This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/20/2021 at 02:00:00 (UTC).

BARBARA FELDER VS TBI AIRPORT MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/13/2019 BARBARA FELDER filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against TBI AIRPORT MANAGEMENT, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are WILLIAM F. HIGHBERGER, ELIHU M. BERLE and ANN I. JONES. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8563

  • Filing Date:

    03/13/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

WILLIAM F. HIGHBERGER

ELIHU M. BERLE

ANN I. JONES

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FELDER BARBARA

Defendants

AIRPORTS WORLDWIDE US HOLDINGS INC.

TBI AIRPORT MANAGEMENT INC.

TBI US OPERATIONS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SHEGERIAN CARNEY RICHARD

Defendant Attorney

OLAH FRANK C.

 

Court Documents

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement

2/10/2021: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHERYL A. KENNER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

2/10/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHERYL A. KENNER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE)

2/17/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE)

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

2/17/2021: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ...)

8/31/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ...)

Notice of Settlement

9/4/2020: Notice of Settlement

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

9/9/2020: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

9/11/2020: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

9/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: HEARING VACATED)

9/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: HEARING VACATED)

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

9/11/2020: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

11/16/2020: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW FOR FILING OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINA...)

11/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW FOR FILING OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINA...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW FOR FILING OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINA...)

1/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW FOR FILING OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINA...)

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

1/29/2021: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

Order - ORDER AUTHORIZING ELECTRONIC SERVICE (CASE ANYWHERE)

7/29/2020: Order - ORDER AUTHORIZING ELECTRONIC SERVICE (CASE ANYWHERE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

7/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

7/21/2020: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

48 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/18/2021
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 11, Ann I. Jones, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Failure to File Motion for Preliminary Approval) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • Docketat 11:29 AM in Department 11, Ann I. Jones, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Discharging Order to Show Cause)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketClerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketMotion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement; Filed by Barbara Felder (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketDeclaration Of Cheryl A. Kenner In Support OF Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement; Filed by Barbara Felder (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 11, Ann I. Jones, Presiding; Further Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • DocketClerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 11, Ann I. Jones, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (for Filing of Motion for Preliminary Approval) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review for Filing of Motion for Prelimina...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
63 More Docket Entries
  • 04/19/2019
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Barbara Felder (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Barbara Felder (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Docketat 09:49 AM in Department 10, William F. Highberger, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 03/21/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Barbara Felder (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Barbara Felder (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Barbara Felder (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******8563 Hearing Date: January 5, 2022 Dept: 11

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

BARBARA FELDER v. TBI AIRPORT MANAGEMENT, INC.

Date of Hearing: January 5, 2022

Department: SSC-11

Case No.: *******8563

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff seeks final approval of the settlement of the wage and hour class action.

Contingent on the release of claims not taking place until the settlement is fully funded, the Court approves the following:

(1) The Court certifies the class for purposes of settlement;

(2) The Court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable;

(3) Class counsel, Shegerian & Associates, Inc., is awarded $33,333.33 in attorney fees and $4,418.50 in costs;

(4) Class representative Barbara Felder is awarded an enhancement payment of $5,000;

(5) The settlement administrator, Simpluris, Inc., is awarded $2,500 in costs;

(6) Payment of $1,500 (75% of $2,000 PAGA penalty) payable to the LWDA is approved; and

(7) Class Counsel is ordered to provide an order consistent with this ruling and a judgment containing the class definition, release language, and a statement that no Class Members opted out by , 2022.

FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

California Rules of Court, rule 3.769(g), provides for an inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement prior to the final approval hearing. After this, the court must make and enter judgment, including a provision for the retention of the court's jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.769(h).) The class action may not be dismissed once judgment is entered. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.770.) All class settlements are subject to a settlement hearing and court approval before entry of judgment or final order.

The trial court has broad powers to determine whether a proposed settlement is fair. (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 438.) The California standard for approval of class settlements is similar to the federal requirement that the settlement be fair, reasonable, and adequate for class members overall. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.)

