Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/79159308-United-states-district-court-central-district-of-california.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:56:33+00:00

Document:
Download "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA"
3 Case :-cv-000-jls-rnb Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 index and the margin an amount far higher than the teaser rate. (Id.) As a result, a borrower s minimum payment was less than the interest on the loan, and if the borrower made only the minimum payment, unpaid interest was added to the principal balance (i.e., negative amortization). (Id.) On June, 0, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants Motions to Dismiss. (Doc..) The Court dismissed Plaintiffs breach of contract claim with prejudice, but denied the Motions with respect to the fraud and UCL claims. (Id.) On August 0, 0, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. (Cert. Order.) In the Order, the Court certified Plaintiffs UCL claim as a class consisting of the following members: [a]ll individuals who obtained an Option ARM Loan from January, 00 through the date that notice is mailed to the Class, which loan () was acquired by Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. ( WMMSC ) or WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. ( WAAC ) by paying all or part of the sale price to the lender that maintained the originating entity s line of credit; () was secured by real property in the State of California; () was not originated by a national bank, federal savings association, or an affiliate, division, subdivision, predecessor, or parent of WMMSC or WAAC; and () had the following characteristics: (a) the Interest Rate paragraph of the Note ( ) states both (i) a yearly Interest Rate that is less than the index plus the margin; and (ii) that the Interest Rate may rather than will change; (b) the Initial Monthly Payment listed in the Note is based upon the yearly interest rate listed in paragraph ; and (c) the Note does not contain any statement that after the first Interest Rate Change Date, paying the amount listed as the Initial Monthly Payment will result in negative amortization or deferred interest.
7 Case :-cv-000-jls-rnb Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 forwarding addresses or updated addresses. (Id..) Out of the,0 returned notices that did not have forwarding addresses, the Settlement Administrator was able to identify,0 new addresses through a standard skip trace, and r ed notices to the new addresses. (Id.) The Settlement Administrator has been unable to obtain valid new addresses for, notices that have been returned as undeliverable. (Id.) The deadline for opt-outs and objections has now passed, and the Settlement Administrator has received seven written requests for exclusion that were mailed prior to the exclusion deadline. (Id..) Class Counsel has not received any objections. (Final Approval Mot. at -.) Finally, on December and, 0, the Settlement Administrator published notice of the settlement in the classified section of USA Today. (Ferrara Decl..) Pursuant to the settlement and the Court s Order granting Plaintiffs motion for preliminary approval, on January, 0, Plaintiffs moved for attorneys fees, litigation costs, and incentive payments. (Attorneys Fees Mot.) On February, 0, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. (Final Approval Mot.) III. FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Rule (e)() requires the Court to determine whether the proposed Plaintiffs Final Approval Motion states that the Settlement Administrator received, returned Individual Class Notices that did not have forwarding addresses. (Final Approval Mot. at.) Plaintiff s Final Approval Motion states that notices for, unique Class Member loans have been returned as undeliverable and [the Settlement Administrator] has been unable to obtain valid new addresses for them. (Final Approval Mot. at -.) The Settlement Administrator also received one exclusion request after the deadline and one exclusion request that did not comply with the procedures set forth in the notice. (Final Approval Mot. at n..) Class counsel respectfully requests the Court grant these unopposed requests for exclusion. (Id.) The Court grants these additional two requests for exclusion, and thus a total of nine exclusion requests have been submitted by class members.
8 Case :-cv-000-jls-rnb Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Fed. R. Civ. P. (e)(). To determine whether a settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, a district court must [ultimately] consider a number of factors, including: () the strength of plaintiffs case; () the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; () the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; () the amount offered in settlement; () the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings; () the experience and views of counsel; () the presence of a governmental participant; and () the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. Staton v. Boeing Co., F.d, (th Cir. 00) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The relative degree of importance to be attached to any particular factor will depend upon and be dictated by the nature of the claim(s) advanced, the type(s) of relief sought, and the unique facts and circumstances presented by each individual case. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm n, F.d, (th Cir. ). It is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness, and the settlement must stand or fall in its entirety. Staton, F.d at 0 (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. )). The Court finds the factors listed above favor final approval of the Settlement. A. Strength of Plaintiffs Case Plaintiffs argue that, even though they believe that they would ultimately prevail, [t]he case is especially tenuous as WMMSC and WAAC continue to deny any wrongdoing and would certainly challenge... liability and the measure and amount of restitution recoverable if this case were to proceed. (Final Approval Mot. at.) Plaintiffs contend that, in the absence of a settlement, a jury could This factor does not apply in the case.
