Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to Named 

Plaintiffs

Page 1

Alan J. Leiman (OSB No. 980746)

alan@leimanlaw.com

Drew G. Johnson (OSB No. 114289)

drew@leimanlaw.com

LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC

44 W. Broadway, Suite 326

Eugene, OR 97401 

Telephone: (541) 345-2376

Facsimile: (541) 345-2377

Andrew S. Lewinter (OSB No. 080031)

ANDREW LEWINTER, ATTORNEY, P.C.

101 E. Broadway, Suite 220

Eugene, OR 97401

andrewlewinter@yahoo.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

CORBYN VANCE and LOGAN VANCE, 

individually and on behalf of others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CUARTO LLC, an Oregon limited liability 

company, SEPTIMO LLC, an Oregon limited 

liability company, LBB LLC, an Oregon limited 

liability company, SEXTO LLC, an Oregon 

limited liability company, PRIMERO LLC, an 

Oregon limited liability company, SEGUNDO 

LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, 

QUINTO LLC, an Oregon limited liability 

company, NOVENO LLC, an Oregon limited 

liability company, OCTAVO LLC, an Oregon 

limited liability company, collectively all doing 

business as LITTLE BIG BURGER and 

MICAH CAMDEN and KATHERINE POPPE, 

individually,

Defendants.

Case No.: 6:14-cv-00777-MC

 

Motion and Memorandum for 

Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service 

Payments to Named Plaintiffs

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 107 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 9
Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to Named 

Plaintiffs

Page 2

Local Rule 7-1 Certification. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement (Doc. 101-1) 

Defendants do not oppose this Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to 

Named Plaintiffs. (Doc. 101-1 at ¶5.4).

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE PAYMENTS

Pursuant to the Settlement (Doc. 101-1), and the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement filed concurrently herewith, Plaintiffs move this Court for an Order:

(a) Awarding Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees of $225,500 representing one-third of the 

gross Settlement amount;

(b) Approving the Settlement’s provision that Class Counsel be reimbursed for litigation 

costs of $41,000, which costs include the cost of the Settlement Administrator; and

(c) Awarding Service Payments to the Named Plaintiffs totaling $12,500.

This Motion is supported by the attached Memorandum of Law, and the Declaration of Alan 

J. Leiman, filed herewith, together with the Exhibits filed therewith.

DATED May 17, 2016.

Respectfully submitted:

 /s Alan J. Leiman______ Alan J. Leiman

E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com

Oregon State Bar No.: 98074

44 W. Broadway, Suite 326

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 345-2376

Facsimile: (541) 345-2377

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 107 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 9
Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to Named 

Plaintiffs

Page 3

/s Drew G. Johnson_____ Drew G. Johnson

E-mail: drew@leimanlaw.com

Oregon State Bar No.: 114289

44 W. Broadway, Suite 326

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 345-2376

Facsimile: (541) 345-2377

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s Andrew Lewinter

Andrew S. Lewinter

E-mail: andrewlewinter@yahoo.com

Oregon State Bar No.: 080031

101 E. Broadway, Suite 220

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 686-4900

Facsimile: (541) 686-1300

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND 

SERVICE PAYMENTS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS

INTRODUCTION

By separate Motion filed concurrently herewith, the Parties have jointly moved the Court 

for final approval of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) (Doc. 101-1) that was 

preliminarily approved by the Court on February 2, 2016 (Doc. 103). The terms of the 

Settlement include provisions for payments of the amounts requested herein for Class Counsel’s 

attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and Service Payments to the named Plaintiffs.

A. Attorneys’ Fees

The Settlement provides that Leiman & Johnson, LLC (hereinafter “Class Counsel”) will 

request, and Defendants will not oppose, payment of attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel of onethird of the gross settlement amount, which amounts to $225,000. (Doc. 101-1, ¶5.4.1) Class 

Counsel was retained on a contingency basis, and fee agreements with the named Plaintiffs 

specify payment of 33% of gross recovery as attorneys’ fees. (Declaration of Alan J. Leiman, ¶ 

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 107 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 9
Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to Named 

Plaintiffs

Page 4

7 (hereinafter, “Leiman Decl.”)). 