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

“Class Member(s)” means all hourly non-exempt airport employees who held any position in the Operations Department of TBI AIRPORT MANAGEMENT, INC. in Burbank, California at any time during the time period beginning March 13, 2015 through February 28, 2018. ( 6)

The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $100,000, non-reversionary. ( 15)

Defendant certifies that the number of workweeks for all Class Members from March 13, 2015 through February 28, 2018 is 2,315. However, if the actual number of workweeks for all Class Members during this time-period should exceed the Certified Workweek Amount by more than three percent (3%), the GSA shall be increased by the percentage difference between the Certified Workweek Amount and the actual number of workweeks for all Class Members from March 13, 2015 through February 28, 2018. Any workweeks of an Omitted Class Member must be included in the actual number of workweeks for purposes of this calculation. ( 43)

o “Certified Workweek Amount” means the total number of Workweeks, which is 2,315 workweeks, for all Class Members from March 13, 2015 through February 28, 2018. ( 2)

The Net Settlement Amount (“Net”) of $52,166.67 estimated at preliminary approval is the GSA minus:

Defendant’s share of employer taxes on the wage portion of the Individual Settlement Payments will be paid in addition to the Gross Settlement Amount. ( 44)

No Claim Requirement. Class Members shall not be required to submit a claim form in order to receive an individual settlement payment. ( 42.b)

Response Deadline. “Response Deadline” means the date forty-five (45) calendar days after the Settlement Administrator mails the Notice to Settlement Class Members and the last date on which Settlement Class Members may postmark written Requests for Exclusion or a Notice of Objection to the Settlement. For Settlement Class Members who are sent re-mailed Class Notices, the “Extended Response Deadline” shall mean forty-five (45) calendar days from the date the Settlement Administrator re-mails the Notice of Settlement to Class Members but not later than sixty (60) days from the Response Deadline. The Extended Response Deadline is the last date on which Settlement Class Members who are sent re-mailed Class Notices may postmark written Requests for Exclusion or a Notice of Objection to the Settlement. ( 29)

If four (4) or more Settlement Class Members submit written Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement, Defendant shall have, in its sole discretion, the option to terminate this Settlement. ( 47)

Calculation of Individual Settlement Payments: Defendant will calculate the Total Weeks Worked by each Settlement Class Member. The respective Total Weeks Worked for each Settlement Class Member will be divided by the Total Weeks Worked for all Settlement Class Members who do not opt out, resulting in the Payment Ratio for each Settlement Class Member. Each Settlement Class Member’s Payment Ratio is then multiplied by the Net Settlement Amount to determine his or her Individual Settlement Payment. ( 44.a.i)

“Payment Ratio” means the respective Total Weeks Worked for each Settlement Class Member divided by the sum of Total Weeks Worked for all Settlement Class Members. ( 25)

PAGA Members who exclude themselves from the Class Settlement shall still receive their pro-rata share of the twenty-five percent (25%) of PAGA settlement (i.e. the $500.00), to be calculated by the Settlement Administrator. ( 44.e)

Tax Allocation: Payment to the Class Members under this Settlement shall be attributed as follows: 1/3 to wages, 1/3 to penalties, and 1/3 to interest. ( 44.a)

Funding of the Settlement. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall provide the Gross Settlement Amount to the Settlement Administrator. ( 48)

Uncashed Checks. Any checks issued to Settlement Class Members shall remain valid and negotiable for one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of their issuance. ( 44.a) Funds represented by Individual Settlement Payment checks returned as undeliverable and Individual Settlement Payment checks remaining uncashed for more than one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days after issuance, plus any accrued interest in the Settlement Administrator’s qualified settlement fund that has not otherwise been distributed, will be tendered to the California State Controller’s Office’s Unclaimed Property Division in the name of the Participating Class Member. ( 44.b)

The Parties agree to use Simpluris, Inc. as Settlement Administrator. ( 32)

Notice of Final Judgment will be posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website. ( 46)

The proposed Settlement Agreement was submitted to the LWDA on June 7, 2021. (Supp. Declaration of Cheryl A. Kenner ISO Prelim, Exhibit 4.)

