Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02480/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02480-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

RAYCHAEL TELLEZ, QUIANNA 

TERRY, SHERRI MEDEIROS, and 

DANIELLE REZENDES, individually, 

and on behalf of other members of the 

general public similarly situated, and as 

aggrieved employees pursuant to the 

Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”),

Plaintiffs,

v.

ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & 

FRAGRANCE, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2480-CAB-LL

ORDER GRANTING (1) 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT [Doc. No. 37], and (2) 

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

AND COSTS, AND CLASS 

REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE 

AWARDS [Doc. No. 38]

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for final approval of 

class action settlement [Doc. No. 37] and Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and class representative service awards [Doc. No. 38]. The Court held a hearing on these

motions on February 6, 2020. Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. appeared for Plaintiffs. Lena K. 

Sims, Esq. appeared for Defendant. As discussed below, the motion for Final Approval of 

the Class Settlement is GRANTED. The motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, and class 

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 17
2

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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 service awards is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This case involves California wage-and-hour claims against Defendant, a beautysupply retail company. Plaintiffs’ claims flow from the following nucleus of factual 

allegations:

• Ulta required employees to submit to security checks of their persons and 

belongings which, at times, were conducted off the clock in contravention of Ulta’s 

written policies. 

• Ulta did not consistently provide non-exempt employees with a timely meal or rest 

breaks, as required under California Law, as a result of its security check policies. 

• Ulta also did not consistently provide non-exempt employees with off-duty meal 

breaks, as a result of requirements of management level employees. 

• Ulta required certain employees to perform additional work tasks while off-theclock and/or incur unreimbursed business expenses. 

• As a derivative result of the above allegations, Ulta failed to pay all terminated 

employees the correct amount of wages earned, maintain accurate employment 

records and provide accurate wage statements. 

Based on those factual issues, Plaintiffs brought suits against Defendant in 2018, 

alleging the following causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime; (2) unpaid minimum wages; 

(3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) 

failure to timely pay wages; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) failure to 

indemnify for incurred business expenses; (8) an enforcement action under the Private 

Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”); and (9) violations of California’s Unfair 

Competition Law (“UCL”). 

Plaintiff Raycheal Tellez originally filed this action in the Superior Court of 

California on October 5, 2018. [Doc. No. 1-3.] On October 29, 2018, Defendant removed 

the action to this Court. [Doc. No. 1.] On August 30, 2019, the parties filed a motion for 

preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement and the Proposed Notice of Settlement to 

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 17
3

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

class members (“Notice”). [Doc. No. 32.] This Settlement provides for the global 

resolution of this action and three related actions.1 Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement2, the Parties agreed to allow Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint naming the Plaintiffs from those three cases, all signatories to the settlement 

agreement on their own behalf, as named Plaintiffs to this action to allow the settlement of 

all involved parties to be approved in a single proceeding in front of this Court. (Settlement 

Agreement ¶ 3.1 and Ex. “A”) On October 11, 2019, the Court issued an Order 

Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement, and granted Plaintiff leave to file the Second 

Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 35.]

The Court also approved the proposed form of Notice and directed Class Counsel to 

serve that Notice to each Class Member no later than November 25, 2019. [Doc. No. 35 

at ¶9.] The Court set the Final Approval Hearing on the Proposed Settlement for February 

6, 2020 at 10 a.m. [Doc. No. 35 at ¶7.] Currently before the Court is the Class’ Motion 

for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement [Doc. No. 37], Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 

and Costs, and Class Representative Service Awards [Doc. No. 38], and the Declaration of 

Lindsay Kline Regarding Notice and Settlement Administration [Doc. No. 39].

OVERVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT

A. Class Definition.

The proposed class consists of all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt 

employees in the State of California at any point in time from August 1, 2014 through 

October 11, 2019 and who did not ask to be excluded. (Stipulation, ¶¶ 1.8, 1.29; Doc. 35, 

 

1 These three related actions, Medeiros v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. United States 

District Court, Eastern District of California Case No. 2:18-cv-02947-TLN-AC, Terry v. Ulta Salon, 

Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. 

3:18-cv-07683-JST and Rezendes v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. United States District 

Court, Northern District of California Case No. 3:18-cv-06111-JST brought causes of action based 

primarily on, and overlapping with the causes of action and theories of recovery plead in this case. 

