Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00330/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00330-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GARY NYSTROM on behalf of 

himself, and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF VACAVILLE and DALE 

PFEIFFER, Director of the 

Department of Public Works of 

the City of Vacaville, or his 

successor, in his Official 

Capacity, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:04-cv-00330 MCE-PAN 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED RULE 23(h) MOTION FOR 

COURT APPROVAL OF NEGOTIATED 

REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

COSTS 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00330-MCE-EFB Document 47 Filed 05/12/09 Page 1 of 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

1

ORDER 

On March 16, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an “Unopposed Rule 

23(h) Motion for Court Approval of Negotiated Reasonable 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.” The City of Vacaville filed a 

Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion. The Court having 

read and considered the papers on the motion and good cause 

appearing therefore, will grant the Motion as set forth below. 

A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

1. This case is a class action brought by named Plaintiff 

Gary Nystrom on behalf of a class of persons with mobility and 

and/or vision disabilities who seek full and equal access to the 

City of Vacaville’s pedestrian rights of way. In June 2006, the 

parties entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement 

(“Agreement”) that establishes a timeline, funding mechanism, 

framework for implementation, and detailed procedures for 

prioritization of barrier removal along the pedestrian rights of 

way in the City. 

2. The Court granted preliminary approval of the 

Agreement by Order dated August 10, 2006, finding that the 

Agreement was “fundamentally fair, adequate, reasonable, and 

within the range of possible approval.” 

3. The Court scheduled a Fairness Hearing for 

November 13, 2006. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00330-MCE-EFB Document 47 Filed 05/12/09 Page 2 of 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

2

4. The City of Vacaville published notice to the class in 

the Vacaville Reporter and on the City of Vacaville’s website 

advising class members and the general public of the opportunity 

to register objections and/or appear at the Fairness Hearing and 

advising the public that the Agreement authorizes the payment of 

attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel. 

5. No objections or requests to appear at the Fairness 

Hearing were made. On its own motion the Court vacated and 

adjourned the Fairness Hearing scheduled for November 13, 2006. 

6. The Court granted final approval to the Settlement 

Agreement on November 20, 2006. 

7. The Court’s Order granting final approval to the 

Settlement Agreement noted that negotiations regarding the claim 

of the Plaintiff class for reasonable attorneys’ fees were 

ongoing and that “[s]hould the parties reach agreement, Class 

Counsel will file a fee motion with the court, as required by 

Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the 

amount agreed upon by the parties, and the City will not oppose 

such fee motion.” 

8. The parties have negotiated a fee award of $60,500 to 

satisfy the claim of the Plaintiff class for reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the case. 

9. Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

provides that, “[i]n a certified class action, the court may 

award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs that are 

authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.” Fed. R .Civ. 

P. 23(h). “A claim for an award must be made by motion under 

Rule 54(d)(2)....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)(1). 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00330-MCE-EFB Document 47 Filed 05/12/09 Page 3 of 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

3

10. Notice of the motion must be served on all parties 

and, for motions by class counsel, directed to class members in 

a reasonable manner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)(1). Notice of a 

claim for attorneys’ fees is frequently combined with the Notice 

of a proposed settlement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)(1), 

Advisory Committee Notes, (“In cases in which settlement 

approval is contemplated under 23(e), notice of class counsel’s 

fee motion should be combined with notice of the proposed 

settlement, and the provision regarding notice to the class is 

parallel to the requirements for notice under Rule 23(e).”) 

11. The holding of a hearing on a party’s Rule 23(h) 

motion is discretionary but the Court “must find the facts and 

state its legal conclusions under Rule 52(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(h)(1). 

12. The Court hereby finds that the Plaintiff class has 

fulfilled the notice and filing requirements of Rule 23(h). The 

notice distributed to the class of the proposed settlement 

advised class members that the Agreement authorizes the payment 

of attorneys’ fees and costs from the Defendant. The Court’s 

primary responsibility in awarding attorneys’ fees is to ensure 

that the amount and mode of payment of attorneys’ fees are fair 

and proper. Where as here the amount has been agreed upon 

subject to court approval, the Court must ensure that the 

interests of the class are protected and have not been 

sacrificed to the advantage of the defendant and the attorneys 

for the plaintiff class. 

/// 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00330-MCE-EFB Document 47 Filed 05/12/09 Page 4 of 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

4

13. In this case, there is no risk that the fee agreement 

was obtained through improper compromise of the underlying 

claims of absent class members. The attorneys’ fee claim was 

not part of the settlement of any other claim and, hence the 

agreed-upon amount is unaffected by any compromise of the claims 

of the class. Accordingly, the Court concludes that payment of 

the agreed-upon amount of attorneys’ fees is not contrary to the 

interests of the class. 

14. The Court further finds that the Plaintiff class is 

the prevailing party in this case by virtue of entering into a 

legally binding Settlement Agreement with the Defendant. The 

parties’ negotiated sum of $60,500 was reached through armslength negotiations, is justified by the lodestar approach, and 

is reasonable in light of the substantial benefits conferred to 

the class. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Rule 23(h) Motion for Court 

Approval of Negotiated Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is 

GRANTED. 

2. The Court hereby directs the clerk of the Court to 

enter this Order as a final judgment. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00330-MCE-EFB Document 47 Filed 05/12/09 Page 5 of 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

5

3. The Court will retain continuing jurisdiction over the 

parties for the purposes of implementing, enforcing and/or 

administering the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement 

which are incorporated into this Order. Kokkonen v. Guardian 

Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). 

DATED: May 11, 2009

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00330-MCE-EFB Document 47 Filed 05/12/09 Page 6 of 6