2016-00195723-CU-OE

David Williams vs. Nor Cal Beverage Co., Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Filed By: Spivak, David G.

Plaintiff David Williams’ unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement is tentatively granted pending the final fairness hearing to be held this date. (Code of Civil Procedure § 382, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.)

The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. (Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3rd 1117, 1138.)

The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where

substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Newberg on Class Actions 4th (4th ed. 2002) § 11.41 (and cases cited therein); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F.2d 1268, 1276; Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp. (9th Cir. 1976) 529 F.2d 943, 950; see also Potter v. Pacific Coast Lumber Co. (1951) 37 Cal.2d 592, 602.) The trial court has broad powers to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. (Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 1117, 1138.) In approving a class action settlement, the Court must “satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ‘ballpark’ of reasonableness.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.) In making its fairness determination, the Court should consider the relevant factors, such as the strength of the Plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expenses, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1801.)

The basic terms of the Settlement are as follows: (1) the Gross Fund Value is

$375,000.00; (2) a Net Settlement Amount of approximately $129,750.00 will be available for distribution to Settlement Class Members; (3) Plaintiffs request, and Defendant does not oppose, individual service award of $15,000.00 to the Named Plaintiff David Williams for his service on behalf of the Class; (4) a sum of $21,000.00 for PAGA penalties, of which 75% ($15,750.00) shall be paid to LWDA and the remaining 25% shall be distributed to the aggrieved employees; (5) the costs and expenses of Phoenix Settlement Administrators, totaling $9,500.00; (6) $200,000 in attorneys’ fees; and (7) the reimbursement of $10,000.00 in costs to Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

A review of the Settlement reveals the fairness of its terms. (Spivak Decl., Exh. B) The estimated Net Settlement Amount of $129,750.00, derived from a Gross Settlement Amount of $375,000.00, will result in fair and just relief to all Members of the Settlement Class. The average recovery for the Settlement Class Members is approximately $633.58. The result is not only within the reasonable standard, but Class Counsel believes it is quite reasonable when considering the difficulty and risks presented by continuing this litigation.

The Notice, as approved by the Court, was mailed to the Settlement Class on September 18, 2017. As of January 26, 2018, no class members have submitted and objection and only two submitted requests for exclusion. (Kruckenberg Decl., ¶ ¶ 5, 9-10). Reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that all members of the Settlement Class receive the Notice. Accordingly, the notice process satisfies the “best practicable notice” standard.

While the Court’s ruling indicates that it will give its final approval to the class action settlement and approve class counsel’s fee requests and the class representative service fee, the Court must still hold the final fairness hearing to allow potential class members the opportunity to be heard. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.)

The service award is reasonable and is approved. Courts award service payments to advance public policy by encouraging individuals to come forward and perform their civic duty in protecting the rights of the class, as well as to compensate class representatives for their time, effort and inconvenience. It is well-established that representative plaintiffs are eligible for reasonable incentive payments to compensate them for the expense or risk they have incurred in conferring a benefit on other

members of the class. (Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 399,412.

Under the terms of the Settlement, Class Counsel may seek an award of $200,000.00. The requested attorneys’ fees are reasonable when compared to Class Counsel’s lodestar amount. Here, Class counsel’s current lodestar is currently $106,534.00, with a multiplier of 1.877, which is within the range charged by attorneys with comparable experience and qualifications and are is reasonable.

The Court’s inquiry allows it to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned. Nordstrom Com. Cases (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 576, 581. C.R.C., Rule 3.769.

The Court will sign the proposed formal order at the conclusion of the hearing.