The Parties used a “common fund” settlement approach in their negotiations, whereby

Defendants agreed to pay a gross settlement amount from which attorneys’ fees, costs, service 

payments and claims administration expenses would be paid. “In ‘common fund’ cases, where 

the settlement or award creates a large fund for distribution to the class, the district court has 

discretion to use either a percentage or lodestar method [to determine attorneys’ fees].” Hanlon 

v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998), (citing, In re Washington Public Power 

Supply System Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir. 1994)). The percentage method means 

that the Court simply awards the attorneys a percentage of the fund sufficient to provide class 

counsel with a reasonable fee. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029, (citing, Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt 

v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989). Class Counsel is asking the Court to adopt the 

“common fund” approach, and award Class Counsel their attorneys’ fees at the negotiated and 

unopposed one-third of the gross settlement amount. 

1. Reasonableness of Request for Attorneys’ Fees

Class Counsel were able to obtain a $675,000 gross settlement for the Rule 23 Class, with 

a total of 122 members. In total, 78 members of the Rule 23 Class who timely returned claim 

forms will receive cash settlements. See, Joint Motion and Memorandum for Final Approval 

filed herewith, and the supporting Declarations filed therewith. The sizeable settlements are a 

direct result of Class Counsels’ diligent efforts, vigorous negotiations, and extensive familiarity 

with the facts and law applicable to this case.

 Class Counsel have carried the entire risk and costs of litigation, on a pure contingency 

basis, since prior to May 12, 2014. (Leiman Decl. ¶ 8). Undertaking the representation of large 

numbers of affected employees in actions such as this requires a tremendous investment of time, 

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 107 Filed 05/17/16 Page 4 of 9
Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to Named 

Plaintiffs

Page 5

energy and resources and counsel must be prepared for the possibility of an unsuccessful 

outcome. Because of the resources required to litigate this case, and because of the resources 

anticipated to be required for trial, Class Counsel were at considerable financial risk in this 

Action. (Id., ¶ 9). In addition, unresolved complex legal issues had the potential to significantly 

impact the case and added to the litigation risks borne by Class Counsel. 

Activities conducted by Class Counsel included, but were not limited to: review and 

analysis of thousands of pages of documentary discovery produced by Defendants; extensive 

legal research into FLSA and Oregon Wage and Hour Law; preparation of discovery requests 

and review of discovery responses; taking depositions; defending depositions; working with 

Class Counsels’ expert to organize and analyze data and compute damages; preparing for and 

attending a settlement mediation and judicial settlement conference; negotiating and 

documenting the Settlement; keeping the named Plaintiffs informed, and responding to requests 

for information from class members; and attending to all post-Settlement matters, including 

preliminary approval and claims administration oversight. (Id., ¶ 10).

In performing these tasks, Class Counsel has worked no less than 859 hours. (Id., ¶ 11). 

Class Counsel will need to spend additional time attending the Fairness Hearing, and monitoring 

the final settlement implementation. Class Counsels’ fee agreements with the named Plaintiffs 

specify an hourly rate of $325 per hour for attorneys Leiman and Lewinter and $275 per hour for 

attorney Johnson. (Id., ¶ 12). In addition, attorney Stacy McKerlie, who worked as an Associate 

attorney for Class Counsel worked on the case at an assigned billing rate of $175 per hour. (Id.) 

The request that the Court use the “common fund” approach and award attorneys’ fees equal to 

one-third of the gross settlement amount is reasonable and meets the Ninth Circuit benchmark set 

in Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 107 Filed 05/17/16 Page 5 of 9
Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to Named 

Plaintiffs

Page 6

2. Lodestar Cross Check Supports an Award of one-third of Gross Settlement 

Amount

Class Counsel’s request for one-third of the gross Settlement Amount is slightly less than 

the total hours recorded by Class Counsel. (Leiman Decl., ¶ 13). Thus, there is no applicable 

“loadstar” multiplier. One-third of the gross settlement amount is extremely reasonable. 

Compare, e.g., Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (listing 

nationwide class action settlements where multipliers ranged up to 8.5 times); Steiner v. 

American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 248 Fed. Appx. 780, 783 (9th Cir. 2007) (approving a 

multiplier of 6.85 times loadstar).

B. Reimbursement of Litigation Costs

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants do not oppose Class Counsels’ request 

for reimbursement of $41,000 in litigation costs. (Doc. 101-1, ¶5.4.) The amount estimated in 

the Settlement Agreement includes the recovery of cost items that would not ordinarily be 

recoverable as taxable costs, including reimbursement for expert witness fees and deposition 

costs. (Leiman Decl., ¶ 14). Class Counsel’s total litigation related expenditures on this matter 

exceed the $41,000 being requested, with $21,375 going to class administration expenses, and 

$12,585 going to its retained expert. (Id.). The Court is being asked to approve a provision of the 

Settlement negotiated with the intent of reimbursing Class Counsel for these expenditures, in lieu 

of enforcement of the fee agreement provisions that provide for the payment of all litigation 

related expenses out of the recovery. (Id., ¶ 15(. The expenditures were reasonable and the 

Court should approve the Settlement provisions regarding the reimbursement for these litigation 

costs and expenses.

