Ferrell v. Buckingham Property Management ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN FERRELL, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00332-NONE-SAB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING THE FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND 13 v. DOCUMENTATION RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 14 BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT MANAGEMENT, 15 (Doc. Nos. 19, 24) Defendant. 16 THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 17 On November 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class 18 action settlement in this action. (Doc. No. 19.) On January 21, 2020, the magistrate judge issued 19 findings and recommendations recommending the granting of the motion for preliminary 20 approval and certifying the class for settlement purposes. (Doc. No. 24.) The findings and 21 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of 23 service. No objections have been filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court orders the 26 parties to file supplemental briefing and documentation addressing the following issues: 27 1. Additional documentation supporting the valuation of each of plaintiffs’ claims, 1 including how the parties initially arrived at the potential value of each claim 2 (before discounts); 3 2. The reasonableness of an award of attorneys’ fees in an amount up to 35% of the 4 Settlement Fund under the circumstances of this case and in light of the results 5 obtained; 6 3. An estimate of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees if calculated under the lodestar method 7 and assurance that documentation will be submitted with the motion for final 8 approval allowing the court to conduct a lodestar cross-check at that time; 9 4. The fairness and reasonableness of reverting unclaimed amounts above the 10 Minimum Distribution Floor to defendant’s share of payroll taxes and 11 contributions, and the remaining amount to be retained by defendant; 12 5. The estimated value of the payroll taxes and contributions, in both absolute and 13 percentage terms; 14 6. With respect to the FLSA collective action, additional information and detail 15 regarding the existence of a bona fide dispute (i.e., whether there are legitimate 16 questions about the existence and extent of defendant’s FLSA liability), including 17 the basis on which defendant “denies any liability of any kind associated with the 18 claims and allegations” and maintains that it has complied with the applicable 19 laws in all respects (Doc. No. 19 at 10); and 20 7. Whether the estimated value of plaintiffs’ FLSA claims includes liquidated 21 damages. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Haro v. City of L.A., 745 F.3d 1249, 1259 (9th 22 Cir. 2014) (“Double damages are the norm; single damages the exception [for 23 FLSA claims].”). 24 8. Additional documentation indicating whether plaintiffs’ counsel and their firm 25 have any conflicts of interest in this case; 26 9. Additional documentation indicating whether a copy of the proposed settlement 27 was submitted to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency wOASe Lf OU INMM IN SPA MMU IO Ie AY MV VI 1 Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 959, 971 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (noting proposed settlement 2 should be submitted to LWDA to allow it to comment if it so desires) (internal 3 citations omitted). 4 The parties shall file a brief responsive to these issues within thirty (30) days from the 5 | date of service of this order. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ 4 Dated: _ May 5, 2020 LL 1 Yrod 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28