SCOPE OF RELEASE

Release By All Class Members. As of the Effective Date, Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members who are not excluded from this Settlement, on behalf of themselves and each of their heirs, representatives, successors, assigns and attorneys, hereby release Defendant and Released Parties from the Released Claims as consideration for Defendant’s payment of the Gross Settlement Amount. ( 75)

“Class Release” and “Released Claims” mean each member of the Settlement Class, except those who opt out or previously opted out, will release Defendant, and all of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, agents, employees (current and former), officers, directors, insurers, attorneys, predecessors, successors, and assigns, including Defendants’ respective pension, profit sharing, savings, health, and other employee benefit plans of any nature, from all claims rights, demands, liabilities, and causes of action, whether statutory, in tort, contract, or otherwise, alleged in the LWDA Letter and/or Operative Complaint or that could have been alleged based on the facts pleaded in the LWDA Letter and/or Operative Complaint, arising during the period from March 13, 2015 through February 28, 2018, including but not limited to claims under the California Labor Code, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, regulations, and/or other provisions of law, for failure to pay wages (including minimum wages, overtime and double time wages), failure to provide compliant meal periods and associated premium pay, failure to provide compliant rest periods and associated premium pay, failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure to timely pay wages upon termination of employment, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to maintain requisite payroll records, and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. Class Release also means any claims, rights, demands, liabilities, damages, wages, benefits, expenses, penalties, debts, obligations, attorneys’ fees, costs, any other form of relief or remedy in law, equity, or whatever kind or nature, and causes of action, that could potentially arise from the receipt of any monies as a result of this Settlement by any member of the Settlement Class. ( 9)

“Released Parties” means Defendant and all of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, predecessors, successors, and assigns, including Defendant’s respective pension, profit sharing, savings, health, and other employee benefit plans of any nature, as well as all agents, employees (current and former), officers, directors, insurers, and attorneys. ( 27)

“PAGA Release” means that each PAGA Member will release Defendant, and all of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, agents, predecessors, successors, and assigns, including Defendants’ respective pension, profit sharing, savings, health, and other employee benefit plans of any nature, from all claims for PAGA and California Labor Code section 558 penalties that arise out of or relate to the factual allegations pled in the operative Complaint, from November 9, 2017 and February 28, 2018, including: failure to pay wages (including minimum wages, overtime and double time wages), failure to provide compliant meal periods and associated premium pay, failure to provide compliant rest periods and associated premium pay, failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure to timely pay wages upon termination of employment, failure to timely pay wages during employment, and failure to maintain requisite payroll records. In light of the binding nature of a PAGA judgment on non-party employees pursuant to Arias v. Superior Ct. (Dairy), 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009), PAGA Members who exclude themselves from the Class Settlement shall still receive their pro-rata share of the twenty-five percent (25%) of PAGA settlement (i.e. the $500.00), to be calculated by the Settlement Administrator. ( 22)

Named Plaintiff will additionally provide a general release and 1542 waiver. ( 44.c)

Class Notice and Class Response

1. How was notice given? Simpluris, Inc. (“Simpluris”) is the administrator for this settlement. (Declaration of Cassandra Polites (“Polites Decl.”) 1.) On July 14, 2021, Defense Counsel provided Simpluris with the Class List, which contained 17 Class Members. (Id. at 5.) On July 23, 2021, after updating the mailing addresses through the NCOA, Notice Packets were mailed via First Class Mail to all 17 Class Members contained in the Class List. (Id. at 6.) 0 Notice Packets were returned to Simpluris as undeliverable. (Id. at 8.) The deadline for Class Members to submit a dispute, request for exclusion, or objection to the settlement was September 7, 2021. (Id. at 6.)