(Bainer Decl. ¶2.)

2 The Settlement Agreement is entitled Joint Stipulation Re: Class Action Settlement and is located at 

Doc. No. 32-1, pp. 17-54.

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 17
4

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

at 3.)

B. Settlement Terms.

Under the proposed Settlement, the claims of all Class Members who did not timely 

request exclusion from the Settlement (“Settlement Class Members”) shall be settled for 

the Gross Maximum Settlement Amount of one million seven hundred and fifty thousand 

dollars ($1,750,000.00). (Stipulation, ¶ 3.2.) This amount includes all Individual 

Settlement Payments to Settlement Class Members; the LWDA Payment; Class Counsel 

Fees and Expenses as awarded by the Court; the Class Representative Incentive Award as 

awarded by the Court; Claims Administration Costs; and all federal, state, and local taxes. 

(Stipulation, ¶ 3.2.) This amount is non-reversionary. (See Stipulation, ¶ 3.6.2.4.) The 

Gross Maximum Settlement Amount shall be allocated as follows:

1. Individual Settlement Awards. 

The Net Settlement Amount3shall be distributed to the Settlement Class based on 

the number of workweeks during two separate periods. (Stipulation, ¶¶ 3.6, 3.6.1.) The Net 

Settlement Amount is to be divided into two funds, 88.57% to “Settlement Fund – Post 

Release Net” (“Post-Release Funds”) and 11.43% to “Settlement Fund – Pre Release Net” 

(“Pre-Release Funds”). (Stipulation, ¶ 3.6.1.) Payments from the Post-Release Funds shall 

be calculated based on workweeks from December 30, 2016 through the date of 

preliminary approval. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.6.1.) Payments from the Pre-Release Funds shall be 

calculated based on workweeks worked by Settlement Class Members from August 1, 2014 

to December 30, 2016. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.6.1.) The Individual Settlement Payments are 

apportioned 50% to wages (“Wage Component”) and 50% to interest, penalties, and any 

other claimed damages. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.6.1.) Payments are subject to tax withholdings, 

including employment taxes on the Wage Component. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.6.1.) If an 

Individual Settlement Award is uncashed after two mailings, the Claims Administrator 

 

3 The Net Settlement Amount equals the Gross Maximum Settlement Amount less Class Counsel Fees 

and Expenses, the Class Representative Incentive Awards, the LWDA Payment, and the Claims 

Administration costs. (Stipulation, ¶3.6.)

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 17
5

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

shall transfer the uncashed funds, plus any accrued interest, to an interest-bearing account 

to be distributed to the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.6.2.4.) 

Settlement Class Members are not required to submit claims for the Individual Settlement 

Awards. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.9.)

2. LWDA Payment. 

Subject to the Court’s approval, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) from the Gross 

Maximum Settlement Amount shall be allocated to penalties under the Private Attorneys 

General Act (“PAGA”). (Stipulation, ¶ 3.4.) Of this amount, seventy-five percent (75%), 

or thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($37,500.00) is to be paid directly to the 

LWDA. (Stipulation, 3.4.) The remaining twenty-five percent (25%), or twelve thousand 

five hundred dollars ($12,500.00) is allocated to the aggrieved employees and, pursuant to 

the Settlement, is included in the Net Settlement Amount. (Stipulation, ¶¶ 3.4, 3.6) 

Plaintiff’s Counsel has provided the required notice of the proposed approval of this 

settlement, and release of Plaintiff’s PAGA claims, to the LWDA, (Bainer Decl. ¶8, Ex. 

B.)

3. Class Counsel Fees and Expenses. 

Subject to Court approval, Defendant agreed not to oppose Class Counsel seeking 

up to thirty-three percent (33%) or $583,333.33 of the Gross Maximum Settlement Amount 

for attorneys’ fees and up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for reimbursement 

of Class Counsel’s costs in prosecuting this matter. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.3.) As outlined in the 

concurrently filed Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Incentive awards, Plaintiff’s 

Counsel has nonetheless elected to seek only twenty-five percent (25%) or $437,500 of the 

Gross Maximum Settlement Amount for attorneys’ fees.

