1

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ABDUL NEVAREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL 

COMPANY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; 

AND GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES 

Re: Dkt. No. 394, 395, 396, 408

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ (1) motion for final approval of a class action settlement, 

ECF No. 395; (2) motion for service awards, ECF No. 394; and (3) motion for reasonable 

attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, ECF No. 408.1 Having considered the parties’ briefs, the 

relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval, 

Plaintiffs’ motion for service awards, and Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees, as set forth below. 

The Court considers each motion in turn.

1 Plaintiffs originally filed the motion for attorney’s fees on May 25, 2020, ECF No. 396, but 

Plaintiffs refiled their motion on June 25, 2020 to correct a number of errata, ECF No. 408.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 1 of 15
2

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

I. MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs have moved the Court for an order granting final approval of the class action 

Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (“Settlement Agreement”), ECF No. 395, which was 

filed with the Court at ECF Nos. 375-2; 391. The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement 

Agreement in this action by order entered on March 9, 2020. See ECF No. 392 (“Preliminary 

Approval Order”). On July 16, 2020 the Court held a Final Approval hearing to consider final 

approval of the Settlement Agreement and to determine, among other things, whether the 

settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Having considered the motions, the oral arguments, 

the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ motion for final 

approval of the class action settlement as follows:

1. All terms used herein, unless otherwise defined, shall have the same meanings as 

set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

2. The Court finds that the Parties complied with the Notice procedures set forth in 

the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order and Settlement Agreement by disseminating the Courtapproved long-form Notice (ECF No. 390-3) and Claim Form (ECF No. 390-3) to Class Members 

by mail and email; providing the long-form Notice to the agreed-upon membership and/or service 

organizations for individuals with mobility disabilities; posting the Court-approved short-form 

Notice (ECF No. 390-1) at conspicuous locations throughout Levi’s Stadium and on websites 

controlled by Defendants; and creating and maintaining a Settlement website, email address, and 

toll-free telephone number. The Court further finds that these methods: 

a. constituted the best practicable notice to members of the Plaintiff Classes 

under the circumstances of the Action;

b. constituted reasonable, due, adequate and sufficient notice to all Persons 

entitled to receive notice; and

c. constituted notice that met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 2 of 15
3

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

and any other applicable law, as well as this District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action 

Settlements.

3. The Court finds that the Claim Form distributed to the Damages Class met all 

applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, the Due 

Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law. The Court further 

finds that the Claims Process set forth in the Settlement Agreement provides Damages Class 

Members with a full and fair opportunity to submit claims for damages, an effective method of 

distributing monetary relief to the Damages Class, and provides for an equitable plan of allocation 

of money damages between Damages Class Members. See Rule 23(e)(2)(A)(ii), (D).

4. On March 9, 2020, the Court preliminarily certified the following classes for 

settlement purposes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3): 

Injunctive Relief Class: All persons with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs, 

scooters, or other mobility aids who will attempt to purchase accessible seating for a 

public event at Levi’s Stadium and who will be denied equal access to the Stadium’s 

facilities, services, accessible seating, parking, amenities, and privileges, including 

ticketing, from December 7, 2013 through the date of the Court’s Order Granting 

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Companion Injunctive Relief Class: All persons who are companions of persons 

with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs, scooters or other mobility aids and 

who have used or will use companion seating for public events located at Levi’s 

Stadium from December 7, 2013 through the date of the Court’s Order Granting 

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Damages Class: All persons with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs, scooters 

or other mobility aids who have purchased, attempted to purchase, or for whom third 

parties purchased accessible seating and who have been denied equal access to Levi’s 

Stadium’s facilities, services, accessible seating, parking, amenities, and privileges at 

an event controlled by the Forty Niners Football Company, LLC; Forty Niners SC 

Stadium Company, LLC; or Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC, from 

April 13, 2015 through the date of the Court’s Order Granting Preliminary Approval 

of Class Action Settlement.

See ECF No. 392. 

5. The Court finds that the Plaintiff Classes continue to meet the requirements for 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 3 of 15
4

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and all other applicable laws and 

rules. 

