18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 473 settled the matter and the Court granted preliminary settlement approval. The Court certified for settlement purposes a class consisting of “all persons who, from January 1, 2013 to January 31, 2016, used the Uber App or website to obtain service from one of the Uber Ride Services with a Safe Rides Fee in the United States or its territories.” Id . at *4. The settlement provided each class member with $0.25 for their first Safe Rides Fee and $0.05 for each subsequent Safe Rides Fee, with an average recovery of approximately $1.07. Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, requesting 25% of the common settlement fund, or $8.125 million. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The Court declined to award the entire fee, as it ruled that the value conferred on the class by the settlement’s injunctive relief component was not sufficiently quantifiable to be directly included in the common fund. The injunctive relief consisted of a promise by Defendant to stop engaging in the conduct, which Plaintiffs valued at $56 million. The Court did not accept that valuation, and therefore it did not consider any additional amount to the common fund based on the settlement’s injunctive relief component for purposes of determining attorneys’ fees. The Court also found that a lodestar cross-check showed that even a reduced award would adequately compensate class counsel relative to the results they achieved. Id . at *21. The Court held that Plaintiffs’ proposed hourly rates and hours spent litigating the case were reasonable, and the class counsel thus estimated the lodestar to be $1,961,905. Id . at *22. The Court concluded that the lodestar amount was a reasonable estimate of counsel’s investment of time in the litigation. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ requested fee award of $8.125 million would result in a multiplier of 4.14, which under the circumstances it found too large. The Court thus awarded attorneys’ fees of $5,689,440. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs’ requested costs appeared reasonable, and it granted reimbursement of the requested costs in full. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Reyes, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. , 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 10120 (9th Cir. April 8, 2021) . Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The parties ultimately settled the action, and the District Court granted preliminary settlement approval and an award of attorneys’ fee award of 35% of the total settlement fund. The settlement called for automatic payment to class members of $270 after deductions. The action was reassigned due to the presiding judge’s retirement. Class counsel thereafter filed a motion for final settlement approval and requested a fee award of 33%, to which no objection was made. The District Court, however, granted a 16.67% fee, and class counsel appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling, finding that there was no reasonable explanation given for the departure from the typical 25% attorneys’ fee award given in these cases. The Ninth Circuit noted that when the percentage method is used to calculate fees, 25% of the fund is the "benchmark" award in the circuit. Id . at *2. The Ninth Circuit determined that none of the factors warranting a reduction to the benchmark were present, as class counsel was successful, assumed significant risk in taking on the litigation, the matter presented a fairly unique fact pattern with little existing case law in support, and counsel spent significant time on the litigation. Further the Ninth Circuit ruled that assuming a 25% award, the lodestar crosscheck would lead to a multiplier of 2.88, well within the appropriate range. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling granting attorneys’ fees and costs. Reyes, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-563 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2021). Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The parties ultimately settled the action, and the District Court granted preliminary settlement approval. Plaintiffs’ counsel sought an award of attorneys’ fee of 35% of the total settlement fund. After the matter was reassigned to a new judge due to retirement, the District Court reduced the 35% award and instead granted a 16.67% fee, and class counsel appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling on the grounds that there was no reasonable explanation given for the departure from the typical 25% benchmark in attorneys’ fee given in class action litigation. On remand, class counsel filed an unopposed motion seeking the 25% attorneys’ fee award, and the District Court granted the motion. As a result, the District Court awarded class counsel $6 million, which was equivalent to 25% of the common settlement fund. Sullivan, et al. v. St.-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp ., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90089 (D. Vt. May 10, 2021). Plaintiffs in two actions sought to recover under theories of negligence, trespass, strict liability, and nuisance for contamination of surface and groundwater with perfluorooctanoic acid and other manufactured compounds from Defendant’s plant. The parties ultimately settled the actions. However, they could not agree on