Chamberlain v. Baker Hughes, a GE Company, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL CHAMBERLAIN, No. 1:19-cv-00831-DAD-JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC, (Doc. No. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 In connection with the parties’ joint stipulation and proposed order for approval of the 19 proposed PAGA settlement (Doc. No. 15), the parties are directed to file supplemental briefing 20 addressing the following issues: 21 1. Further description of the litigation costs accrued, including the relevance of 22 particular costs to the PAGA claim (see, e.g., Doc. No. 14-5) (listing “travel 23 expenses (1-13-20)” and “large meeting room rental” without specifying how 24 these costs pertain to the PAGA claim.); 25 2. The reasonableness of an award of attorneys’ fees in an amount up to 40 percent of 26 the Gross Settlement Fund in light of the circumstances of this case (which appear 27 to include a settlement reached at an early stage of the litigation without significant 28 motion practice and with a clear sailing provision of the proposed settlement 1 pursuant to which defendant agrees not to oppose the requested fee award) and the 2 results obtained; 3 3. A clear estimate of the hours expended by plaintiff’s counsel in relation to the 4 PAGA claim and documentation allowing the court to conduct a lodestar cross- 5 check;1 6 4. Any additional information regarding the fundamental fairness, reasonableness, 7 and adequacy of the proposed PAGA settlement offer,2 such as the methodology 8 used to reach the proposed settlement amount of $25,000;3 9 1 Although attorney Karl Gerber’s declaration avers that the attorneys’ fees award is based on an hourly rate well below the lodestar, (see Doc. No. 14 at ¶ 19), the court must nonetheless have 10 adequate documentation to perform its own lodestar crosscheck. While 11 an attorney is not required to record in great detail how each minute 12 of his time was expended . . . [and] can meet his burden—although just barely—by simply listing his hours and identifying the general 13 subject matter of his time expenditures . . . parties are subject to a reduction in the hours awarded when they fail to provide adequate 14 documentation, notably contemporaneous time records. 15 Tenorio v. Gallardo, No. 1:16-cv-00283-DAD-JLT, 2019 WL 3842892, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 16 2019) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (approving a summary of attorneys’ fees but applying a reduction). Here, attorney Karl Gerber’s declaration includes a summary of the 17 hours expended in resolving the PAGA claim. (See Doc. No. 14 at ¶ 19.) However, this narrative breakdown presents seemingly questionable calculations (see id. (relying on an estimate of 110 18 hours to perform the lodestar crosscheck while listing loose quantifications that seemingly total, 19 at minimum, 135 hours), as well as inconsistent hourly rates (compare id. (“Significant work on this case includes in-house data entry and computations for Plaintiff (approximately 20 hours at 20 $150.00 an hour)”) with id. (“analysis and computations on the payroll records produced for the PAGA group by me 50 hours at $600 an hour”). The court also notes that “[t]he fee applicant 21 bears the burden of producing satisfactory evidence ‘that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, 22 experience and reputation.’” Tenorio, 2019 WL 3842892 at *3. 23 2 The court’s determination as to fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy may involve a balancing 24 of several factors including but not limited to the following: the strength of plaintiffs’ claims; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the amount offered in 25 settlement; the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings; and the experience and views of counsel. See Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of 26 San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). 27 3 While attorney Karl Gerber’s declaration explains some of his rationale behind the settlement 28 amount, (see Doc. No. 14 at ¶¶ 13–15), these propositions lack support or points of reference, wOow 4:40 MAAR VRP MVMVUPTOCITI CO FOU Ur ter OY VV VI 1 The parties shall file a brief responsive to these issues within ten (10) days from the date 2 | of this order. 3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 4 Li. wh F Dated: _ April 16, 2020 we fo 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 *6 such as cases involving similar claims and settlement amounts. (See, e.g., id. at § 15 (“Many 27 | believe a class action that achieves a 10% recovery rate is very good.”); id. at § 16 (“Although there have been some alleged, and some reported seven-figure PAGA settlements lately they 28 | involve much larger groups; thousands if not 50,000.”))