6. The Injunctive Relief Class and Companion Injunctive Relief Class are finally 

certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The Court concludes that: (a) joinder of all Class 

Members in a single proceeding would be impracticable, if not impossible, because of their 

numbers and dispersion; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Classes; 

(c) Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Plaintiff Classes that they seek to represent for 

purposes of settlement; (d) Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the 

Classes and will continue to do so; (e) Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes are represented by 

qualified, reputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting class actions, 

including those involving the sort of practices alleged in the Complaint; and (f) Defendants acted 

or refused to act on grounds that apply to the Injunctive Relief Class and Companion Injunctive 

Relief Class as a whole.

7. The Damages Class is finally certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The Court 

concludes that: (a) joinder of all Damages Class Members in a single proceeding would be 

impracticable, if not impossible, because of their numbers and dispersion; (b) there are questions 

of law and fact common to the Damages Class; (c) Plaintiff Abdul Nevarez’s claims are typical of 

the claims of the Damages Class that he seeks to represent for purposes of settlement; (d) Plaintiff 

Abdul Nevarez has fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Damages Class and will 

continue to do so; (e) Plaintiff Abdul Nevarez and the Damages Class are represented by qualified, 

reputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting class actions, including those

involving the sort of practices alleged in the Complaint; (f) questions of law or fact common to the 

Damages Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; and (g) a class 

action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

8. Class certification is therefore an appropriate method for protecting the interests of 

the Plaintiff Classes and resolving the common issues of fact and law arising out of the Plaintiffs’ 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 4 of 15
5

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

claims while also eliminating the risk of duplicative litigation. Accordingly, the Court hereby 

makes final its earlier certification of the Plaintiff Classes and confirms its appointment of 

Plaintiffs Abdul Nevarez and Sebastian DeFrancesco as Injunctive Relief Class Representatives; 

Plaintiff Priscilla Nevarez as the Companion Injunctive Relief Class Representative; Plaintiff 

Abdul Nevarez as the Damages Class Representative; and Guy Wallace of Schneider Wallace 

Cottrell Konecky LLP, Linda M. Dardarian of Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, and Adam Wolf 

of Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane as Class Counsel. 

9. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that it is fair, 

reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Plaintiff Classes as a whole. First, the 

Settlement offers Class Members significant injunctive relief regarding all of the claims in the 

Fourth Amended Complaint, including Defendants’ failure to provide physical access and 

Defendants’ failure to make reasonable modifications in policy and practice to ensure equal access 

to the Stadium’s facilities and services. Second, the non-reversionary damages fund offers 

substantial monetary relief to Damages Class Members. Third, as set forth below, the Court finds 

that Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and Class Representative service 

awards are reasonable and supported by applicable law, as modified by the Court. Finally, the 

absence of any objections or exclusions further supports final approval of the Settlement. In sum, 

when considered against the potential risks, expense, complexity and duration of further litigation, 

and the importance of the accessibility of the Stadium and its related facilities to the Class 

Members, the Court finds the relief secured by the Settlement to be more than adequate. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C). 

10. The Parties and Settlement Administrator are hereby directed to implement and 

consummate the Settlement according to its terms and provisions and the Court’s Preliminary 

Approval Order. Class Counsel and Defendants shall take all steps necessary and appropriate to 

provide the Plaintiff Class Members with the benefits to which they are entitled under the terms of 

the Settlement.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 5 of 15
6

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

11. The Plaintiffs and all Plaintiff Class Members (and their respective heirs, assigns, 

successors, executors, administrators, agents and representatives) are conclusively deemed to have 

released and forever discharged the Released Parties from all released claims as set forth in 

Section XIII of the Settlement Agreement. All members of the Injunctive Relief Class and 

Companion Injunctive Relief Class are bound by this Order. All members of the Damages Class, 

except for those individuals who filed valid and timely Opt-Outs, are bound by this Order. 

Damages Class Members who submitted timely and valid Opt-Out requests are neither permitted 

to share in the benefits of the damages fund nor bound by this Final Order and Judgment as to 

claims for Unruh Act statutory minimum damages against the Forty Niners Defendants. Damages 

Class Members who did not opt out of the case at the class certification stage were afforded a new 

opportunity to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(4). Throughout the Term of the Settlement 

Agreement, Plaintiff Class Members are enjoined from asserting or prosecuting any claims that are 

released by the Settlement Agreement.