9 Case :-cv-000-jls-rnb Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 determine that the disclosures at issue in this case were sufficient. (Id. at.) Further, Plaintiffs recognize that, based on prior precedent, there is some risk that their classwide restitution theory under the UCL still might not be accepted by this Court or an appeals court, and thus that Settlement Class Members may be found not to be entitled to substantial or even any restitution under the UCL. (Id. at -.) As the Court stated when granting Plaintiffs motion for preliminary approval, these risks create uncertainties that the settlement avoids by providing for a fund of $0,000,000 for the benefit of the class. (Preliminary Approval Order at ; Agreement..) The settlement amount represents a positive result for the class. (Id.) Further, the settlement includes a fair, reasonable, and adequate scheme for distributing payments to class members. (Preliminary Approval Order at.) The Court therefore concludes that this factor weighs in favor of granting final approval. B. Complexity and Expense of Further Litigation This action settled after four years of litigation. (Final Approval Mot. at.) Plaintiffs note that WMMSC and WAAC continue to dispute the class action status of this litigation, and have indicated that, absent the Settlement, they would move for decertification in the future on the grounds that [Plaintiffs] cannot establish that UCL restitution can be calculated on a classwide basis and commonality is lacking. (Id. at ; Berns Decl., Doc. -.) Given the risks inherent in the class certification process and trial, the Class could be decertified and recover nothing. (See Final Approval Mot. at.) Undoubtedly, the expenses incurred by the Class will increase as the case progresses. Without a settlement, Plaintiffs and Class members would have to confront the contested factual and legal issues in pretrial motions and at trial.
11 Case :-cv-000-jls-rnb Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: favor of granting final approval. E. Stage of the Proceedings This factor requires the Court to evaluate whether the parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement. Linney v. Cellular Alaska P ship, F.d, (th Cir. ). This action settled after four years of litigation. (Final Approval Mot. at.) Extensive discovery had occurred during that time. (Preliminary Approval Order at ; Final Approval Mot. at,.) Significant written discovery has been served, hundreds of thousands of documents have been reviewed, and numerous depositions have been taken. (Final Approval Mot. at, -0.) Experts have been hired to analyze the merits of the case and estimate the maximum amount of damages recoverable should Plaintiffs succeed at trial. (Id. at, 0.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement. As such, the Court finds that this factor favors approving the Settlement. F. Absence of Collusion The Court finds no signs, explicit or subtle, of collusion between the parties. The maximum award of $,000,000 in attorneys fees and expenses authorized by the settlement agreement is not disproportionate to the benefits that have inured to the class as a result of this action. The same is true with respect to the two $,000 incentive payments Plaintiffs seek under the settlement. Moreover, this Settlement is the result of a mediation held before the Honorable Diane M. Welsh (Ret.). The mediator s involvement in the settlement is an additional factor that supports the argument that it is non-collusive. See Satchell v. Fed. Exp. Corp., No. C 0- SI, 00 WL 00, at * (N.D. Cal. Apr., 00).
