Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01858/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01858-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL, ETC. 04-CV-1858

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA GARETT and ERIK HOYER,

individually, and on behalf of all

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff

vs.

MORGAN STANLEY DW, INC., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 04-CV-1858-BEN (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND

AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS,

AND ENHANCEMENTS TO NAMED

PLAINTIFFS

Date: September 12, 2006

Time: 10:30 a.m.

Ctrm: 3

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

Case 3:04-cv-01858-BEN-JMA Document 57 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 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

2

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL, ETC. 04-CV-1858

On September 12, 2006, the Court heard (1) plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for final approval of

the class action settlement (“Settlement”), and (2) Class Counsel’s unopposed motion for an award of

attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and enhancements to the named plaintiffs. After reviewing

plaintiffs’ briefs, and after hearing arguments of counsel, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. For the purposes of this Order, the Court adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Joint

Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (“Stipulation”), previously filed with this Court on March 27,

2006, Docket No. 32.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and over all parties

and Class Members in this litigation.

3. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice of Class Action Settlement as

provided in the Stipulation constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and fully met

the requirements of due process.

 4. The Court finds that no Class Member has objected to the Settlement. Only 18 Class

Members, representing less than 0.35% of the Class, have requested exclusion from the Settlement.

Approximately 74.8% of the Class Members have filed claims, and these Class Members worked

approximately 90% of the total months worked by all Class Members during the Class Period.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Class views the Settlement favorably.

5. The Court finds that the Settlement was the product of protracted, arms-length

negotiations between experienced counsel, facilitated by a respected mediator. After considering the

defendant’s exposure, the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on their claims, and the risks, expense, and

delays associated with further litigation, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in

the best interests of the Class and hereby grants final approval of the Settlement. Plaintiffs and

defendant are ordered to carry out the Settlement as provided in the Stipulation.

6. Class Counsel have reported that a number of Class Members have filed late claims, and

Case 3:04-cv-01858-BEN-JMA Document 57 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 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

3

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL, ETC. 04-CV-1858

that Class Counsel are in the process of investigating the reasons for those late claims. The Court will

retain jurisdiction to decide, if necessary, whether any of those late claims will be allowed, pursuant

to a duly-noticed motion.

7. Class Counsel have jointly moved for an award of attorney’s fees equal to 25% of the

$42,500,000 settlement amount, or $10,625,000, plus $16,943.82 in litigation expenses. (The Court

notes that Class Member Bruce Taylor has withdrawn his motion for an award of attorney’s fees,

Docket No. 40.) The Court finds that Class Counsel have skillfully advanced novel and untested legal

theories on a contingent-fee basis over more than two years, and their efforts resulted in a substantial

payment to the Class. No Class Member has objected to Class Counsel’s request. The Court finds no

“unusual circumstances” to warrant a departure from the Ninth Circuit’s 25% benchmark fee. The

Court further finds that Class Counsel’s expenses were reasonably incurred in prosecuting this case.

Accordingly, the Court grants Class Counsel’s request for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses in its

entirety.

8. Plaintiffs have also moved for an award of enhancement payments of $20,000 to each

of the two named plaintiffs, Linda Garett and Erik Hoyer, to be paid from the settlement amount. The

Court finds that these enhancement payments are reasonable in light of the services the named plaintiffs

performed on behalf of the Class and the risks they undertook in bringing the lawsuit. No Class

Member has objected to the proposed enhancement payments. Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs’

request in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2006

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01858-BEN-JMA Document 57 Filed 09/12/06 Page 3 of 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

4

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL, ETC. 04-CV-1858

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Dated: September __, 2006 DOSTART CLAPP GORDON

& COVENEY, LLP

_____________________________________________

JAMES F. CLAPP

Class Counsel

Dated: September __, 2006 KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP

______________________________________

JAMES F. BASILE

CHRISTOPHER W. KEEGAN

Attorneys for Defendant

Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.

Case 3:04-cv-01858-BEN-JMA Document 57 Filed 09/12/06 Page 4 of 4