12. The Settlement Agreement and this Order are not admissions of liability or fault by 

Defendants or other Released Parties, or a finding of the validity of any claims in this action or of 

any wrongdoing or violation of law by Defendants or other Released Parties. The Settlement 

Agreement is not a concession by the Parties and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, neither 

this Order, nor any of its terms or provisions, nor any of the negotiations connected with it, shall 

be offered as evidence or received in evidence in any pending or future civil, criminal, or 

administrative action or proceeding to establish any liability of, or admission by Defendants or 

other Released Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Order shall be interpreted 

to prohibit the use of this Order to consummate or enforce the Settlement Agreement or Order, or 

to defend against the assertion of Released Claims in any other proceeding, or as otherwise 

required by law.

13. Within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement funds and payment of 

attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs, the Parties are ordered to file a Post-Distribution Accounting, 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 6 of 15
7

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

which provides the following information in accordance with the Northern District’s Procedural 

Guidance for Class Action Settlements: The total settlement fund, the total number of class 

members; the total number of class members to whom notice was sent and not returned as 

undeliverable; the number and percentage of claim forms submitted; the number and percentage of 

opt-outs; the number and percentage of objections; the average and median recovery per claimant; 

the largest and smallest amounts paid to class members; the methods of notice and the methods of 

payment to class members; the number and value of checks not cashed; the amounts distributed to 

each cy pres recipient; the administrative costs; the attorneys’ fees and costs; and the benefit 

conferred on the classes by the injunctive relief obtained. Within 21 days after the distribution of 

the settlement funds and award of attorneys’ fees, the Parties should post the Post-Distribution 

Accounting, including an easy-to-read chart that allows for quick comparisons with other cases, on 

the settlement website. The Court may hold a hearing following submission of the parties’ PostDistribution Accounting.

14. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court shall maintain 

continuing jurisdiction over Plaintiffs, the Class Members, Defendants, and the Settlement 

Agreement throughout the term of the Settlement Agreement, for the purpose of supervising the 

implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and 

this Order, through the term of the Settlement Agreement. In that regard, any challenges to the 

Settlement Agreement’s terms or implementation, whether under state or federal law, shall be 

subject to the exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of this Court.

15. This Action is hereby dismissed on the merits and with prejudice as to the Released 

Claims, without fees or costs to any Party except as otherwise provided in the Court’s Order on 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses, and the Settlement 

Agreement.

II. MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS

In addition, Plaintiffs filed a motion for service awards, ECF No. 394. The motion 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 7 of 15
8

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

requests $5,000 in service awards for each of three class representatives: Abdul Nevarez, Priscilla 

Nevarez, and Sebastian DeFrancesco. Id. at 1. The motion is unopposed, and no Class members 

have filed objections to the Settlement Agreement.

In order to evaluate the reasonableness of the size of a service award, the Ninth Circuit 

looks to “the number of named plaintiffs receiving incentive payments, the proportion of the 

payments relative to the settlement amount, and the size of each payment.” In re Online DVDRental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 947 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the three class representatives, Abdul Nevarez, Priscilla Nevarez, and Sebastian 

DeFrancesco, seek Service Awards of $5,000 each. ECF No. 394. The contemplated Service 

Awards total to $15,000 out of the $24,000,000 Plaintiffs’ settlement, which is less than .1% of the 

$24 million Damages Fund. The number of service awards requested and the respective amounts 

fall well below the levels that the Ninth Circuit has scrutinized in the past. Id. at 948 (finding 

service awards to be reasonable in part because there were “nine class representatives” and 

because “the $45,000 in incentive awards ma[de] up a mere .17% of the total settlement”). 

Moreover, the requested amount of $5,000 is considered “presumptively reasonable” in this 

district. See Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. CV 09-00261 SBA EMC, 2012 WL 

5878390, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012). 