That $41,000 costs reimbursement includes $18,000 for Settlement administration 

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 107 Filed 05/17/16 Page 6 of 9
Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to Named 

Plaintiffs

Page 7

expenses. (Doc. 101-1, ¶5.4.1.) Class Action Administration, Inc., (“CAA”) the approved 

Claims Administrator, is handling the Settlement administration process for a flat rate of 

$18,000. (Leiman Decl., ¶ 18). The negotiated price is all-inclusive. (Id.). To date, CAA has 

timely fulfilled all of its obligations as the Claims Administrator and has been responsive to 

Class Counsel and Defendants’ counsel. (Id.).

The Court should approve the payment of costs of $41,000, which include settlement 

administration expenses in the amount of $18,000 and litigation costs.

C. Service Payment to Named Plaintiffs.

The Settlement provides for the payment of $12,500 to be distributed to the two named 

Plaintiffs as “Service Payments”. Doc. 101-1, ¶5.4.5. Service Payments are often referred to as 

“incentive awards”. The Ninth Circuit has approved the use of incentive awards in class action 

litigation. See, In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir. 2000). Among the 

factors the district court considers in approving incentive awards are: the actions the Plaintiff(s) 

have taken to protect the interests of the class; the degree to which the Class has benefitted from 

those actions, and; the amount of time and effort the Plaintiff(s) expended in pursuing the 

litigation. Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998). 

In this case, both named Plaintiffs acted to protect the interests of the Class during the 

initial investigation of potential claims, and throughout the course of the litigation, including 

timely cooperation during the discovery phase of the litigation. (Leiman Decl., ¶ 17). Both

named plaintiffs were interested in being kept apprised of the litigation throughout, and made 

frequent inquiries about the status of the case. (Id.). The named Plaintiffs also provided Class 

Counsel with key “technical assistance” regarding factual circumstances and the nature of the 

work performed by various class members, along with information about the common policies 

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 107 Filed 05/17/16 Page 7 of 9
Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to Named 

Plaintiffs

Page 8

and payroll practices at the center of this case. (Id., ¶ 18). The named Plaintiffs also provided 

declarations and deposition testimony during the course of the litigation. (Id., ¶ 19). Both named 

Plaintiffs also attended a pre-filing mediation and the settlement conference where they actively 

advocated for the interests of the Class. (Id., ¶ 20). The named Plaintiffs expended significant 

amounts of personal time and effort during the course of the litigation through their participation 

in case investigation and discovery, as well as through time on the phone and attending meetings 

with Class Counsel, and by providing testimonial evidence in support of the Class claims. (Id., ¶ 

21). The named plaintiffs provided extensive support to Class Counsel throughout the litigation. 

Given their prominent role in the litigation, and time spent in furtherance of the litigation on 

behalf of the Class, Class Counsel has proposed an award of $12,500 for the two named 

plaintiffs: $7,500 for Corbyn Vance and $5000 for Logan Vance. The difference in the amount 

of the service payments to each named plaintiff accounts for the funds that Plaintiff Logan Vance 

will receive in settlement of his retaliation claim. (Doc. 101-1, ¶9.4.) 

WHEREAS, Class Counsel respectfully asks the Court in connection with its Final 

Approval of the Settlement to grant this unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and 

Service Payments.

////

////

////

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 107 Filed 05/17/16 Page 8 of 9
Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments to Named 

Plaintiffs

Page 9

DATED May 17, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

/s Alan J. Leiman 

Alan J. Leiman

E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com

Oregon State Bar No.: 98074

44 W. Broadway, Suite 326

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 345-2376

Facsimile: (541) 345-2377

Attorney for Plaintiff

/s Drew G. Johnson

Drew G. Johnson

E-mail: drew@leimanlaw.com

Oregon State Bar No.: 114289

44 W. Broadway, Suite 326

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 345-2376

Facsimile: (541) 345-2377

Attorney for Plaintiff

/s Andrew Lewinter

Andrew S. Lewinter

E-mail: andrewlewinter@yahoo.com

Oregon State Bar No.: 080031

101 E. Broadway, Suite 220

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 686-4900

Facsimile: (541) 686-1300

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 107 Filed 05/17/16 Page 9 of 9