2. How many opted-out? 0. (Id. at 9.)

3. How many objected? 0. (Id. at 10.)

4. How many submitted a claim form? n/a

5. Estimate of recovery to each class member? If the Court takes the maximum requested deductions, $52,666.67 will remain to be distributed to 17 Class Members who did not opt out. The average individual settlement payment will be approximately $3,098.03. The highest individual settlement payment is $3,518.48. (Id. at 12.)

Evaluation of the Settlement

The Court must determine if the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness 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.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802 (“Dunk”).) As Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 250, further notes:

A settlement need not obtain 100 percent of the damages sought in order to be fair and reasonable. (See Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 1139 [settlements found to be fair and reasonable even though monetary relief provided was "relatively paltry"]; City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., supra, 495 F.2d at p. 455 [settlement amounted to only "a fraction of the potential recovery"].) Compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process. Thus, even if "the relief afforded by the proposed settlement is substantially narrower than it would be if the suits were to be successfully litigated," this is no bar to a class settlement because "the public interest may indeed be served by a voluntary settlement in which each side gives ground in the interest of avoiding litigation." (Air Line Stewards, etc., Loc. 550 v. American Airlines, Inc. (7th Cir. 1972) 455 F.2d 101, 109.)

The Court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable based on the following:

n Settlement was reached through arms’-length negotiations. Class Counsel represents that during the litigation of this case, the Parties agreed to mediate and scheduled a mediation session on May 18, 2020. (Declaration of Cheryl A. Kenner ISO Prelim 10.) However, they were ultimately able to arrive at a settlement without a mediator. (Id. at 16.) Class Counsel represents that in the months leading up to the scheduled mediation, the Parties explored the option of settling the case without a mediator in light of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as Defendant’s resulting limited resources because of the pandemic and for funding a settlement for 17 employees for a three-year Class Period. (Id. at 10.) The Settlement Agreement was executed in December 2020. (See Settlement Agreement pg. 24.)

n Investigation and discovery were sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently. Class Counsel represents that prior to the outset of the litigation, Plaintiff provided her Counsel with accounts of her experiences working for Defendant, and the circumstances that gave rise to the alleged Labor Code violations. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff’s written informal discovery requests led to the production of evidence, including the policies and practices directly at issue, as well as those policies and procedures that allegedly affected Defendant’s ability to comply with the Labor Code. Counsel represents that they analyzed hundreds of pages of data and documents produced by Defendant. Plaintiff’s Counsel sought and obtained all Class Members’ dates of employment, total workweeks, and payroll data. Plaintiff’s Counsel also received reports from Plaintiff who spoke with several Aggrieved Persons to determine the extent and frequency of the alleged violations and to learn more about the day-to-day circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations (Id. at 13.)

n Counsel is experienced in similar litigation. Yes. Class Counsel is experienced in complex litigation, including wage and hour class action cases. (Id. at 20-21.)

n The percentage of objectors is small. There were no objectors. (Polites Decl. 11.)

As noted in Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 399, 408:

…a trial court's approval of a class action settlement will be vacated if the court “is not provided with basic information about the nature and magnitude of the claims in question and the basis for concluding that the consideration being paid for the release of those claims represents a reasonable compromise.” (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 130.) In short, the trial court may not determine the adequacy of a class action settlement “without independently satisfying itself that the consideration being received for the release of the class members' claims is reasonable in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and the risks of the particular litigation.” (Id. at p. 129.)

Counsel provided the following exposure analysis in this matter:

Violation

Maximum Exposure

Realistic Exposure

Meal Period Claim

$234,741.00

$152,581.65

Rest Break Claim

$250,390.40

$162,753.76

Minimum/Overtime Wage Claims

$50,860.55

$33,059.36

Wage Statement Claim

$11,200.00

$7,280.00

PAGA Penalties

$169,323.00

Not provided

Total

$716,514.95

$355,674.77

(MPA at pgs. 12-19.)