Thus, having considered the motion, Plaintiffs’ declarations and exhibits thereto, the 

arguments of counsel, and all files, records, and proceedings in this action, the Court finds that 

good cause exists to approve the motion. All three Plaintiffs have diligently fulfilled their duties 

as Class Representatives. All have expended significant effort and made personal sacrifices in 

order to obtain an excellent result for the Classes they represent. The class representatives 

participated in numerous aspects of the litigation, including responding to written discovery, 

drafting declarations, preparing and sitting for depositions, advising counsel on factual 

investigation and settlement, and class outreach. ECF No. 394 at 7–8. Over the course of over 

three years, “Mr. Nevarez estimates that he has spent at least 72 hours working on this case; Ms. 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 8 of 15
9

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

Nevarez estimates at least 90 hours; and Mr. DeFrancesco estimates at least 52 hours.” ECF No. 

394 at 7. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. The Court hereby approves: a service 

award to Plaintiff Abdul Nevarez in the amount of $5,000; a service award to Plaintiff Priscilla 

Nevarez in the amount of $5,000; and a service award to Plaintiff Sebastian DeFrancesco in the 

amount of $5,000.

III. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

Finally, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. 

ECF No. 408. Specifically, Plaintiffs move for $1,199,148.87 in out-of-pocket litigation costs and 

expenses, and $12,258,003.53 in attorney’s fees, which together amounts to the $13,457,152.40 

cap on attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses set forth in Section XIV.A of the Settlement 

Agreement. The motion is unopposed, and no Class members have filed objections to the 

Settlement Agreement. Below, the Court first considers the costs and expenses, before 

considering the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees.

As the prevailing parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees, 

costs and expenses. See 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (ADA) and Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a) (Unruh Civil 

Rights Act). A party that obtains a judicially enforceable settlement agreement that provides 

some of the relief sought is a “prevailing party” for purposes of fee-shifting statutes. See, e.g., La 

Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest, 624 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 

2010); Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of Govts., 32 Cal.3d 668, 671 (1982). Here, Plaintiffs have 

prevailed under both federal and state law by achieving a global settlement that resolves all 

federal and state law claims. The Settlement provides comprehensive injunctive relief to both 

injunctive relief classes under both federal and state law and establishes a damages fund for the 

damages class under California law. The factual and legal issues that were litigated would 

reasonably be attributed to both federal and state law claims. Accordingly, both federal and state 

law apply to Plaintiffs’ application for fees, costs and litigation expenses.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 9 of 15
10

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

A. Costs and Expenses

Plaintiffs’ costs and out-of-pocket expenses, including expert witness fees, are recoverable. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 12205; Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1058 (9th Cir. 2002). Through May 

15, 2020, Class Counsel incurred $1,199,148.87 in litigation costs and expenses. Plaintiffs’ costs and 

out-of-pocket expenses are well-documented. The Court finds that the declarations of Class Counsel 

and accompanying exhibits and the record in this case demonstrate that these costs and expenses were 

reasonable and necessary for the prosecution of this litigation. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Class 

Counsel $1,199,148.87 in costs and out-of-pocket expenses.

B. Attorney’s Fees

As discussed above, Section XIV.A of the Settlement Agreement caps Plaintiffs’ request for 

attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses at $13,457,152.40. Because Plaintiffs seek $1,199,148.87 in 

costs and expenses, which the Court awarded in full, Plaintiffs request the remaining 

$12,258,003.53 of the cap in attorney’s fees. Although the Court grants Plaintiffs the full 

$12,258,003.53 amount in attorney’s fees below, the Court’s calculation of attorney’s fees differs 

from that of Plaintiffs. The Court first discusses Plaintiffs’ lodestar calculation before turning to 

the requested lodestar multiplier.

1. Lodestar Calculation

Plaintiffs state that their lodestar in the instant case is $11,605,473. ECF No. 408 at 13. The 

Court finds that the lodestar is reasonable and fair, with the exception of the hourly rate billed for 

contract attorneys, which the Court discusses below. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that their lodestar in the instant case was initially $12,994,251, 

which was then reduced by approximately 10.69% through the exercise of billing judgment2 to arrive 

at the lodestar of $11,605,473. See ECF No. 408 at 20. The Court has reviewed the hours spent by 

Plaintiffs in litigating this case over the course of three-and-a-half years and finds that the hours 

