having fully considered the request for attorneys’ fees, reviewed the declarations and

exhibits detailing the time spent and work done in this action, and weighed the various factors

relevant to the Court’s ultimate fee award determination, the Court finds the requested fees and

costs reasonable. 

SERVICE AWARD TO NAMED PLAINTIFF

There is an additional request for the award of an incentive payment to Brandon Lo, the

class representative, in the amount of $1,500. As the Court already determined in the Preliminary

Approval Order, this incentive award is appropriate and appears to be on par with class

- 5 - 11cv1009

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 33 Filed 05/29/12 Page 5 of 6
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

representative awards in similar class action settlements. See, e.g. Bellows, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

103525, at *15. Thus, the Court GRANTS this request and approves the incentive payment of

$1,500 to the named plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

Having considered the terms of the settlement agreement, adequacy of the notice provided

to the class members, the joint motion for final approval of the class action settlement, the

supporting declarations, and counsels’ comments at oral argument, the Court concludes that the

settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and accordingly GRANTS the motion for

final approval of the settlement. The Court likewise GRANTS the motion for attorneys’ fees,

costs, and incentive payment award, for the reasons stated above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 6 - 11cv1009

Case 3:11-cv-01009-JLS-MDD Document 33 Filed 05/29/12 Page 6 of 6