Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01420/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01420-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

FRANCESCA FORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01420-RS 

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEY 

FEES AND INCENTIVE AWARD

Plaintiff Francesca Ford brought this class action alleging various wage and hour claims on 

behalf of current and former employees of defendant CEC Entertainment, Inc., the owner and 

operator of Chuck E. Cheese restaurants. Plaintiff obtained a $2,500,000 settlement fund that will 

be distributed to over 10,500 employees and former employees. Checks will be issued 

automatically, without the need to file claims with the settlement administrator. Additionally, 

under the settlement CEC will implement a program to pay meal break premiums to hourly 

employees. 

Final approval of the settlement has been granted by separate order issued this date. 

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney fees in the amount of $833,333, or one-third of the total 

settlement fund. Plaintiff also seeks $13,960 in costs, and an “incentive award” to plaintiff of 

$5000.

Case 3:14-cv-01420-RS Document 65 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 14-cv-01420-RS

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

Fee award

Ninth Circuit law is settled that in a “common fund” case such as this one, it generally is 

appropriate to award fees either on the basis of a so-called “lodestar” calculation or by applying a 

“percentage of the fund” to determine the fee amount. See e.g. Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942 

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

discretion to employ either the lodestar method or the percentage-of-recovery method.”); Vizcaino 

v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under Ninth Circuit law, the district 

court has discretion in common fund cases to choose either the percentage-of-the-fund or the 

lodestar method.”) Here, plaintiff contends that counsel should be permitted to recover “under the 

common fund doctrine applicable under both California and federal law.”

As plaintiff points out, in diversity actions, federal courts look to state law in determining 

whether a party has a right to attorney fees and how to calculate those fees. Mangold v. Calif. 

Public Utilities Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Ninth Circuit precedent has applied 

state law in determining not only the right to fees, but also in the method of calculating the fees”). 

While California state cases have on occasion, cited the Ninth Circuit’s 25% “benchmark” without 

criticism, it does not appear ever to have been formally adopted as a “benchmark” by the state 

courts. See, e.g., Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc., 82 Cal. App. 4th 19, 24 n.1 (2000); In re 

Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th 545, 558 n. 13 (2009). That said, nothing in Mangold

or any other cases relied on by plaintiff suggests that a federal court sitting in diversity may not 

use the Circuit benchmark as at least a starting point when awarding fees in a common fund case. 

See also In re Pac. Enterprises Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating 25% 

benchmark as applicable to claims under state law, although upholding award of 1/3 of common 

fund.)

Here, it is appropriate to award a fee in excess of the 25% benchmark in light of the facts 

that the settlement achieved (1) will pay out non-de minimus cash amounts to virtually every 

member of the class without the necessity of filing claims, and (2) includes injunctive relief that 

Case 3:14-cv-01420-RS Document 65 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 14-cv-01420-RS

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

appears to have real value in ensuring defendants future payment of meal break premiums to 

hourly employees. 

Looking to the loadstar as a cross-check, plaintiff’s claimed hourly rates and time incurred 

total $477,150. While that figure generally appears reasonable, it would require application of a 

1.75 multiplier to result in the 1/3 fee award requested. Upon review of the entire record, 

including counsel’s contingent risk, delay in payment, skill demonstrated, and results achieved, 

the Court finds an upward adjustment to a 30% recovery is warranted here. 

The request for $13,960 in costs is reasonable, and is granted. Finally, while plaintiff’s 

request for an incentive award of $5000 is somewhat high, she has made a sufficient showing that 

the time she personally invested in the case and the fact that she brought the claim while employed 

by defendant, thereby risking retaliation, are sufficient to support the award.

Accordingly, the motion is granted to the extent the plaintiff’s counsel is hereby awarded 

fees of $750,000, and costs of $13,960, and plaintiff is awarded in incentive fee of $5000.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01420-RS Document 65 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 3