2 Specifically, Plaintiffs explain that they “removed from their lodestar all time spent by attorneys 

and staff who billed less than 30 hours on the case . . . [and] exercised additional billing judgment 

as set forth in the declarations of counsel.” ECF No. 408 at 20.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 10 of 15
11

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

expended are reasonable. This case involved over three years of contentious and extensive 

litigation, including the following:

• Three motions to dismiss filed by Defendants, which this Court largely denied;

• Eighteen joint discovery letters—for many of which the Court granted Plaintiffs full relief;

• Thirteen sets of document requests and interrogatories, fifteen sets of requests for 

admission, and propounding six sets of subpoenas for documents;

• Production of 3,400,000 pages of documents by Defendants and third parties;

• Fourteen days of inspections of the Stadium, parking lots, and connecting pedestrian rights 

of way, from which Plaintiffs identified over 2,600 physical barriers to access at the 

Stadium;

• 48 depositions, including depositions of 16 experts;

• Two sets of cross-motions for partial summary judgment;

• Eight formal mediations; and

• Many informal settlement discussions, several in-person with all counsel. 

Thus, Plaintiffs’ hours are amply justified in light of the extensive litigation that has occurred to date 

over the course of three and a half years. 

Moreover, the Court has reviewed the billing rates for the attorneys, paralegals, and litigation 

support staff at each of the firms representing Plaintiffs and the Certified Classes in this case. The 

Court finds that these rates are reasonable in light of prevailing market rates in this district and 

that counsel for Plaintiffs have submitted adequate documentation justifying those rates, with the 

exception of the hourly rates billed by Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP (“Schneider 

Wallace”) for the use of staff attorneys. 

However, as to the staff attorneys, the Court notes that Schneider Wallace requests a rate of 

$625 per hour for each of three staff attorneys. See ECF No. 408-1 (“Wallace Decl.”) ¶ 117. 

However, at the July 16, 2020 Final Approval hearing, Mr. Wallace acknowledged that these 

attorneys are paid at an hourly rate substantially less than $625 per hour, which constitutes a markup 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 11 of 15
12

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

of $595 per staff attorney per hour. Schneider Wallace requests $625 per hour for each of these three 

staff attorneys for a total of 1,811.9 hours of work, which the Court estimates to constitute a markup 

of $1,078,080.50 or about 15% of Schneider Wallace’s lodestar. See id. Although the Court has 

historically declined to apply a “categorical rule that contract and staff attorneys must be billed at 

cost,” the Court has previously rejected such a high markup on a contract attorney’s hourly rate and 

instead awarded an hourly rate of $240.00. In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 15-MD02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068, at *18–20 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018). As in the Court’s decision in 

In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, the Court will adopt the $240.00 hourly rate for Schneider 

Wallace’s staff attorneys based on precedent and in the absence of any argument to justify a different 

markup on the staff attorney rate. See id. at *20 (“In future cases, the Court is willing to receive 

documentation justifying a lower or higher rate, but for purposes of the rough lodestar calculation 

here, the Court finds that $240.00 per hour for contract and staff attorney time is a reasonable rate.”). 

At the July 16, 2020 Final Approval hearing, Mr. Wallace stated that he did not oppose the Court’s 

adoption of the $240 hourly rate for these three staff attorneys. After adjusting Schneider Wallace’s 

staff attorney rate to $240.00 per hour, the Court finds that the total lodestar of $11,605,473 is 

reduced to $10,907,891.50.

2. Lodestar Multiplier

Next, Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to a positive lodestar multiplier of up to 1.5. 

However, the actual requested lodestar multiplier is significantly lower due to the $13,457,152.40 

cap on attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. Specifically, to arrive at the requested attorney’s fees 

amount of $12,258,003.53 from the lodestar of $10,907,891.50, Plaintiffs need only be entitled to a 

lodestar multiplier of approximately 1.124, which is a factor of four times less than the 1.5 lodestar 

multiplier they request. 

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to a lodestar multiplier of at least 1.124 in 

consideration of the following factors (1) contingent risk to counsel, (2) novelty and difficulty of 

the questions involved, (3) skill required to perform the legal service properly, (4) preclusion of 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 12 of 15
13

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

other employment by the attorneys, and (5) the result obtained and the importance of the lawsuit 

to the public. See Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1132 (2001); Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 

3d 25, 49 (1977). 

