Carr v. Tadin, Inc., Case No. 12–CV–3040 JLS JMA.

• Decision Date: 05 December 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 12–CV–3040 JLS JMA.
• Citation: 51 F.Supp.3d 970
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: Jennell CARR and Phyllis Sierra, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. TADIN, INC., Defendant.

51 F.Supp.3d 970

Jennell CARR and Phyllis Sierra, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs
v.
TADIN, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 12–CV–3040 JLS JMA.

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed Dec. 5, 2014.

51 F.Supp.3d 973

Kas L. Gallucci, Ronald Marron, Alexis M. Wood, Beatrice Skye Resendes, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Larry M. Arnold, James W. Denison, Cummins & White LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS (ECF Nos., 43, 40)

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Jennell Carr and Phyllis Sierra's (“Plaintiffs,” or, “Class Representatives”) Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 43), as

51 F.Supp.3d 974

well as Defendant Tadin, Inc.'s (“Defendant”) Statement of Non–Opposition (ECF No. 45), the sole objection to the settlement (Decl. of Ronald A. Marron in Supp. of Mot. for Final Approval (“Marron Decl.”) Ex. 1, ECF No. 43–1), and the Declaration of Compliance by Class Action Administrator Gajan Retnasaba (ECF No. 41). Also before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards (ECF No. 40), the Declaration of Posting of Fee Motion by Class Action Administrator Gajan Retnasaba (ECF No. 43–2), and Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (ECF No. 49). A final approval hearing was held on July 21, 2014. (ECF No. 46.) Having considered the Motions and the law, the Court GRANTS final approval of the class action settlement and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Defendant's purported misrepresentations concerning certain of its weight loss teas and dietary supplements (“the Products”). (Mot. for Final Approval 6, ECF No. 43.) Plaintiffs allege claims including breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; the False Advertising Law (“FAL”), California Business and Professions Code § 17500 et seq.; and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), California Civil Code § 1750 et seq. (See generally 1st Am. Compl., ECF No. 17.)

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on April 18, 2014, 2014 WL 7497152. (ECF No. 37.) The Court held a final approval hearing on July 21, 2014. (ECF No. 46.)

TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The proposed settlement class (“the Settlement Class,” or, “the Class”) consists of “[a]ll U.S. consumers who purchased the Products (listed in Exhibit A to the Agreement) for household or personal use during the Class Period (December 21, 2008 to the Objection Deadline, as set by the Court).” (Settlement Agreement ¶ 7.1, ECF No. 34–2.)

The January 6, 2014 Settlement Agreement requires Defendant to provide the Settlement Class with injunctive relief by modifying the labeling of and packaging for the Products. (Id. ¶ 4.1.) The Settlement Agreement does not provide the Settlement Class with any monetary relief, purportedly because (1) the CLRA would have precluded a damages award at trial, (2) “[i]t would be cost prohibitive to implement a claims procedure to refund” the average price of the Products, which is approximately $2 per box, and (3) the injunctive relief is a substantial and more important form of relief. (Mot. for Final Approval 9–10, ECF No. 43; Settlement Agreement ¶ 4.1, ECF No. 34–2.)

Defendant agreed to pay: (1) $50,000 to Class Counsel for the purpose of providing notice to the class; (2) $297,000 in attorneys' fees and costs; and (3) incentive awards of $1,500 to each of the Class Representatives. (Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 5.1, 9.1, ECF No. 34–2.) In exchange, Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class release all of their claims, known and unknown, against Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 6.1–6.4.)

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

A threshold requirement for final approval of the settlement of a class action is

51 F.Supp.3d 975

the assessment of whether the Class satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and the requirements of one of the types of class actions enumerated in subsection (b). Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019, 1022 (9th Cir.1998). No facts that would affect these various requirements have changed since this Court preliminarily approved the Class on April 18, 2014. Accordingly, this Order incorporates by reference its prior analysis under Rules 23(a) and (b) as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. (See Prelim. Approval Order 3–9, ECF No. 34.)

Moreover, before granting final approval of a class-action settlement, the Court must determine that the Class received adequate notice. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1025. “Adequate notice is critical to court approval of a class settlement under Rule 23(e).” Id. This Court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed notice plan (“the Notice Plan”). (See Prelim. Approval Order 12–15, ECF No. 34.) On June 20, 2014, class action administrator Classaura (“Classaura,” or “the Class Action Administrator”) filed a declaration detailing the actions it has taken with regard to this class action, including providing notice. (See generally EC No. 41.) A review of the declaration and attached exhibits reveals that Classaura provided notice in accordance with the Notice Plan. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Class received adequate notice of the Settlement.

Finally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), where the proposed settlement would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Ninth Circuit has enumerated various factors that the court should consider in determining whether a proposed settlement meets the fair, reasonable, and adequate standard, including, inter alia: (1) the strength of plaintiffs' case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; (8) and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. This determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Id.

The Court held a final approval hearing on July 21, 2014. (ECF No. 46.) The Court now addresses each of the Hanlon factors in turn.

I. Strength of Plaintiffs' Case and Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further Litigation

Plaintiffs state that they are “confident in the strength of their claims” and “believe that they could obtain class certification, at least of a California class, defeat dispositive motions filed by Defendant, and proceed to trial on the merits,” where they believe they could meet their evidentiary burden. (Mot. for Final Approval 13, ECF No. 43.) Nonetheless, “Plaintiffs recognize Defendant has factual and legal defenses that, if successful, would defeat or substantially impair the value of Plaintiffs' claims.” (Id. ) Moreover, the claims admittedly involve complex issues of law that would require extensive resources and time to research and resolve. (Id. ) Settlement eliminates these risks. (Id. at 13–14.) Given that full litigation of these issues would be a timely and costly endeavor not guaranteed to yield any benefit to the Class, the Court finds that these

51 F.Supp.3d 976

factors weigh in favor of approving the settlement.

II. Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout the Trial

Plaintiffs urge that Defendant would have opposed certification had the case not settled and that potential issues of ascertainability may have prevented the class from being, or remaining, certified. (Id. at 16–17.) In light of Defendant's nonobjection to certification for the purposes of settlement only, the Court finds that this factor favors approving the settlement.

III. Amount Offered in Settlement

The Settlement Agreement provides for injunctive relief, namely the redesigning of the labeling and packaging of the Products. (Id. at 17.) This relabeling is purportedly “the relief [Plaintiffs] most desire.” (Id. at 18.) The Settlement Agreement also provides for Defendant to pay: (1) the costs of notice to the class, (2) the Class's reasonable attorney's fees, and (3) incentive awards to the Class Representatives. (Id. at 17.) Plaintiffs urge that the relief offered is “substantial” and “should not be underestimated.” (Id....