4. Class Representative Incentive Award. 

Subject to Court approval, in exchange for release of their claims, and in recognition 

of the time and effort in litigating this matter, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to payment of a 

Class Representative Incentive Award up to and not to exceed five thousand dollars 

($5,000.00) each. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.5.1.) The Class Representative Incentive Award shall 

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 17
6

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

be paid from the Gross Maximum Settlement Amount; any difference between the awards 

sought and the amounts awarded by the Court shall be allocated to the Net Settlement 

Amount. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.5.1.) 

5. Claims Administration Costs. 

Claims Administration Costs, in an amount not to exceed sixty-nine thousand nine 

hundred and ninety-five dollars ($69,995.00), shall be paid to the Claims Administrator 

from the Gross Maximum Settlement Amount. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.12.) 

6. Taxes. 

The Claims Administrator shall withhold taxes from payments made under the terms 

of the Settlement and shall issue W-2 forms for the Wage Component of the Individual 

Settlement Awards and 1099 forms for other payments made. (Stipulation, ¶¶ 3.5.1, 3.6.1, 

3.6.3.)

7. Release

Upon entry of final judgment by the Court, Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class 

Members will be deemed to have released Defendant and the Released Parties, as defined 

in the Settlement, from wage-and-hour claims arising from their employment with 

Defendant from August 1, 2014 through October 11, 2019. (Stipulation, ¶¶ 3.17.2, 3.17.3.) 

The Released Parties are defined as Defendant and “its insurers, parents, subsidiaries, 

affiliated companies, charitable organizations, partners, trustees, directors, officers, agents, 

attorneys, servants, and employees, past and present and each of them.” (Stipulation, ¶ 

3.17.1.)

C. Notice to Class Members

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Notice described the lawsuit 

and settlement, instructed Class Members how to participate in or opt-out of the settlement, 

instructed Class members how to object to the settlement, provided details on the final 

approval hearing and contact information for class counsel, and instructed Class Members 

how to obtain court records. [Doc. No. 35 at 4-5.]

On November 13, 2019, counsel for Defendant provided Simpluris, the “Settlement 

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 17
7

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

Administrator” or “Claims Administrator,” with a mailing list (“Class List”) containing the 

name, last known address, Social Security number, and pertinent employment information 

during the Class Period for the Class Members. [Doc. No. 39 at ¶6.] The mailing addresses 

contained in the Class List were processed and updated utilizing the National Change of 

Address Database (“NCOA”) maintained by the U.S. Postal Service. The NCOA contains 

requested changes of address filed with the U.S. Postal Service. In the event that any 

individual had filed a U.S. Postal Service change of address request, the address listed with 

the NCOA would be utilized in connection with the mailing of the Notice Packets. Id. at 

¶7.

On November 25, 2019, Notice Packets were mailed to twenty-three thousand nine 

hundred eighty-seven (23,987) Class Members with addresses contained in the Class List 

via First Class mail or updated via the NCOA search. [Id. at ¶8; Exhibit A.] If a Class 

Member’s Notice Packet was returned by the USPS as undeliverable and without a 

forwarding address, Simpluris performed an advanced address search (i.e. skip trace) on 

all of these addresses by using Accurint, a reputable research tool owned by Lexis-Nexis. 

Simpluris used the Class Member’s name and previous address to locate a current address. 

Through the advanced address searches, Simpluris was able to locate one thousand seven 

hundred and seventeen (1,717) updated addresses and Simpluris promptly mailed Notice 

Packets to those updated addresses. Ultimately, there were four hundred and forty eight 

(448) Notice Packets that were undeliverable. [Id. at ¶9.]

As of this date, there are twenty-three thousand seven hundred and sixty-seven 

(23,767) Class Members who will be paid their portion of the Net Settlement Fund. This 

number excludes the Class Members who opted out. Id. at ¶10.

The Net Settlement Fund of $1,054,785.18 available to pay Class Members was 

determined by subtracting the proposed Class Counsel’s Fees ($437,500.00), Class 

Counsel’s Costs Payment ($25,000.00), Named Plaintiff Service Awards ($20,000.00), the 

PAGA LWDA Payment ($37,500.00), Employer Taxes ($105,214.82) and the 

Administration Costs ($70,000.00) from the Maximum Settlement Amount 

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 17
8

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

($1,750,000.00). Id. at ¶11. The average estimated payment is $44.38 and the highest 

estimated payment is $222.45. Id. at ¶12.

