United States District Court, D. Nevada
DANIEL SMALL, CAROLYN SMALL, WILLIAM CURTIN, DAVID COHEN, LANETTE LAWRENCE and LOUISE COLLARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, a political subdivision of Clark County, State of Nevada, CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, and JOHN ESPINOZA, an individual, Defendants.
PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Marc L. Godino (admitted pro hac
vice) Kara M. Wolke (admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for
FINAL ORDER APPROVING JOINT MOTION FOR COLLECTIVE
ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE
P. Gordon, United States District Court Judge.
Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Collective
Action Settlement came on for hearing before the Honorable
Judge Andrew Gordon on May 29, 2019, at 2 p.m. The Court,
having considered the papers and pleadings submitted in
support of the Motion, HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Court grants the Motion based upon the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement) between
Plaintiffs and Defendants.
Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
litigation and all matters relating thereto, including
Plaintiffs, all settlement class members, and Defendants.
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216, the Court certifies as
final, for purposes of settlement only, a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The
class shall consist of Plaintiffs Daniel Small, Carolyn
Small, William Curtin, David Cohen, Lanette Lawrence, and
Louise Collard, and all Opt-In Plaintiffs who were employed
by Defendants between July 27, 2009, to December 31, 2012 who
timely returned valid Opt-In Consent Forms on or before
October 14, 2013.
Parties' Settlement in the amount of Four Million Two
Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($4, 250,
000.00)(the "Settlement") is the product of
contested litigation to resolve bona fide disputes
over the availability and amount of overtime wages.
Court finds that the Settlement appears to be fair, adequate,
and a reasonable resolution of the litigation. The
non-exhaustive list of factors courts typically consider in
evaluating a proposed settlement for fairness include: (1)
the strength of plaintiffs' case; (2) the risk, expense,
complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3)
the extent of the discovery completed; (4) the stage of the
proceedings; and (5) the experience and views of counsel.
Trinh v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2009 WL 532556
at *1 (citing Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8
F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993)). Here, the Court agrees that
the application of these factors confirms that the Settlement
constitutes a fair and reasonable compromise of the
Parties' bona fide disputes. The Settlement
falls within the range of reasonableness and appears to be
Court approves the form of Notice of Settlement attached as
Exhibit 1 to the Settlement Agreement.
586 participating Class Members will be paid their portion
from the Settlement on a pro rata basis pursuant to the
formula and methodology set forth in the Joint Motion for
Approval of Settlement.
Court appoints Daniel Small, Carolyn Small, William Curtin,
David Cohen, Lanette Lawrence, and Louise Collard as Class
Representatives and approves an enhancement payment of Ten
Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($10, 000.00) each for their
services as Class Representatives in this matter.
Court approves a Service Award of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,
000.00) to each of the twenty Plaintiffs who were deposed and
responded to individual written discovery requests in
connection with this matter (the "Deposed
Court appoints Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, and Tostrud
Law Group, P.C., as Class Counsel, 11. Plaintiffs'
request for Class Counsels' fees in the amount of One
Million Two Hundred Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Seven
Dollars and Zero Cents ($1, 214, 107.00) is reasonable. This
amount represents 33% of the Maximum Settlement Amount after
deducting the $570, 885.00 Sanction Award from the Maximum
Settlement Amount. "The typical range of acceptable
attorneys' fees in the Ninth Circuit is 20 percent to
33.3 percent of the total settlement value with 25 percent
considered a benchmark percentage." Barbosa v.
Cargill Meat Sol. Corp., 297 F.R.D. 431, 448 (E.D. Cal.
2013) (citing Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1256
(9th Cir. 2000)). "In assessing whether the percentage
requested is fair and reasonable, courts generally consider
the following factors: (1) the results achieved; (2) the risk
of litigation; (3) the skill required; (4) the quality of
work performed; (5) the contingent nature of the fee and the
financial burden; and (6) the awards made in similar
cases." Sinanyan v. Luxury Suites Infl, LLC,
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21403, at * 11 (D. Nev. Feb. 8, 2018)
(citing Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043,
1047-50 (9th Cir. 2002)). Having considered these factors,
the Court finds the request for Class Counsels' fees in
the amount of $1, 214, 107.00 to be reasonable.
Court approves awarding Class Counsel an amount of Five
Hundred Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Five
Dollars and Zero Cents ($570, 885.00) pursuant to Judge
Leen's November 5, 2018 Order on ...