13 Case :-cv-000-jls-rnb Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. IV. ATTORNEYS FEES Class Counsel seeks an award of attorneys fees of $,,00., which is.% of the settlement fund. (Attorneys Fees Mot. at.) Rule permits a court to award reasonable attorneys fees... that are authorized by law or by the parties agreement. Fed. R. Civ. P. (h). [C]ourts have an independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have already agreed to an amount. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., F.d, (th Cir. 0). In the Ninth Circuit, the benchmark for a fee award in a common fund case is % of the recovery obtained. Id. at. The Ninth Circuit has identified a number of factors the Court may consider in assessing whether an award is reasonable and whether a departure from that figure is warranted, including: () the results achieved; () the risk of litigation; () the skill required and quality of the work; and () the contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried by counsel in representing the class. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0-0 (th Cir. 00). The Court will consider each in turn. A. Results Achieved The overall result and benefit to the class from the litigation is the most critical factor in granting a fee award. In re Omnivision Techs, Inc., F. Supp. The Court also approves Plaintiffs proposed cy pres distribution to the National Consumer Law Center and National Foundation for Credit Counseling. Class Counsel seeks a total award of $,000, for attorneys fees and costs. (See generally Attorneys Fees Mot.) Class Counsel requests $,. in costs. (Attorneys Fees Mot. at ; Berns Decl., Doc. -.) Thus, Class Counsel requests $,,00. in attorneys fees ($,000, $,.).
16 Case :-cv-000-jls-rnb Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 U.S., 0 F.d, 00 (th Cir. 00). Here, class counsel has expended thousands of attorney and paralegal hours on this case in total. (See generally Berns Decl., Doc. - and accompanying exhibits and declarations.) At their regular and customary hourly rates, class counsel has incurred $,,. in attorneys fees under the lodestar approach. (Berns Decl., Doc. -.) Class counsel seeks $,,00. in attorneys fees, only a. fee multiplier under the lodestar approach. (Attorneys Fees Mot. at.) The lodestar crosscheck therefore confirms the reasonableness of a $,,00. fee award in this case. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds departure is warranted from the Ninth Circuit s benchmark of % of the common fund recovery. Accordingly, the Court approves class counsel s request for attorneys fees in the amount of $,,00.. V. COSTS Class counsel also requests the Court approve $,. in expenses and litigation costs. (Attorneys Fees Mot. at ; Berns Decl., Doc. -.) The Amended Agreement provides that Class Counsel may seek an award of up to 0% for fees and costs. (Agreement..) The total amount that class counsel now seeks for fees and costs complies with the limitation in the settlement agreement. Attorneys may recover their reasonable expenses that would typically be billed to paying clients in non-contingency matters. Omnivision, F. Supp. d at 0. Class counsel has documented expenses incurred in prosecuting this action. (See generally Berns Decl., Doc. - and accompanying exhibits and declarations). Class counsel also anticipates some additional costs associated with further filing and the final fairness hearing. (Attorneys Fees Mot. at -.) The Court concludes that class counsel s expenses are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court approves the reimbursement of $,. in costs.
17 Case :-cv-000-jls-rnb Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 VI. ENHANCEMENT TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE The settlement agreement authorizes $,000 enhancement awards for Timothy and Cheryl Peel. (Agreement..) District courts have the discretion to award incentive payments to named plaintiffs as compensation for their actions taken on behalf of the class. Staton, F.d at ; In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d, (th Cir. 000). The Ninth Circuit recently emphasized that district courts must scrutiniz[e] all incentive awards to determine whether they destroy the adequacy of the class representatives. Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions Inc., F.d, (th Cir. 0). Here, the incentive award appears justified because for four years the Peels have () communicated with class counsel, () responded to class counsel s requests for information, () responded to discovery requests, () copied and produced hundreds of pages of documents, () expended significant time preparing and attending depositions, () and reviewed the settlement agreements and papers filed in this action. (Attorneys Fees Mot. at ; Berns Decl., Ex., Timothy Peel Decl. -, Doc. -; Berns Decl., Ex., Cheryl Peel Decl. -, Doc. -; Berns Decl., Doc. -.). Cf. Rausch v. Hartford Fin. Serv. Grp., No. 0-CV--BR, 00 WL, at * (D. Or. Feb., 00) (granting $0,000 incentive fee award). Accordingly, the Court approves the $,000 enhancement awards to Timothy and Cheryl Peel. /// /// /// /// VII. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff s Motions.
Case :-md-0-mma-mdd Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT LITIGATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MDL No.
Case 3:09-cv-00440-JGH Document 146 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2843 DANA BOWERS, et al. PLAINTIFFS V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO.
Case 1:11-cv WHP Document 264 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.