As of this date, Simpluris has received two hundred and twenty (220) valid Requests 

for Exclusion from Class Members. Id. at ¶13. As of this date, Simpluris has not received 

any Objections to the Settlement from Class Members. Id. at ¶14. As of this date, 

Simpluris has received one (1) Dispute of Dates of Employment from a Class Member. 

The Dispute was denied by Counsel on the basis that the Class Member was seeking to 

include time worked outside of the relevant class period. Id. at ¶15.

Simpluris’ total costs for services in connection with the administration of this 

Settlement, including fees incurred and anticipated future costs for completion of the 

administration, are $70,000.00.4 Simpluris’ work in connection with this matter will 

continue with the calculation of the settlement checks, issuance and mailing of those 

settlement checks, etc., and to do the necessary tax reporting on such payments. Id. at ¶16.

The Court finds that this notice procedure afforded adequate protections to Class 

Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed decision regarding 

approval of the Settlement based on the responses of the Class Members. The Court finds 

and determines that the notice provided in this case was the best practicable, which 

sufficiently satisfied the requirements of law and due process. Finally, the 

Court APPROVES the Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $69,995 as 

reasonable.

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

1. Legal Standard.

Courts require a higher standard of fairness when settlement takes place prior to class 

certification to ensure class counsel and defendants have not colluded in settling the case. 

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Ultimately, “[t]he court’s 

 

4 The Settlement Agreement, however, states that the Claims Administrator shall be paid a maximum of 

$69,995. (Stipulation, ¶3.12.)

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 17
9

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated between the 

parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment 

that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the 

negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and 

adequate to all concerned.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 

(9th Cir. 1982).

A court considers several factors in determining whether a proposed settlement is 

“fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Rule 23(e). Such factors may include: (1) the 

strength of the case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further 

litigation and the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (3) the stage 

of the proceedings (investigation, discovery, and research completed); (4) the settlement 

amount; (5) whether the class has been fairly and adequately represented during settlement 

negotiations; and (6) the reaction of the class to the proposed settlement. Staton v. Boeing 

Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court need only consider some of these 

factors—namely, those designed to protect absentees. See Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 

953 (9th Cir. 2003) (overruled in part on other grounds).

Judicial policy favors settlement in class actions and other forms of complex 

litigation where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and 

rigors of formal litigation. In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 720 F. Supp. 

1379, 1387 (D. Ariz. 1989).

2. Analysis.

A. Strength of the Case, and the Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of 

Further Litigation.

To determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the 

Court must balance the continuing risks of litigation (including the strengths and 

weaknesses of the Plaintiffs' case), with the benefits afforded to members of the Class, and 

the immediacy and certainty of a substantial recovery. See In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. 

Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000). In other words:

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 17
10

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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 shall consider the vagaries of litigation and compare the 

significance of immediate recovery by way of the compromise to the mere 

possibility of relief in the future, after protracted and expensive litigation. In 

this respect, “it has been held proper to take the bird in hand instead of a 

prospective flock in the bush.”

Nat'l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 526 (C.D. Cal. 2004) 

(citations omitted).

Plaintiffs contend that continued litigation would have been costly with uncertain 

recovery. [Doc. No. 37-1 at 8.] While Plaintiffs strongly believe in the case, individual 

issues could have been a factor in determining damages and possible denial of class 

certification, which would have resulted in the Settlement Class receiving nothing. Id. at 

8-9. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of approving the settlement.

B. The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial.

Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court may revisit a prior order granting certification of a 

class at any time before final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C) (“An order that 

grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.”). 

Where there is a risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial, this factor 

favors approving the settlement. Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964, 976 

(E.D. Cal. 2012) (finding that the complexity of the case weighed in favor of approving the 

settlement).

Plaintiffs contend there were uncertainties as to individual issues, especially with 

regard to the wage and hour claims, that could have prevented the matter from going 

forward as a class action through trial. [Doc. No. 37 at 18-19, Doc. No. 37-2 at 9.] 

Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of approving the settlement.

C. The Stage of the Proceedings.

“A settlement following sufficient discovery and genuine arms-length negotiation is 

presumed fair.” DIRECTV, 221 F.R.D. at 528. In the context of class action settlements, as 

long as the parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision about 

settlement, “formal discovery is not a necessary ticket to the bargaining table.” Linney v. 