In particular, the Court notes the outstanding result obtained for the class and the 

importance of the lawsuit to the public. Specifically, the Settlement Agreement “will remediate 

more than 2,600 barriers in [Levi’s Stadium], the parking lots and the pedestrian rights of way 

that serve the Stadium,” which is “over 99% of the barriers identified by Plaintiffs.” ECF No. 

408 at 23. Such relief will bring Levi’s Stadium “into compliance with the 2010 [Americans with 

Disability Act Standards] or the 2019 [California Building Code], whichever provides greater 

access, thus dramatically improving accessibility and usability for person with mobility 

disabilities and their nondisabled companions.” Id. The costs to remediate the over 2,600 

barriers is estimated to cost Defendants at least $12.2 million. ECF No. 408-6 ¶ 67. 

Moreover, the Settlement Agreement provides for a $24 million non-reversionary 

damages fund, which Plaintiffs believe to be “the largest such fund ever achieved in a case 

alleging claims under the public facilities and accommodations provisions of the ADA.” Id. The 

Settlement Agreement prompted a participation rate of almost 94%. There were an estimated 

5,779 potential Damages Class Members, and 5,418 claim forms were submitted. See ECF No. 

395 at 5. Furthermore, there were no opt-outs and no objections. See ECF No. 411 at 2. At the 

July 16, 2020 Final Approval hearing, Plaintiffs estimated that the average recovery for each 

Damages Class Member would be at least $4,000, and on average over $4,400. The Court finds 

that the Settlement achieved by Plaintiffs’ counsel provides considerable and substantial relief to 

the class members, which therefore justifies a lodestar multiplier of at least 1.124.

3. Percentage of Recovery Cross-Check

To guard against an unreasonable result, the Ninth Circuit generally encourages district 

courts to “cross-check[] their calculations against a second method.” In re Bluetooth Headset 

Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the Ninth Circuit has explained 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 13 of 15
14

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

that in cases vindicating civil rights, “the relief sought—and obtained—is often primarily 

injunctive in nature and thus not easily monetized.” See id. at 941. 

In this case, the Court likewise finds that it would be difficult to monetize the extensive 

injunctive relief, which remediates over 2,600 access barriers at Levi’s Stadium. Nonetheless, if 

the Court assumes that the approximately $12.2 million expected Stadium remediation cost is a 

good substitute to monetize the increased accessibility for the Stadium’s patrons, ECF No. 408-6 

¶ 67, the amount of attorney’s fees, including the 1.124 multiplier, would constitute about 24.7% 

of a “constructive common fund” in this case, which would be comprised of the $24 million 

Damages Fund, the approximately $12.2 million cost of injunctive relief, the $15,000 service 

awards, $12,258,003.53 attorney’s fees, and $1,199,148.87 costs. See In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d 

at 945 (calculating an analogous percentage-of-recovery using a “constructive common fund”). 

This result of 24.7% of the total recovery is below the 25% benchmark percentage and confirms 

that the requested $12,258,003.53 in attorney’s fees is a reasonable amount. See id. at 945 (“If 

the lodestar amount overcompensates the attorneys according to the 25% benchmark standard, 

then a second look to evaluate the reasonableness of the hours worked and rates claimed is 

appropriate.”) (quoting In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings, 109 F.3d 602, 607 (9th 

Cir.1997)).

Accordingly, based on the factors considered above and the applicable law, the Court 

finds that a lodestar multiplier of 1.124 is reasonable and justified.

4. Total Attorney’s Fees

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to a lodestar of $10,907,891.50 and a multiplier of 

1.124. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ full requested amount of $12,258,003.53 in 

attorney’s fees.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the

proposed class action settlement, GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for service awards, and GRANTS 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 14 of 15
15

Case No. 16-CV-07013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING 

MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

EXPENSES

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses as follows:

• $15,000 in service awards, comprised of $5,000 for each of three class representatives: 

Abdul Nevarez, Priscilla Nevarez, and Sebastian DeFrancesco;

• $12,258,003.53 in attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel; and 

• $1,199,148.87 in costs and expenses to Class Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2020

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 416 Filed 07/23/20 Page 15 of 15