Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00988/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00988-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bonnie Riendeau, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Apache Carson Partners LP, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-00988-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Before the court is the parties’ joint motion to approve settlement agreement and

dismissal of lawsuit, and joint motion to stay pending deadlines (doc. 76). The parties have

submitted a proposed settlement agreement under which the named plaintiffs and the one optin plaintiff will receive a total of $83,000 in stipulated damages. The proposed settlement

agreement also provides that plaintiffs’ lawyers will receive a total of $113,000 in attorney’s

fees. We have concerns about the fairness of the proposed attorney’s fees. 

First, the amount of the stipulated attorney’s fees is in excess of 136% of the total

damages awarded to plaintiffs. The “disparity between the value of the class recovery and

class counsel’s compensation raises at least an inference of unfairness.” See In re Bluetooth

Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, we note that the

named plaintiffs entered into fee agreements with class counsel whereby counsel was entitled

to receive up to 40% of any gross recovery. Obviously, the proposed attorney’s fee award

Case 2:12-cv-00988-FJM Document 77 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

vastly exceeds the parties’ agreed upon fee payment. Without more, we cannot satisfy our

independent obligation to ensure that the fee award is not unreasonably excessive in light of

the results achieved. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit, on or before December 12,

2013, a memorandum, not exceeding 5 pages in length, and providing support for the

reasonableness of the requested fee. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the parties’ joint motion seeking to stay

pending Rule 16 deadlines (doc. 76). Our Rule 16 order clearly provides that no extensions

will be given due to settlement negotiations. See doc. 27 at 1. 

DATED this 9th day of December, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00988-FJM Document 77 Filed 12/09/13 Page 2 of 2