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 17
11

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting In re Chicken 

Antitrust Litig., 669 F.2d 228, 241 (5th Cir. 1982)).

Based on the parties’ representations, it appears that the Settlement Agreement 

resulted from arms-length negotiations, and was not the result of collusion. The parties 

negotiated the proposed Settlement at arm’s length with the assistance of an experienced 

mediator, Tripper Ortman, Esq. (Bainer Decl., Doc. No. 32-1, ¶ 6.) Significant factual 

investigation and discovery allowed Class Counsel—who is experienced in wage-and-hour 

class-action litigation—to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the claims against 

Defendant and the benefit of the proposed Settlement. (Id.) During the course of the 

litigation, Class Counsel reviewed hundreds of pages of documents produced by 

Defendant, including relevant wage-and-hour policy documents, obtained a sampling of 

timekeeping and payroll records, and prepared a damages model based on expert analysis 

of the time and payroll data and information obtained from Defendant. Id., ¶ 4-5. Plaintiff 

and Class Counsel therefore had adequate information to gauge the value of the Settlement 

Class Members’ claims and assess whether the proposed Settlement is fair, adequate, and 

reasonable. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of approving the settlement.

D. The Settlement Amount.

“In assessing the consideration obtained by the class members in a class action 

settlement, it is the complete package taken as a whole, rather than the individual 

component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness.” DIRECTV, 221 F.R.D. at 

527 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “[I]t is well-settled law that a proposed 

settlement may be acceptable even though it amounts to only a fraction of the potential 

recovery that might be available to the class members at trial.” Id. (citations omitted).

Here, the Gross Settlement Amount is $1,750,000.00, with a Net Settlement Fund of 

at least $1,054,785.18 available to pay Class Members. [Doc. No. 39, ¶11.] The average 

estimated payment is $44.38 and the highest estimated payment is $222.45. Id. at ¶12. 

Plaintiffs contend that the settlement amount is reasonable when balanced against the 

strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs’ claims:

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 17
12

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

If the putative class is not certified, the value of Plaintiffs’ and the Class 

Members’ individual cases would be reduced to a fraction of the Settlement 

value. Many Class Members would also be shut out of recovery for the wageand-hour violations Plaintiffs contend that Defendant committed. Although 

Plaintiffs and their counsel strongly believe in the underlying merit of their 

claims, they recognize the challenges of proceeding.

[Doc. No. 37 at 20.]

Thus, this factor favors approval.

E. Fair and Adequate Representation During Settlement Negotiations.

“Great weight is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely 

acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation. This is because parties represented 

by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that fairly 

reflects each party’s expected outcome in the litigation.” DIRECTV, 221 F.R.D. at 528 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Class Counsel assert that they have 

extensive experience in class action litigation, having represented numerous class action 

lawsuits, and having been certified by numerous courts as adequate class counsel. [Doc. 

No. 37 at 16-17. Moreover, Class Counsel believe the terms of the settlement are fair, 

reasonable, and adequate to the Class members. [Doc. No 37 at 17.] Accordingly, this 

factor weighs in favor of approval of the settlement.

F. Class Reaction to the Proposed Settlement.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the number of class members who object to a 

proposed settlement is a factor to be considered. Mandujano v. Basic Vegetable Prods. Inc., 

541 F.2d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 1976). The absence of a large number of objectors supports the 

fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. See In re Austrian & German 

Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164, 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“If only a small number 

of objections are received, that fact can be viewed as indicative of the adequacy of the 

settlement.”) (citations omitted); Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 624 (N.D. Cal. 

1979) (finding “persuasive” the fact that 84% of the class did not file an opposition).

To date, no class members have objected to the Settlement. [Doc. No. 39 at ¶14.] 

Additionally, only 220, representing approximately 1% of the overall class, have requested 

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 17
13

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

exclusion. Id. at ¶13. Given the overall positive reaction from Settlement Class Members, 

this factor also favors final approval.

3. Conclusion.

Because the factors outlined above favor approving the Settlement, the Court 

GRANTS the motion and finds that the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under 

Rule 23(e).

