Selbe et al v. Peak Campus Management, LLC, No. 3:2014cv03238 - Document 114 (N.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; AND (2) PLAINTIFFS' AND CLASS COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, LITIGATION COSTS, AND ENHANCEMENT AWARDS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 29, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2016)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Selbe et al v. Peak Campus Management, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Doc. 114 ERIC B. KINGSLEY, Bar No. 185123 eric@kingsleykingsley.com LIANE KATZENSTEIN LY, Bar No. 259230 liane@kingsleykingsley.com KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 JOSHUA M. DAVID (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) jdavid@davidkampfrank.com NICHOLAS A. NUNES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) nanunes@davidkampfrank.com DAVID, KAMP & FRANK, L.L.C. 739 Thimble Shoals Boulevard, Suite 105 Newport News, VA 23606 Telephone: (757) 595-4500 Facsimile: (757) 595-6723 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs NICHOLAS SELBE, DANIEL GHYCZY, MAKAELA O’CONNELL, and ANNIYA LOUIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated 14 Counsel Continued on Next Page 12 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NICHOLAS SELBE, DANIEL GHYCZY, MAKAELA O’CONNELL, and ANNIYA LOUIS on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PEAK CAMPUS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-3238-MMC [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING: (1) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; AND (2) PLAINTIFFS’ AND CLASS COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, LITIGATION COSTS, AND ENHANCEMENT AWARDS Defendant. 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 3:14-cv-3238-MMC Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Continued From Previous Page: 3 ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON, Bar No. 183160 estaggs-wilson@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (213) 443-4299 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041 sboyce@littler.com FATEMEH MASHOUF, Bar No. 288667 fmashouf@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-7304 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 Attorneys for Defendant PEAK CAMPUS MANAGEMENT, LLC 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 3:14-cv-3238-MMC 1 ORDER 2 3 Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action 4 Settlement and Plaintiffs’ and Class Counsel’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, 5 Litigation Costs, and Enhancement Awards (the “Motions”) came on regularly for 6 hearing on April 29, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in the United States District Court for the 7 Northern District of California, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney presiding. All 8 parties were represented by counsel. 9 Having considered the memoranda and declarations, oral arguments of counsel, 10 and the relevant statutory and case law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s and Class 11 Counsels’ Motions and orders and finds as follows: 12 13 14 1. The Court FINDS that no member of the Rule 23 class or the FLSA collective action has objected to the settlement. 2. The Court FINDS that the settlement is fair and reasonable, and, 15 therefore, the Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement is 16 GRANTED. 17 2. The Parties’ proposed Stipulated Settlement Agreement of Class Action 18 Claims (the “Settlement”), which the Court preliminarily approved with certain 19 modifications as set forth in the Order Regarding Motion for Preliminary Approval of 20 Class and Collective Action Settlement (ECF No. 108), is APPROVED as so 21 modified. 22 3. The following Class and Collective Action is finally certified for 23 settlement purposes only pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 24 29 U.S.C. § 216(b): 25 26 27 28 All persons who have submitted a “Consent to Join Collective Action” in the instant Lawsuit prior to June 1, 2015 (“Opt-In Class Members”) and all individuals employed in the State of California between January 1, 2011 and August 1, 2014 who were employed in any of the following “Covered Positions”: All Star; Community Advisor; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 3:14-cv-3238-MMC 1 2 3 Community Assistant; Leasing All-Star; Work for Rent Leasing AllStar; or any combination thereof (“California Class Members”) (collectively, “Class Members”). 4 5 4. The appointment of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, Joshua M. David of 6 David, Kamp & Frank, L.L.C. and Eric B. Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley, APC as 7 Class Counsel is confirmed. 8 9 10 11 12 5. The appointment of Nicholas Selbe, Daniel Ghyczy, Makaela O’Connell, and Anniya Louis as Class Representatives is confirmed. 6. The appointment of Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator is confirmed. 7. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h) and 54(d) and Section 216 13 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have moved for an 14 award of attorneys’ fees, enhancement awards, and litigation costs. 15 16 17 8. This class action and collective action settlement resolves a wage-and- hour dispute on a class-wide basis. 9. The Court’s December 30, 2015 Order granted preliminary approval of 18 the Settlement, pursuant to which Plaintiffs and Class Counsel requested payment 19 from the Settlement Amount of attorneys’ fees of thirty percent (30%) of the 20 Settlement Amount, equating to $240,000.00, litigation costs of $24,473.43, and 21 enhancement awards for the Class Representatives totaling $24,000.00 to be allocated 22 $8,000.00, $8,000.00, $4,000.00, and $4,000.00, respectively. 