Case Name: Jackson Stovall v. Golfland Entertainment Centers, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 16-CV-299913

This is a putative wage and hour class action by employees of defendant Golfland Entertainment Centers, Inc. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved on October 20, 2017. Plaintiff now moves for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and enhancement award. Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.

I. Legal Standard for Approving a Class Action Settlement

Generally, “questions whether a settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was proper, and whether the attorney fee award was proper are matters addressed to the trial court’s broad discretion.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-235, citing Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794.)

In determining whether a class settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, the trial court should consider relevant factors, such as the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, 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, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

(Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at pp. 244-245, internal citations and quotations omitted.)

The list of factors is not exclusive and the court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245.) The court must examine the “proposed settlement agreement to the extent necessary 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.” (Ibid., quoting Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1801, internal quotation marks omitted.)

The burden is on the proponent of the settlement to show that it is fair and reasonable. However “a presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.”

(Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245, citing Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) The presumption does not permit the Court to “give rubber-stamp approval” to a settlement; in all cases, it must “independently and objectively analyze the evidence and circumstances before it in order to determine whether the settlement is in the best interests of those whose claims will be extinguished,” based on a sufficiently developed factual record. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.)

II. Terms and Administration of the Settlement

The terms of the settlement are as follows. The non-reversionary $450,000 gross settlement includes a $7,500 payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency associated with plaintiff’s PAGA claim (seventy-five percent of the $10,000 allocated to PAGA penalties). Attorney fees of up to $149,850 (one-third of the gross settlement), litigation costs estimated at $25,000, and administration costs capped at $25,000 will also be paid from the gross settlement, along with defendant’s share of payroll taxes. The named plaintiff will seek an enhancement award of $2,500.

The remaining net settlement will be distributed to class members pro rata, with 20% allocated to W-2 wages and 80% to interest and penalties. Class members will not be required to submit a claim to receive their payments. Funds associated with checks uncashed after 90 days will be tendered to the California Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the class member.

Class members who do not opt out of the settlement will release claims that accrued during the class period and “reasonably relate to or reasonably arise out of the causes of action alleged and prosecuted in Plaintiff’s Complaint,” including specified wage and hour claims.

The notice process has now been completed. There were no objections to the settlement and 14 requests for exclusion from the class, representing less than two percent of class members. Of 955 notice packets, 53 were re-mailed to updated addresses located through skip tracing or provided by the U.S. Postal Service or by class members themselves. 15 notices were ultimately undeliverable. The claims administrator estimates that the payment to each class member will be $265.76.

At preliminary approval, the Court found that the proposed settlement provides a fair and reasonable compromise to plaintiff’s claims. It finds no reason to deviate from this finding now, especially considering that there are no objections. The Court consequently finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable for purposes of final approval.

III. Attorney Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award

Plaintiff seeks a fee award of $149,850, or 1/3 of the gross settlement, 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 fees from the fund itself. Plaintiff also provides a lodestar figure of $180,245, based on 332.1 hours expended on the case by attorneys with billing rates ranging from $450 to $700 per hour. The lodestar results in a negative multiplier, and counsel’s time billed and billing rates appear to be reasonable. As a cross-check, the lodestar information supports the 1/3 percentage fee requested, particularly where there are no objections to the attorney fee request. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Intern. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503-504 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving fee award of 1/3 of the common fund, cross-checked against a lodestar resulting in a multiplier of 2.03 to 2.13].)

Plaintiffs also request $20,068.48 in costs, slightly below the $25,000 estimate that was provided at preliminary approval. The costs appear reasonable and are approved. The $20,000 in administrative costs are also approved.

Finally, plaintiff Stovall requests a service award of $2,500. To support his request, he submits a describing his efforts and indicating that he spent 50 to 75 hours on this action. The Court finds that the class representative is entitled to an enhancement award and the amount requested is reasonable.

IV. Conclusion and Order

The motion for final approval is GRANTED.

The following class is certified for settlement purposes:

All persons employed in lifeguard positions who underwent lifeguard certification at Ellis & Associates, Inc. or some other training facility designated by Defendant, and were required to purchase uniforms and equipment, at any time from September 14, 2012 to May 1, 2017.

The Court will prepare the order.