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS, AND CLASS 

REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS

Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $437,500, reimbursement of 

expenses in the amount of $13,534.20 to Class Counsel, and Class Representative Service 

Awards in the amount of $5,000 to each Plaintiff in this action. The uncontested motion 

is made on the following grounds:

(l) pursuant to the terms of the Joint Stipulation Re: Class Action Settlement 

(“Stipulation”), Class Counsel is entitled to attorneys’ fees up to thirty-three 

percent (33%), or $583,333.33, of the Gross Settlement Amount for 

attorneys’ fees (though they seek only 25% or $473,500), and 

reimbursement of reasonable costs in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00, 

subject to Court approval; (2) pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, 

Plaintiffs are each entitled to a Class Representative Service Award not to 

exceed $5,000.00, subject to Court approval; (3) pursuant to Labor Code § 

1194 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, Class Counsel is entitled to 

attorneys’ fees and costs; and (4) all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the 

prosecution of this Action were reasonable and necessary to prosecute the 

claims and achieve a favorable outcome on behalf of the Class Members.

[Doc. No. 38 at 3.]

1. Attorneys' Fees

Courts have an independent obligation to ensure that the amounts requested for 

attorneys' fees and any class representative service award, like the settlement, are 

reasonable. In re Bluetooth Headsets Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 

2011). Where a settlement produces a common fund for the benefit of the entire class, 

courts have the discretion to employ a “percentage of recovery method.” Id. at 942. 

Typically, courts calculate 25% of the fund as a “bench mark” for a reasonable fee award. 

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 17
14

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

Id. Injunctive relief should generally be excluded from the value of the common fund 

when calculating attorneys' fees because most often the value of the injunctive relief is 

not measurable. Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2003).

“The 25% benchmark rate, although a starting point for the analysis, may be 

inappropriate in some cases.” Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 

2002). Thus, court are encouraged to cross-check this method by employing the “lodestar 

method” as well. In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 949.

In the “lodestar method,” the court multiplies the number of hours the prevailing 

party reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate for the work. In re Bluetooth, 654 

F.3d at 941. The hourly rate may be adjusted for the experience of the attorney. Id. “Time 

spent obtaining an attorneys' fee in common fund cases is not compensable because it 

does not benefit the plaintiff class.” In re Wash. Public Power Supply Sys. Secs. Litig., 19 

F.3d 1291, 1299 (9th Cir. 1994). The resulting amount is “presumptively reasonable.” In 

re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 949. However, “the district court...should exclude from the 

initial fee calculation hours that were not ‘reasonable expended.’ ” Sorenson v. Mink, 239 

F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) (Hensley v. Eckerhart, 401 U.S. 424, 433–34 (1983)). 

The court may then adjust this presumptively reasonable amount upward or downward by 

an appropriate positive or negative multiplier reflecting a whole host of reasonableness 

factors including the quality of the representation, the complexity and novelty of the 

issues, the risk of nonpayment, and, foremost in considerations, the benefit achieved for 

the class. In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942. The court may find a fee request is excessive 

but that there is no further evidence class counsel betrayed class interests for its own 

benefit, and thus uphold the settlement agreement, while lowering the fee award. Id.

Turning first to the percentage-based method of recovery, the Court notes that, 

although the Gross Settlement Amount is $1,750,000, with 23,767 Class Members, the 

average estimated payment to Class Members is only $44.38. Thus, although Plaintiff 

counsel is only seeking 25% of the Gross Settlement Amount, it seems excessive given 

the small estimated payment to the Class Members. Furthermore, the settlement was 

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of 17
15

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

reached fairly early in the litigation, and there was no motion practice or formal 

discovery such as depositions. Therefore, the Court finds that, in this case, a lodestar 

calculation is the superior method for calculating attorneys’ fees.

To date, Class Counsel expended 476.25 hours on this matter and Counsel’s hourly 

rates range from $675 to $950. (Bainer Decl. ¶ 11; Matern Decl. ¶¶ 24-31; Hawkins 

Decl. ¶ 12; Dion-Kindem Decl. ¶ 16; Blanchard Decl. ¶12.) The Court has reviewed 

Counsels’ declarations and finds that the number of hours billed were necessary and 

reasonable to achieve the result on behalf of the Class Members. Most of the hourly rates, 

however, appear high, especially given that settlement was reached early. Therefore, the 

Court will apply an hourly rate of $750. When the hourly rate ($750) is multiplied by the 

number of hours (476.25), the result is a lodestar of $357,187.50. Finally, while 

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests a positive multiplier, the Court declines to do so, as this case 

was not particularly complex and was settled fairly early. Therefore, the Court 

APPROVES attorneys’ fees in the amount of $357,187.50.

