Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02335/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02335-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

PAULA L. BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, 

and FALECHIA HARRIS, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST, 

INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1–

50, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. C 17-02335 WHA 

ORDER RE MOTION FOR FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS 

SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPENSES, 

AND INCENTIVE AWARD

INTRODUCTION

In this class action involving rent-to-own transactions, plaintiffs move for final approval 

of a class settlement and for attorney’s fees, expenses, and incentive award. Defendants do not 

oppose. For the following reasons, the motion for final approval is GRANTED. The motion for 

attorney’s fees, expenses, and incentive award is GRANTED IN PART.

STATEMENT

Previous orders have stated the facts (Dkt. Nos. 154, 154, 179). Briefly, defendants 

Rent-A-Center, Inc. and Rent-A-Center West, Inc. (collectively “RAC”) maintained rent-toown stores throughout California. These stores rented and sold new and used household 

merchandise to consumers for periodic payments. The named plaintiffs and class 

Case 3:17-cv-02335-WHA Document 219 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 7
2

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

representatives entered into rental-purchase agreements with RAC in 2015 and 2016 (Compl. 

¶¶ 11, 27, 41, 47). 

Based on these agreements, plaintiffs made claims for relief including for violations of 

the Karnette Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), usury, and 

California Business and Professions Code § 17200. A November 2018 order granted in part 

and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Karnette Act 

claim. A parallel order issued that same day certified the following class: “All individuals 

who, on or after March 13, 2013, entered into a rent-to-own transaction with RAC in 

California” (Dkt. Nos. 1, 43, 154, 155).

In November 2018, RAC moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ usury claim (the 

only claim certified for class treatment) and plaintiffs moved for partial reconsideration of the 

order granting in part and denying in part class certification. A February 2019 granted RAC’s 

motion for summary judgment on the usury claim and certified the following subclass: “All 

individuals who, between March 13, 2013. and January 17, 2018, entered into a rent-to-own 

transaction with RAC in California for an item that was shipped to a RAC retail location by 

RAC National Product Services, LLC and as to which RAC allocated a freight up-charge” 

(Dkt. Nos. 153, 163, 179). 

Following a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, the parties 

reached a settlement in March 2019. An October order granted plaintiffs’ motion for 

preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement. After plaintiffs revised their notice to 

include the estimated payments to class members, a subsequent order approved, as to form and 

content, a notice concerning the class settlement agreement and final approval hearing (Dkt. 

Nos. 208, 213). The settlement administrator then mailed or emailed notice of the proposed 

class settlement and fee request to all 32,792 class members in the Matched NPS Dataset and 

all 80,609 class members in Unmatched Dataset. The administrator also posted all relevant 

documents on a website. For the notices returned as undeliverable, the administrator used an 

information supplier subscription service to locate the individuals. Ultimately, 1,335 

individuals from the Matched NPS Dataset and 7,023 individuals from the Unmatched Dataset 

Case 3:17-cv-02335-WHA Document 219 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 7
3

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

have been unable to receive notice. There have been two requests to opt out and no class 

members have objected to the settlement (Dkt. No. 217; Rabe Decl. ¶¶ 8–9; 14–16; 22). 

Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the proposed class settlement of injunctive 

relief for the CLRA class, $13 million for the NPS subclass, an award of $3.9 million in 

attorney’s fees, $209,531.54 in unreimbursed expenses, an incentive award of $2,500 for 

plaintiff Falecha Harris, and incentive awards of $1,500 each for plaintiffs Paula Blair, Andrea 

Robinson, and Celinda Garza. Defendants do not oppose. This order follows full briefing and 

oral argument.

ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a 

certified class . . . may be settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” When a proposed 

settlement agreement is presented, the district court must perform two tasks: (1) direct notice in 

a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal, and (2) 

approve the settlement only after a hearing and on finding that the terms of the agreement are 

fair, reasonable, and adequate. 

1. FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT.

A. ADEQUACY OF NOTICE.

The notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 

interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 

objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (citations 

omitted). It must also describe “the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those 

with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard.” Mendoza v. Tucson 

Sch. Dist. No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338, 1352 (9th Cir. 1980). The undersigned judge previously 

approved the form, content, and planned distribution of the class notice. As described above, 

the claims administrator has fulfilled the notice plan. This order accordingly finds that notice 

to class members was adequate.

Case 3:17-cv-02335-WHA Document 219 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 7
4

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

B. SCOPE OF RELEASE

Members of the CLRA class will release only the specific CLRA claim for violation of 

Civil Code §1770 and the Section 17200 claim that is derivative of the CLRA claim. Members 

of the Karnette Act claim subclass will only release claims that arise out of or relate to the 

specific allegation that a statutory pricing cap was exceeded as a result of an NPS-related 

freight up-charge. This scope of release is thus appropriately tailored and approved.

C. FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS, AND ADEQUACY OF 

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

A district court may approve a proposed class settlement only upon finding that it is fair, 

reasonable, and adequate, taking into account (1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the 

risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining 

class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of 

discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and view of counsel; 

(7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members to the 

proposed settlement. FRCP 23(e); In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 944 

(9th Cir. 2015). For the following reasons and for the reasons stated in the October 2019 order 

(Dkt. No. 208), this order finds that the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate under FRCP 23(e).

First, the settlement terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate. The gross settlement fund 

of $13 million is approximately 76.8% of the statutory damages plaintiffs contend are owed to 

the class. Given the risk of trial, this recovery is reasonable. With respect to plaintiffs’ CLRA 

claims, the proposed settlement provides for injunctive relief that requires RAC to refrain from 

including in any arbitration agreement presented to its California customers, or from enforcing 

against any California customer, any provision that prohibits the customer from seeking 

otherwise available public injunctive remedies. Furthermore, the class representatives and 

class counsel have adequately represented the class. The parties reached the proposed 

settlement after two years of contested litigation involving extensive discovery, a motion to 

compel arbitration, a motion for class certification, multiple summary judgment motions, two 

appellate proceedings in our court of appeals, two days of mediation with the Chief Circuit 

Case 3:17-cv-02335-WHA Document 219 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Mediator of our court of appeals, and two settlement conferences with Chief Magistrate Judge 

Joseph C. Spero. 

Second, the plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds is fair and reasonable. The net 

settlement after the deduction of expenses, attorney’s fees, and any incentive award will be 

distributed to class members based on their qualifying transaction. Furthermore, in the event 

that any class member does not cash their settlement check, the remaining funds will be 

disbursed in a second distribution to those who did cash their checks. Any further uncashed 

checks will go to a cy pres recipient. Having considered the applicable factors, this order finds 

the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate so as to warrant final approval. 

Accordingly, final approval of the class settlement and plan of allocation is GRANTED.

2. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE 

AWARD.

A. COSTS AND EXPENSES.

Class counsel seek to recover from the settlement fund a total of $209,531.54 in litigation 

costs and expenses. Altshuler Berzon seeks $62,619.78 of the total and co-counsel Dostart 

Hanniak & Coveney seeks $146,911.76 of the total. The largest component of these expenses 

is “professional fees” ($88,636.27) which includes costs billed for services of plaintiffs’ expert. 

Counsel also seek reimbursement for, among other things, depositions and transcripts 

($37,825.76) and travel and meals ($27,440.54). These expenses were all reasonable and 

necessary part of the litigation, and are of a type customarily billed to a fee-paying client. No 

class member objected to recovery of these costs. The motion for reimbursement of these costs 

is GRANTED.

