MARIA C MARQUINA VS COUNTRY VILLA SERVICE CORP ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC471708    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted.

Specifically, Plaintiff’s motion for approval of the attorneys’ fees request of $283,472.70 split between Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to their fee-splitting arrangement is granted.

Plaintiffs Marcia Marquina (“Marquina”), Wisela S. Benton (“Benton”), and Gloribel Turcios (“Turcios”), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”), move for an order granting final approval of the proposed class action settlement with Defendants Country Villa Services Corp. dba Country Villa Health Services; AG Arcadia, LLC; AG Laguna Hills, LLC; AG La Mesa, LLC; AG Lynwood, LLC; AG Monrovia, LLC; AG Murrieta Snf, LLC; AG Rancho Mirage, LLC; AG Redlands, LLC; AG San Gabriel, LLC; AG Seal Beach, LLC; AG West Covina, LLC; CF Madera, LLC; CF Merced, LLC; CF Merced Behavioral, LLC; CF Merced La Sierra, LLC; CF Modesto, LLC; CF Quincy, LLC; CF San Rafael, LLC; CF Susanville, LLC; CF Watsonville East, LLC; CF Watsonville West, LLC; Country Villa East L.P.; Country Villa Imperial, LLC; Country Villa Nursing Center, Inc.; Country Villa South Bay, LLC; Mountainside Operating Company, LLC; and RRT Enterprises L.P., Country Villa Novato Heath Care Center, LLC, Petaluma Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC, Country Villa Pomona Healthcare Center, LLC, and San Marino Skilled Nursing and Wellness Centre, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) on the terms and conditions set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”) and entering judgment thereon. (Notice of Motion, pg. 6.)

Specifically, Plaintiffs move for an order: (1) granting final approval of the class action settlement; (2) certifying the instant case as a class action for settlement purposes only; (3) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for settlement purposes only; (4) appointing Joseph Lavi and Jordan D. Bello of the law firm of Lavi & Ebrahimian LLP (“L&E”), Sahag Majarian II of Law Offices of Sahag Majarian, II (“LOSM”), and Michael Nourmand, and James A. De Sario of The Nourmand Law Firm (“NLF”) (collectively “Class Counsel”) as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only; (5) approving the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable; (6) approving Plaintiff’s Counsel’s request for $283,472.70 in attorneys’ fees (33% of the maximum settlement amount) plus reimbursement of litigation costs of $8,006; (7) approving an enhancement of $6,900 to each Plaintiff for a total of $20,700 to all Plaintiffs; and (8) approving settlement administration costs of $75,000. (F-Notice of Motion, pg. 6.) (See CRC 3.766 and 3.769.) (See also C.C.P. §382.)

At the February 7, 2020 hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of class action settlement, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion motion except as to the issue of attorneys’ fees. Given the Court granted class certification for the purpose of settlement in its prior ruling, this ruling will only address the remaining issue of attorneys’ fees. To the extent necessary, the background of the action and the summary of the settlement set forth in the Court’s February 7, 2020 Ruling are incorporated by reference.

The Court continued the ruling on the attorneys’ fees award to allow Plaintiff to provide the court with supplemental briefing as to the following issues: (1) whether Plaintiffs gave written approval to a fee-splitting arrangement for the attorneys’ fees award and support for such approval; (2) why the fee-splitting arrangement provides for payment of 22.75% of awarded attorneys’ fees to the LOSM, when Plaintiffs submit no evidence suggesting this firm incurred hours in connection with this action, as the only submitted hours relate to the other two firms; and (3) support for the lodestar figures claimed by NLF, which only submitted a total number of hours worked by all of its attorneys without breaking down the number of hours each attorney worked on the action such that the Court can determine whether the lodestar calculation is correct.

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the following: (1) a Supplemental Brief (“Fee-Brief”); (2) a Supplemental Declaration of Jordan D. Bello (“Fee-Decl. of Bello”); (3) a Supplemental Declaration of Michael Nourmand (“Fee-Decl. of Nourmand”); and (4) a Declaration of Sahag Majarian (“Fee-Decl. of Majarian”) to address the issues raised in the Court’s ruling.

Attorneys’ Fees Request

Based on the supplemental filings, the Court finds Class Counsel’s request for an award of $283,472.70 (33% of the maximum settlement amount) in fees to be reasonable and supported. (F-Motion, pg. 5; F-Decl. of Bello ¶33.) The Settlement Agreement provides for fees up to 1/3 of the Gross Settlement Amount and costs up to $20,000 (Motion ISO Preliminary Approval, 4:16); class members were provided notice of the requested awards and none objected. (F-Motion, pg. 5; F-Decl. of Bello, Exh. 1: Amended Settlement Agreement, pgs. 8-10; Valdez Decl., Exh. A.) Class Counsel notes that the attorneys’ fees to be awarded will be split as follows: 42.25% to L&E, 22.75% to LOSM, and 35% to NLF. (F-Decl. of Bello ¶29.)

Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing addressed that the Plaintiffs have given written approval to the fee-splitting arrangement for the attorneys’ fees award. (Fee-Brief, pg. 5; Fee-Decl. of Bello ¶3; Fee-Decl. of Nourmand ¶6.) (See Mark v. Spencer (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 219; Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, §2-200; CRC 3.769.)

In addition, LOSM submitted support for its entitlement to a percentage of the attorneys’ fees award. Sahag Majarian II (“Majarian”) of LOSM declared he analyzed and researched Labor Code violations as to the employment practices of Defendants and, in the process, developed a thorough knowledge of the legal issues surrounding the facts of this case and was involved in investigating and solidifying theories of liability against Defendants. (Fee-Decl. of Majarian ¶5.) Majarian declared he was approached by Marquina in September 2011 in connection with potential employment law claims she believed she may have had against Defendant. (Fee-Decl. of Majarian ¶7.) Majarian declared after he conducted an investigation of the facts and data, he and his co-counsels at L&E decided to proceed with filing the class action against Defendant and in November 2011 retained to represent Turcios for issues she had while employed with Defendants. (Fee-Decl. of Majarian ¶7.) Majarian declared that throughout the past nine years he has been involved in the handling of the matter in work including prelitigation research and investigation of Defendant’s employment practices, communication with clients, investigation of witnesses, preparation of exposure model of damages, communication with co-counsels regarding moving the case toward resolution, and reviewing settlement agreements after the Defendants filed for bankruptcy. (Fee-Decl. of Majarian ¶8.) Majarian estimates he spent no fewer than 58 hours in this case, that his hourly rate is $700 per hour, and as such his unadjusted lodestar amount would be $40,600 in addition to $400 in costs Majarian incurred. (Fee-Dcl. Of Majarian ¶9.) The Court notes the fee splitting arrangement would provide LOSM with $64,490.03 in fees, which is greater than the lodestar amount. However, considering LOSM’s role in being approached by Marquina as her initial counsel, the overall lodestar amount being greater than the amount obtained via the fee award, and the parties’ agreement to split fees once it was agreed the cases should be coordinated in prosecuting litigation, the requested fees are reasonable. (Fee-Decl. of Bello ¶3; Fee-Brief, pgs. 5-7.)

“Courts recognize two methods for calculating attorney fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage of recovery method.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254.) Here, class counsel requests attorney fees using the percentage method but also provides sufficient information for the Court to assess whether the requested fees are reasonable pursuant to the lodestar method. (F-Motion, pgs. 12-17.)

In common fund cases, the Court may employ a percentage of the benefit method, as cross-checked against the lodestar. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) The fee request represents 33% of the gross settlement amount, which is the average generally awarded in class actions. (See In re Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 558, fn. 13 [“Empirical studies show that, regardless whether the percentage method or the lodestar method is used, fee awards in class actions average around one-third of the recovery.”].)

Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing also provided additional support for the lodestar amount for Class Counsel. Specifically, Nourmand provided a breakdown of the individual hours worked by the individual attorneys at NLF to support his assertion that the total number of hours worked at NLF amounted to 243 hours. (See Fee-Decl. of Nourmand ¶5.) Accordingly, the Court can confirm the $117,450 in fees claimed by NLF is correctly calculated based on hourly rate multiplied by the number of hours worked.

The supplemental briefing provides the updated lodestar amount for Class Counsel is $360,226, not $319,627 as previously submitted, based on $202,177 for L&E, $117,450 for NLF, and $40,600 for LOSM. (F-Motion, pg. 14; Fee-Briefing, pgs. 6-7.) This lodestar amount exceeds the $283,472.70 requested by Class Counsel and is reasonable and supported. Class Counsel submitted the following information in support of its lodestar calculations:

(F-Decl. of Bello ¶¶32, 34; F-Decl. of Nourmand ¶23; Fee-Brief, pgs. 6-7.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court awards attorneys’ fees in the requested amount.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, and based on the findings made in the Court’s February 7, 2020 Ruling, the Court grants final approval of the class action settlement as follows:

1. The Court grants final approval of the class action settlement;

2. The Court certifies the class for purposes of settlement;

3. The Court appoints Plaintiffs as Class representatives for settlement purposes;

4. The Court appoints Class Counsel as class counsel for settlement purposes;

5. The Court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable;

6. Class Counsel, Lavi & Ebrahimian LLP, Law Offices of Sahag Majarian, II, and The Nourmand Law Firm are awarded $283,472.70 in attorneys’ fees;

7. Class Counsel, Lavi & Ebrahimian LLP, Law Offices of Sahag Majarian, II, and The Nourmand Law Firm are awarded $8,006 in costs;

8. Class Representative Plaintiffs are each awarded an enhancement payment of $6,900;

9. The claims administrator, CPT, is awarded $75,000 in costs.

Dated: August _____, 2020