2. Litigation Expenses.

Class Counsel seek reimbursement of their costs in the amount of $13,534.20.

[Doc. No. 38 at 20.] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) provides that, “[i]n a certified 

class action, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and nontaxable costs that are 

authorized by law or by the parties' agreement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). Class counsel are 

entitled to reimbursement of the out-of-pocket costs they reasonably incurred 

investigating and prosecuting this case. See In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. 

Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 

391-92 (1970)); Staton, 327 F.3d at 974.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel may seek reimbursement of 

reasonable costs in an amount not to exceed $25,000. (Stipulation, ¶3.3.) Here, Class 

Counsel’s costs were only $13,534.20, which includes court fees, service costs, expert 

costs, the cost of class notice, and travel-related expenses that would normally be billed 

to a paying client. (Bainer Decl. ¶ 12; Matern Decl. ¶ 43; Hawkins Decl. ¶ 15; DionCase 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of 17
16

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

Kidion Decl. ¶ 19; Blanchard Decl. ¶ 15.) Accordingly, because Class Counsel’s out-ofpocket expenses were reasonably incurred in connection with the prosecution of this 

litigation, and were advanced by Class Counsel for the benefit of the Class, the 

Court APPROVES costs in the amount of $13,534.20.

2. Class Representative Service Awards.

Plaintiffs Raycheal Tellez, Sherri Medeiros, Quianna Terry, and Danielle Rezendes 

each seek a class representative service award of $5,000. “[I]ncentive awards that are 

intended to compensate class representatives for work undertaken on behalf of a class are 

fairly typical in class actions cases” and “do not, by themselves, create an impermissible 

conflict between class members and their representative[ ].” In re Online DVD-Rental 

Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 943 (9th Cir. 2015). Nonetheless, the court has an 

obligation to assure that the amount requested is fair. In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941. 

“The propriety of incentive payments is arguably at its height when the award represents 

a fraction of the class representative’s likely damages....But we should be more dubious 

of incentive payments when they make the class representative whole, or (as here) even 

more than whole.” In re Dry Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d 713, 722 (6th Cir. 2013).

Here, the named Plaintiffs state that they have all assisted Class Counsel by 

providing information and documents to Counsel. [Doc. Nos. 38-5, 38-6, 38-7 and 38-8.]

Plaintiff Tellez estimates she spent over 20 hours assisting counsel. [Doc. No. 38-5 at 

¶6.] Plaintiff Rezendes estimates she has spent approximately 10 hours assisting counsel. 

[Doc. No. 38-6 at ¶5.] The other plaintiffs do not provide a time estimate. [See Doc. Nos. 

38-7 and 38-8.] The Court finds that a service award of $5,000 is excessive, as it would 

be over 100 times the average payment to Class Members ($44.38). In addition, there 

was no significant burden on the named Plaintiffs, as the case was settled fairly early. 

Therefore, the Court finds the following service awards to be reasonable and 

APPROVED: Raychael Tellez -- $2,000.00; Danielle Rezendes -- $1,500.00; Quianna 

Terry -- $1,000.00; Sherri Medeiros -- $1,000.00.

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of 17
17

18cv2480-CAB-LL

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action 

settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Court finds 

that the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, 

arms-length negotiations, and that the settlement was entered into in good faith, 

and that Plaintiffs have satisfied the standards for final approval of a class 

action Settlement under federal law. 

2. The Court APPROVES the Claims Administration costs in the amount 

$69,995.00.

3. The Court APPROVES the LWDA payment and employer taxes payment 

pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

4. The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs 

and class representative service awards as follows:

a. The Court APPROVES Plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys' fees 

in the amount of $357,187.50.

b. The Court APPROVES the requested costs in the amount of $13,534.20.

c. The Court APPROVES class representative service awards as follows:

Raychael Tellez -- $2,000.00; Danielle Rezendes -- $1,500.00; Quianna 

Terry -- $1,000.00; Sherri Medeiros -- $1,000.00.

5. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall submit a proposed judgment for the Court’s review and 

execution no later than February 18, 2020.

Dated: February 10, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02480-CAB-LL Document 41 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of 17