23 10. Rule 23(h) provides that, “[i]n a certified class action, the court may 24 award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by . . . the 25 parties’ agreement.” The Rule further provides that “[a] claim for an award must be 26 made by motion under Rule 54(d)(2),” notice of which must be “directed to class 27 members in a reasonable manner” and that the Court “must find the facts and state its 28 legal conclusions under Rule 52(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)(1) & (3). In turn, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 3:14-cv-3238-MMC 1 2 Rule 54(d)(2) requires a claim for fees to be made by motion, and specifies its timing 3 and content, including, in relevant part, “the grounds entitling the movant to the 4 award” and “the amount sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). 5 11. All Class Members were advised of Class Counsel’s request for an award 6 of fees and costs in the Court-approved Class Settlement Notices. As directed by the 7 Court, on February 9, 2016, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel filed a separate Motion for 8 Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Costs, and Enhancement Awards (ECF No. 9 110). In the Class Settlement Notices, all Class Members were advised how to obtain 10 a copy of the Motion either from PACER or the Settlement Administrator’s website 11 where the Motion is readily available. 12 12. When “the settlement produces a common fund for the benefit of the 13 entire class, courts have discretion to employ either the lodestar method or the 14 percentage-of-recovery method” of calculating attorneys’ fees awards. In Re Bluetooth 15 Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). 16 13. Under the percentage-of-the-fund method, it is appropriate to base the 17 percentage calculation on the gross settlement amount. See generally Boeing v. 18 Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 479 (1980); Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 129 F.3d 19 1026, 1027 (9th Cir. 1997). 20 14. The Court adopts the percentage-of-the-fund approach here and finds that 21 the attorneys’ fees and litigation costs requested are reasonable. The fee award of 22 thirty percent (30%) of the fund is within the range of reasonable percentage fee 23 awards in this Circuit. Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 24 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that the Ninth Circuit has historically considered 25 twenty-five percent of the common fund a “benchmark” figure for attorneys’ fee 26 awards); Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11149, at *17, 2009 27 WL 248367 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (stating the exact percentage varies depending on the 28 facts of the case, and in “most common fund cases, the award exceeds that ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 3:14-cv-3238-MMC 1 2 benchmark.”); Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 3 1989) (“Ordinarily, however, such fee awards range from 20 percent to 30 percent of 4 the fund created.”). 5 15. A lodestar cross-check reveals that the attorneys’ fees requested, 30% of 6 the common fund amount, equating to $240,000.00, is substantially less than the 7 lodestar amount of $449,195.00. The Court finds that Class Counsel’s hours and 8 hourly rates are reasonable, thus, the requested fee award results in a “negative 9 multiplier” and the lodestar cross-check supports a finding that the requested 10 11 percentage of the fund, 30%, is both fair and reasonable. 16. Litigation costs are routinely awarded in addition to attorneys’ fees. See 12 Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 19 (9th Cir. 1994); Odrick v. UnionBanCal Corp., 13 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171413, at *17, 2012 WL 6019495 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012); 14 Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11149, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15 2, 2009). Class Counsel have advanced all costs incurred in this case and request 16 reimbursement from the common settlement fund in the total amount of $24,473.43, 17 including $23,223.43 in costs incurred and $1,250 in anticipated costs. Class Counsel 18 has provided a detailed itemization of these costs, and the Court FINDS that these 19 costs are reasonable. 20 17. The Court has the discretion to award enhancement awards, or incentive 21 fees, to named class representatives in a class action suit. Van Vranken v. Atl. 22 Richfield Co., 901 F.Supp. 294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 23 enhancement awards to the Class Representatives in this case are justified. 24 18. The Court FINDS that Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ and Class Counsel’s Motion for Award of 25 Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Costs, and Enhancement Awards is GRANTED. Class 26 Counsel is awarded a fee of thirty percent (30%) of the Settlement Amount, equating 27 to $240,000.00, and litigation costs of $24,473.43. The Class Representatives are 28 awarded total Enhancement Awards of $24,000.00, to be allocated $8,000.00 each to ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 3:14-cv-3238-MMC 1 2 Nicholas Selbe and Daniel Ghyczy and $4,000.00 each to Makaela O’Connell and 3 Anniya Louis. 4 19. The Settlement Administrator shall distribute the Settlement Amount to 5 the Class Members, Class Counsel, the Class Representatives, and the LWDA as 6 specified in the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 29, 2016 9 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 3:14-cv-3238-MMC
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