B. INCENTIVE AWARD.

Plaintiff Falecha Harris requests a $2,500 award and plaintiffs Paula Blair, Andrea 

Robinson, and Celinda Garza each request a $1,500 award. Only where the class 

representative has actually incurred genuine out-of-pocket costs should those costs be 

considered. The named plaintiffs here, however, devoted significant time to this litigation by

producing discovery, responding to discovery, and sitting for depositions. Plaintiff Falecha 

Case 3:17-cv-02335-WHA Document 219 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Harris also took days off work to attend all four of the mediation or settlement conferences. 

The record is, however, silent as to the exact costs these plaintiffs incurred. Given these 

efforts, incentive awards of $400 for plaintiff Harris and $200 each for plaintiffs Blair, 

Robinson, and Garza is GRANTED. The request is otherwise DENIED. 

C. ATTORNEY’S FEES.

A district court must ensure that attorney’s fees are “fair, adequate, and reasonable,” even 

if the parties have entered into a settlement agreement that provides for those fees. Staton v. 

Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 963–64 (9th Cir. 2003). “In ‘common-fund’ cases where the 

settlement or award creates a large fund for distribution to the class, the district court has 

discretion to use either a percentage or lodestar method.” Our court of appeals has recognized 

25 percent of the common fund as a benchmark award for attorney’s fees. Hanlon v. Chrysler 

Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998).

Class counsel seeks $3.9 million — or 30 percent of the gross settlement fund and 

slightly larger than the claimed and reasonable lodestar of $3,451,165.50. Class counsel 

conducted substantial motion practice and engaged in appellate proceedings. Counsel also 

took or defended 14 depositions, and worked on a contingent-fee basis despite the risks of 

litigation for approximately two years. Importantly, counsel took a chance by basing part of 

their claim on an untested statute whose application was unclear. Counsel deserves credit for 

taking such a risk and the hard work they’ve done in achieving an excellent outcome for the 

class. An award of $3,836,840.54 (30 percent of the net settlement fund) representing a 

lodestar multiplier of 1.1 is thus reasonable here. The request for attorney’s fees of $3.9 

million is DENIED. The undersigned instead awards attorney’s fees of $3,836,840.54. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. The notice of settlement, as well as the manner in which it was sent to class 

members, fairly and adequately described the proposed class settlement, the manner in which 

class members could object to or participate in the settlement, and the manner in which class 

members could opt out of the class; was the best notice practicable under the circumstances; 

Case 3:17-cv-02335-WHA Document 219 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 7
7

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

was valid, due, and sufficient notice to class members; and complied fully with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and all other applicable laws. A full and fair 

opportunity has been afforded to class members to participate in the proceedings convened to 

determine whether the proposed class settlement should be given final approval. Accordingly, 

the undersigned hereby determines that all class members who did not exclude themselves 

from the settlement by filing a timely request for exclusion are bound by this settlement order.

2. The undersigned also finds that the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, 

and adequate as to the class, plaintiffs, and defendants; that it is the product of good faith, 

arms-length negotiations between the parties; and that the settlement is consistent with public 

policy and fully complies with all applicable provisions of law. The settlement and plan of 

allocation is therefore APPROVED.

3. Having considered class counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees, reimbursement of 

expenses, and an incentive award, the undersigned hereby awards class counsel attorney’s fees 

of $3,836,840.54. Half of this amount shall be paid after the “effective date” as defined in the 

settlement agreement. The other half shall be paid when class counsel certify that all funds 

have been properly distributed and the file can be completely closed.

4. Class counsel shall also receive $209,531.54 ($62,619.78 for Altshuler Berzon 

and $146,911.76 for Dostart Hanniak & Coveney) as reimbursement for their litigation 

expenses, to be paid from the settlement fund. Plaintiff Harris shall receive a $400 service 

award. Plaintiff Blair shall receive a $200 service award. Plaintiff Robinson shall receive a 

$200 service award. Plaintiff Garza shall receive a $200 service award. 

* * *

The Court particularly commends Attorney Michael Rubin and Attorney Zach Dostart for

the excellent work they have done on this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-02335-WHA Document 219 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 7