Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-03587/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-03587-30/pdf.json

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

---

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 

CASE NO. 4:11-CV-03587-YGR

ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES BREWER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

GENERAL NUTRITION CORP., a 

Pennsylvania Corporation, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 4:11-CV-03587-YGR

ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

DKT. NOS. 398, 403 

Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion for an Order (1) granting final approval to the 

settlement of claims as set forth in the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) between the parties in 

the above-captioned matter; (2) granting approval of payment to the claims administrator; and (3) 

dismissing the Civil Action with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. (Dkt. 

No. 403.) Also before the Court is plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for attorney’s fees and costs and 

approving plaintiffs’ application for enhancement payments as provided for in the Agreement. (Dkt. 

No. 398.) 

The Court preliminarily approved the Agreement, a copy of which was attached to the 

Preliminary Approval Motion, in this action by order entered on April 27, 2016 (the “Preliminary 

Approval Order”). 

On August 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) to consider final 

approval of the Agreement. No objections were filed and no objections were offered at the time of 

the Fairness Hearing. The Court has considered all matters submitted to it at the Fairness Hearing 

and otherwise, the pleadings on file, the applicable law, and the record. 

For good cause shown, and as more fully explained below, the Motion for Final Approval is 

GRANTED and the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Approval of Enhancement Payments is 

Case 4:11-cv-03587-YGR Document 407 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 5
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.

ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

GRANTED IN PART as stated herein. The Court ORDERS as follows: 

1. Final Certification of the Settlement Classes. The Settlement Class is comprised of 

all non-exempt hourly employees of General Nutrition Corporation (“GNC”) who worked as Sales 

Associates and/or Assistant Managers in California from July 21, 2007 to November 12, 2014. The 

Court finds that the Settlement Class, as defined in the Agreement, meets the requirements of Rule 

23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, for the purposes of 

settlement, the Court certifies the Settlement Class. 

2. Class Representatives. For purposes of settlement, the Court appoints as Class 

Representatives for the Class Plaintiffs, Charles Brewer, Jessica Bruns, Michael Mitchell, Michael 

Murphy, Wayne Neal and Andrew Merino. 

3. Class Counsel. For purposes of settlement, the Court appoints as Class Counsel for 

the Settlement Class Leonard T. Emma, Michael R. Hoffman, Stephen N. Ilg, and Chad A. 

Pradmore, of the law firm of Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC (580 California St., Suite 1600, 

San Francisco, CA 94104). 

4. Approval of the Agreement. The Court approves the Agreement and finds that it is a 

reasonable compromise of the claims of the plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, reached by the 

parties after extensive discovery and intensive arms-length negotiations with the assistance of 

experienced counsel. 

The Agreement is fair, just, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interest of, the 

Settlement Class. It achieves a definite and certain result for the benefit of the Settlement Class that 

is preferable to continuing litigation in which the Settlement Class would necessarily confront 

substantial risk, uncertainty, delay, and cost. The Court also finds that the settlement terms 

negotiated by the parties and described in their Agreement are a fair and reasonable resolution of a 

bona fide dispute between the plaintiffs, Class Members, and the defendant. 

This Order constitutes final approval of the Agreement. The Agreement is binding on the 

parties to it and on all members of the Settlement Class in accordance with the terms of the 

Agreement, excepting only those individuals, if any, who effectively excluded themselves from the 

Settlement Class in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. 

Case 4:11-cv-03587-YGR Document 407 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 5
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 

3.

ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

5. Notice to the Class. The Court determines that the Notice was given as required by 

the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court finds that the notice given of the proposed settlement 

was the best practical notice under the circumstances and provided all members of the Settlement 

Class with fair and adequate notice of the terms of the settlement, the Fairness Hearing, and the 

opportunity to object to the settlement and/or exclude themselves from the settlement. The Court 

finds the Notice satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

6. Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses. The Court GRANTS IN PART Class 

Counsel’s requested fee award. The Agreement permitted Class Counsel to seek attorneys’ fees up 

to a ceiling of $2,700,000, which they have sought herein. Nevertheless, the Court has an 

independent obligation to ensure that the fee award, like the other provisions in the class settlement, 

is reasonable. See FRCP 23(e)(2); In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig. 654 F3d 935, 941 

(9th Cir. 2011). The Court must ensure the amount awarded is fair, reasonable, and adequate in 

relation to the benefit received by the class and the work performed. To that end, the Court has 

undertaken an exhaustive review of the records submitted to support the lodestar cross-check on this 

attorneys’ fee request. 

Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar calculation here would come to approximately $2.9 million, 

based upon their purported regular rates. The Court’s review of the time records raises a number of 

concerns with the accuracy of the lodestar calculation, including: (a) entries in which related tasks 

were broken down into granular entries and billed separately, inflating the total time; (b) duplicative 

(sometimes identical or nearly identical) entries for the same attorney on the same day; (c) entries 

indicating multiple attorneys billed for the same task, suggesting inflation of the total time; (d) 

entries indicating an excessive amount of time for the task described [e.g., 0.3 hours to review a 

single notice of appearance of counsel]; and (e) no evidence indicating that the calculations 

accounted in any way for the inexperience of attorneys Ilg and Pradmore, neither of whom were 

admitted to the bar until after the litigation was commenced, other than to note that Pradmore’s 

hours prior to admission were billed at $95 per hour and after admission at $400 per hour for the 

remaining three and a half years covered. 

In addition to the lodestar cross-check, the Court has taken into account the complexity of the 

Case 4:11-cv-03587-YGR Document 407 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 5
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.

ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

litigation; the results achieved; evidence offered regarding awards in comparable cases; the risk of 

further litigation; the contingent nature of the fee; and the quality of the work of the attorneys here. 

Taking into account all these factors, the Court finds attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,250,000.00, 

which represents 25% of the total settlement, to be fair, reasonable, and adequate to compensate 

class counsel. This amount more closely aligns with an appropriate lodestar calculation and is at the 

Ninth Circuit’s established benchmark for awards from a common fund. See Vizcaino v Microsoft 

Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Circ. 2002). 

The Court finds that the costs requested in plaintiffs’ unopposed motion are reasonable and 

that Class Counsel shall be awarded $173,066.35 for expenses actually incurred in the prosecution of 

this litigation. The Claims Administrator shall be awarded up to $41,235.00 for its reasonable fees 

and expenses incurred in the administration of the settlement. 

7. Enhancement Payments. The Enhancement Payments to the Plaintiffs as set forth in 

the Agreement, in the total amount of $50,000.00 are approved for their substantial services for the 

benefit of the settlement classes. 

8. Administering the Settlement of Claims. The Parties shall administer the settlement 

as set forth in the Agreement. 

9. Release of Claims. As of the date this judgment becomes final (meaning that the time 

for appeal has expired with no appeal taken, all appeals are resolved and none are left pending, or 

this judgment is affirmed in all material respects after completion of the appellate process), the 

Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members, are forever barred from bringing or presenting any action 

or proceeding against any Released Party that involves or asserts any of the Released Claims (as 

those terms are defined in the Agreement). 

10. Dismissal with Prejudice. All claims in this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

and, except as provided herein, without costs against Defendant. 

11. Dispute Resolution. Without affecting the finality of this judgment, the Court 

reserves jurisdiction over the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this judgment and 

the Agreement and all matters ancillary to the same. 

12. Non-Admission. This Order and the Agreement are not evidence of, or an admission 

Case 4:11-cv-03587-YGR Document 407 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5.

ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

or concession on the part of, the Released Parties with respect to any claim of any fault, liability, 

wrongdoing, or damages whatsoever. 

13. Order for Settlement Purposes. The findings and rulings in this Order are made for 

the purposes of settlement only and may not be cited or otherwise used to support the certification of 

any contested class or subclass in any other action. 

14. Use of Agreement and Ancillary Terms. Neither the Agreement nor any ancillary 

documents, actions, statements, or filings in furtherance of settlement (including matters associated 

with the mediation) will be admissible or offered into evidence in any action related or similar to this 

one for the purposes of establishing, supporting or defending against any claims that were raised or 

could have been raised in this action or are similar to such claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 2, 2016 

 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-03587-YGR Document 407 Filed 09/02/16 Page 5 of 5