The moving papers, declarations and exhibits attached thereto, have provided this Court with “basic information about the nature and magnitude of the claims in question and the basis for concluding that the consideration being paid for the release of those claims represents a reasonable compromise” such that this Court is satisfied “that the consideration being received for the release of the class members' claims is reasonable in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and the risks of the particular litigation.” (See Dunk, supra at p. 1802 [“So long as the record is adequate to reach ‘an intelligent and objective opinion of the probabilities of success should the claim be litigated’ and ‘form’ an educated estimate of the complexity, expense and likely duration of such litigation…it is sufficient.”].)

Costs and Fees

1. How much is requested for fees? The lodestar is the primary method of establishing the amount of reasonable attorney fees in California. (Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 556.) In common fund cases, courts may award fees pursuant to the percentage method, as cross-checked against the lodestar. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Intern., Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.)

Here, Class Counsel is requesting $33,333.33, pursuant to the percentage method. (Kenner Decl. ISO Final 22.) The fee request constitutes one-third of the settlement amount, which is the average range for class action litigation. (In re Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 558, fn. 13 [“Empirical studies show that, regardless of whether the percentage method or the lodestar method is used, fee award in class actions average around one-third of the recovery.”].)

Class Counsel has also summarized their lodestar as follows:

Attorney

Hours

Rate

Totals

Anthony Nguyen

45.0

$900

$40,500.00

Cheryl A. Kenner

128.7

$650

$83,655.00

Totals

173.7

$124,155.00

(Kenner Decl. ISO Final 21.)

Therefore, counsel’s total lodestar in this matter is $124,155, which requires a multiplier of 0.26x to get to the requested fees.

Because the fee request represents a reasonable percentage of the settlement fund, the Court awards fees in the amount of $33,333.33, which is well supported by the lodestar.

2. What are the costs claimed? Class Counsel is requesting $4,418.50 for litigation costs. (Kenner Decl. ISO Final 22.) The Settlement Agreement provides for a $5,000 settlement cap ( 44.d) that was made known to the class and not objected to. (Polites Decl. 11, Exhibit A thereto.) Costs include, but are not limited to filing fees, service fees, and Case Anywhere. (Kenner Decl. ISO Final, Exhibit B.)

As the costs appear to be reasonable in amount and appear to have been necessary to the litigation, the Court awards costs of $4,418.50.

3. Incentive payment to class representative? An incentive fee award to a named class representative must be supported by evidence that quantifies time and effort expended by the individual and a reasoned explanation of financial or other risks undertaken by the class representative. (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 806-807; Cellphone Termination Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1394-1395 [“‘[C]riteria courts may consider in determining whether to make an incentive award include: (1) the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; (3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; (4) the duration of the litigation and; (5) the personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation. [Citations.]’,”] [citing Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (N.D.Cal. 1995) 901 F.Supp. 294, 299.].)

Plaintiff Barbara Felder seeks an incentive award of $5,000. (MFA at 18:7-8.) Plaintiff represents that her contributions to this litigation include, but are not limited to: discussing the case with her counsel, responding to their inquiries, remaining in contact with them, and telephonically conferring with them on the day of mediation. (Declaration of Barbara Felder 4-7.) She does not provide an estimate of her total time spent on the case.

The Court finds that a Class Representative enhancement award of $5,000 to Plaintiff is reasonable under these circumstances.

4. Settlement Administration Costs? The settlement administrator, Simpluris, requests $2,500 for the costs of settlement administration. (Polites Decl. 14.) At the time of preliminary approval, costs for settlement administration were capped at $3,000 (Settlement Agreement 44.f), which was disclosed to class members and not objected to. (Polites Decl. 11, Exhibit A thereto.) Accordingly, the Court approves settlement administration costs in the amount of $2,500.

Final Report:

The Court orders class counsel to file a final report summarizing all distributions made pursuant to the approved settlement, supported by declaration.

The Court will set a non-appearance date for submission of a final report for .



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AIRPORTS WORLDWIDE US HOLDINGS INC is a litigant

Latest cases where TBI Airport Management, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer OLAH FRANK C.