Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00113/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00113-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Caren Ehret
Plaintiff
Uber Technologies, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAREN EHRET,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00113-EMC 

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Docket No. 134

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, and hereby orders the 

parties to provide a joint supplemental brief regarding the following issues. The supplemental 

briefing should be filed no later than September 8, 2016 at 12:00 PM PDT.

1. Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiff’s counsel intends to seek a fee award of $431,138.54. Docket No. 134 at 10. 

Counsel characterizes this award as “separate from and in addition to the class relief,” which totals 

$343.861.46. Id. at 1, 3. The Court notes, however, that if it were to treat the total recovery of 

$775,000.00 as a “constructive common fund,” see In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 

654 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir. 2011), counsel’s portion would come to nearly 56% of the whole. 

This is, of course, a substantial departure from the 25% figure typically used as a “benchmark” in 

this Circuit. See id. at 942. Plaintiff asserts that the proposed fee “will actually be significantly

less than their lodestar amount without any multiplier.” Docket No. 134 at 1. Plaintiff should 

explain in detail (legally and factually) why the use of the lodestar method – rather than the 

percentage-of-recovery method – to calculate counsel’s fees is appropriate. See Bluetooth, 654 

F.3d at 942 (noting that “courts have discretion to choose which calculation method they use”).

Further, particularly because Plaintiff relies on the lodestar method, to assess the fee 

Case 3:14-cv-00113-EMC Document 137 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California

request, even for the purposes of preliminary approval only, the Court is in need of information as 

to the lodestar claimed – i.e., the number of hours incurred in the case and the hourly rates 

claimed. Plaintiff’s attorneys shall file with this Court, ex parte and under seal, one (1) 

declaration that states the total number of hours worked on this litigation, and which breaks the 

number of hours down by task (e.g., “Initial Case Investigation,” “Settlement Negotiations and 

Mediation,” etc.). Counsel shall attach their actual time records to the declaration. The 

declaration and associated records shall be filed with the Court no later than September 8, 2016 at 

12:00 PM PDT. The parties should also ensure that that the fee motion is filed and available on 

the Class Administrator’s website at least twenty-one (21) days before objections to the proposed 

settlement are due.

2. Full Verdict Value of the Case

Plaintiff emphasizes that under the terms of the settlement, “Class Members will receive 

essentially a full refund of the amounts at issue in this suit.” Docket No. 134 at 5. However, 

Plaintiff does not appear to provide an estimate of the total potential recovery in the case, were it 

to proceed to trial, which could be greater than the actual damages to the class. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. 

Code § 1780(a)(4) (providing for punitive damages for violations of the Consumers Legal 

Remedies Act). Thus, the Court has no point of comparison to determine that this settlement is, in 

fact, a significant recovery for the class. The parties must provide an estimate of the full aggregate 

verdict value of each of Plaintiff’s claims. 

3. Distribution of the Settlement Fund

The settlement provides that for those “Class Members who have an existing Uber account 

and either fail to timely provide a valid mailing address or who fail to cash their settlement checks, 

Uber will credit their Uber account in an amount equal to their individual Class Member 

Payment.” Docket No. 134 at 3. The parties should explain why Class Members may not receive 

direct payment – rather than Uber credits – e.g. by crediting the credit card Uber has on file.

4. Incentive Award

The settlement calls for an incentive award of $10,000 to the named plaintiff. Docket No. 

134 at 9. “Several courts in this District have indicated that incentive payments of $10,000 or 

Case 3:14-cv-00113-EMC Document 137 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California

$25,000 are quite high and/or that, as a general matter, $5,000 is a reasonable amount.” Harris v. 

Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2012 WL 381202, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012). 

Plaintiff describes in general terms how the named plaintiff “stayed actively involved in the 

litigation for several years,” but given the size of the requested award, the parties should provide 

more detail as to why this extraordinary amount is warranted, particularly in view of the typical 

per capita recovery in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00113-EMC Document 137 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 3