Case Name: Tran v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P.
Case No.: 2011-1-CV-215599

This is a putative class action in which plaintiff Suzanne Tran (“Plaintiff”) alleges that defendant H & M Hennes and Mauritz L.P. (“Defendant”) has a policy and practice of requiring non-exempt employees to work substantial amounts of time “off-the-clock” and without pay, and failing to provide non-exempt employees with required meal and rest periods. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 1.) The FAC sets forth the following causes of action: [1] Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; [2] Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked; [3] Failure to Make Payment within the Required Time; and [4] Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code section 2698-99. The Complaint was filed on December 23, 2011 as a putative class action on behalf of Plaintiff Suzanne Tran and all other employees similarly situated as store management employees in Defendant’s stores in the State of California at any time within four years prior to the filing of the original complaint until resolution of this action.

On May 11, 2015, this Court granted class certification. Following class certification, the parties participated in extensive negotiations which resulted in a formal mediation with Michael Dickstein, Esq. The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding immediately following the mediation and continued negotiations on additional items which were ultimately memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. On February 29, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the settlement as well as attorney’s fees and costs and an incentive award.

As discussed in connection with the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, the terms of the settlement are as follows. The Gross Settlement Fund is $2,750,000, which is non-reversionary. The Net Settlement Fund is the amount to be paid in claims to the Class Members who submit timely claims. The Net Settlement Fund will represent the amount left after payment of administrative costs (approx. $30,000), attorney’s fees (not to exceed 1/3 of the Gross Settlement amount); costs (not to exceed $50,000) and an incentive award (not to exceed $25,000). In terms of the formula for distribution to the Class Members, the claims administrator shall take the entire number of workweeks worked by the entire class during the class period. The Net Settlement amount will then be divided by the total number of workweeks worked by the entire class to arrive at an amount per workweek. The total amount of workweeks for a particular class member shall be multiplied by the amount per workweek to arrive at the pro-rata share of the Net Settlement amount for a particular class member.

The notice and claim form process has now been completed. As of June 2, 2016, 507 timely claims have been filed and six late claims, which have been accepted by the parties. Four disputes regarding work week information have been submitted and have been approved. There are no requests for exclusion and no objections. Based on the 513 participating class members, the average claim value is $2,292.84. The minimum claim value is $44.15 and the maximum claim value is $9,381.58. Of the unclaimed amount of the settlement, 62.5% ($542,104.56) will be paid to the cy pres beneficiary DoSomething.org.

In connection with the prior motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, the Court found that the proposed settlement provides a fair and reasonable compromise to Plaintiff’s claims. The Court finds no reason to deviate from this finding now, especially in light of the fact that there are no objections.

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an attorney’s fee award of $916,666.67. This represents 1/3 of the Maximum Settlement Amount, which is not an uncommon contingency fee allocation. This award is facially reasonable under the “common fund” doctrine, which allows a party recovering a fund for the benefit of others to recover attorney’s fees from the fund itself. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Sweet (1995) 12 Cal.4th 105, 110-111.) Plaintiff’s counsel provides a lodestar figure of $590,930.00 based on 1,066.80 hours expended on the case, which results in a multiplier of 1.55. The Court finds that this multiplier is justified by the contingent nature of the fee, the lack of objections, and the significant recoveries by the class members. (See Serrano v. Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)

Plaintiff requests reimbursement for $46,920.58 in costs. This amount is approved. Plaintiff also requests $30,000 in claims administration costs. Plaintiff states, however, that this is an estimation. The Court will only approve reimbursement for costs actually incurred. Plaintiff must provide the actual amount of claims administration costs to the Court at the hearing.

Plaintiff requests a class representative award of $25,000. In support of the request, Plaintiff submits a declaration setting forth her efforts and time spent on the case. The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to a representative award. However, the Court finds the request for $25,000 to be excessive and the amount awarded is reduced to $15,000.

Subject to the above, the motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED.