Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

• Citation: 269 F.Supp.3d 975
• Decision Date: 14 September 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 08–cv–05221–SI
• Parties: Charles RIDGEWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL–MART STORES INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

269 F.Supp.3d 975

Charles RIDGEWAY, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.WAL–MART STORES INC., Defendant.

Case No. 08–cv–05221–SI

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed September 14, 2017

Andrew Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M. Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones, Lawrence Mark Artenian, Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Paul Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Fresno, CA, Russel David Myrick, RDM Legal Group, La Jolla, CA, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, Agoura Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Catherine A. Conway, Julian Wing–Kai Poon, Blaine H. Evanson, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr., Scott Alan Edelman, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, George Charles Nierlich, III, Angela Yue–Man Poon, Jenna Musselman Yott, Michael Li–Ming Wong, Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Adam Carl Smedstad, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C., Chicago, IL, Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, LLP, Pasadena, CA, James H. Hanson, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND ENHANCEMENT AWARDS

SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge

This minimum wage class action proceeded to trial and resulted in a $60.8 million common fund. Plaintiffs now move for an award of attorneys' fees and costs and incentive awards for the named plaintiffs. They seek $20,266,670.50 in attorneys' fees to be paid from the common fund, offset by an award of fees from Wal–Mart in the same amount through statutory fee-shifting. Dkt. No. 570, Mot. at 26. Plaintiffs further seek $220,149.89 in statutory costs to be paid by Wal–Mart and an additional $1,593,781.44 in expenses from the common fund. Dkt. No. 594, Reply at 2, App'x 2. Finally, they ask that the Court approve incentive awards of $50,000.00 to each of the nine class representatives. Mot. at 26.

The Court heard argument on July 28, 2017, and allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs. After reviewing the parties' materials and arguments, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiffs' motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are truck drivers in California previously employed by defendant Wal–Mart Stores Inc. ("Wal–Mart") for some period of time between 1993 and the present. Dkt. No. 73, Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶¶ 3–6. Plaintiffs initially filed this case in Alameda County Superior Court on October 10, 2008. Dkt. No. 1. Wal–Mart removed the case to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), in November 2008. Id.

Following a three-year stay pending a final decision by the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court , Case No. S166350; class certification in September 2014; and motions for partial summary judgment brought by both parties, this case went to trial on October 27, 2016. Upon a stipulation by the parties to modify the class period, the class definition at the time of trial was: "All persons employed in California by Defendant in the position of Private Fleet Driver at any time from October 10, 2004 to October 15, 2015." Dkt. Nos. 406, 535 at 13.

Plaintiffs went to trial on their minimum wage claims, alleging that Wal–Mart violated California minimum wage law by failing to pay class members the minimum wage for eleven tasks. Trial lasted for sixteen days. Before the close of trial, Wal–Mart filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the Court denied without prejudice. See Dkt. No. 502.

On November 23, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiffs' favor on four of the eleven tasks at issue, finding that class members were paid less than the minimum wage by Wal–Mart for some or all hours worked for: performing pre-trip inspections, performing post-trip inspections, taking 10–minute rest breaks, and taking 10–hour layovers. Dkt. No. 529.

The jury accepted the damages calculations set forth by plaintiffs' expert witness Dr. G. Michael Phillips and awarded damages to the class as follows:

Performing Pre-Trip Inspections:    $2,971,220.00
                Performing Post-Trip Inspections:   $2,971,220.00
                Taking 10-minute Rest Breaks:       $3,961,975.00
                Taking 10-hour Layovers:            $44,699,766.00
                

Dkt. No. 529 at 3. These figures reflect the testimony that Dr. Phillips provided at trial regarding the class members' damages for each respective task for the October 10, 2005, to October 15, 2015 time period. See Dkt. No. 497, Tr. at 1524:1–13, 1528:24–1529:15, 1532:25–1533:6, 1582:3–10.

The jury also awarded damages to the individual named plaintiffs as follows:

                Charles Ridgeway:   $10,713.46
                Jaime Famoso:       $33,580.62
                Joshua Harold:      $110,678.23
                Richard Byers:      $10,623.75
                Dan Thatcher:       $5,315.36
                Willie Franklin:    $26,016.69
                Tim Opitz:          $49,822.94
                Farris Day:         $44,251.02
                Karl Merhoff:       $43,681.51
                

See Dkt. No. 529.

As discussed at trial, the Court submitted to the jury questions relevant to the calculation of civil penalties. For this purpose, the jury found that Wal–Mart intentionally failed to pay minimum wage to class members in any pay period from October 10, 2007, to October 15, 2015. Dkt. No. 529 at 4. The jury accepted the calculations of plaintiffs' expert Edward Garcia and found that Wal–Mart failed to pay minimum wage to class members for 103,221 pay periods from October 10, 2007, to October 15, 2015. See id. ; Dkt. No. 492, Tr. at 1859:11–20, 1860:10–19.

The Court delayed entering judgment until the parties had the opportunity to brief the issues reserved for the Court. On January 25, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' post-trial motion. Dkt. No. 554. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for restitution under the California Unfair Competition Law in the amount of $5,861,147.00. Id. at 8. The Court denied plaintiffs' motion for liquidated damages and for civil penalties under California Labor Code sections 1194.2 and 1197.1 respectively. Id. at 12, 17. The Court entered judgment that same day. Dkt. No. 555. On May 1, 2017, the Court denied defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial and decertification. Dkt. No. 577. Combining the class damages, individual damages, and restitution, plaintiffs recovered a total of $60,800,011.58.

Plaintiffs now move for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards. Dkt. No. 570. Wal–Mart opposed, Dkt. No. 587, and plaintiffs filed a reply with revised timesheets and costs, Dkt. No. 594. Wal–Mart objected to evidence newly submitted with plaintiffs' reply brief. Dkt. No. 595. Following the hearing on July 28, 2017, the Court allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs. See Dkt. Nos. 602, 605.

LEGAL STANDARD

California law governs plaintiffs' motion for fees. See Klein v. City of Laguna Beach , 810 F.3d 693, 701 (9th Cir. 2016) ("federal courts apply state law for attorneys' fees to state claims because of the Erie doctrine" (internal footnote omitted)); see also Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp. , 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002). "Nevertheless, the Court may still look to federal authority for guidance in awarding attorneys' fees." MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co. , No. 13-cv-2988-JST, 2016 WL 3055643, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2016).

"This is a 'hybrid' class action—it was initiated under a statute with a fee-shifting provision, but it reached a judgment creating a common fund." See Sobel v. Hertz Corp. , 53 F.Supp.3d 1319, 1324 (D. Nev. 2014). In such instances, California courts permit plaintiffs to seek attorneys' fees both under fee-shifting law and through the common fund doctrine. See, e.g. , Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exch. , 115 Cal.App.4th 715, 725–26, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 544 (2004) (trial court approved plan for attorneys' fees to be paid as percentage of common fund, offset by any statutory attorneys' fees awarded under California Labor Code section 1194 ).

DISCUSSION

I. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY

Before reaching the relevant substantive issues, the Court notes that Wal–Mart objects to plaintiffs' revised fee calculations submitted with their reply brief. These revised fees reflect: (1) additional work performed between the filing of the instant motion and the date of reply, including work related to post-trial motions; (2) the removal of time entries related to the preparation of the instant fee motion; and (3) itemized entries of the time of plaintiffs' counsel Lawrence Artenian. Reply at 1. Wal–Mart objects primarily to Mr. Artenian's time records, arguing that plaintiffs have improperly submitted new evidence in their reply, depriving it of the opportunity to respond in the first instance. Dkt. No. 595, Objections. In response, plaintiffs assert the reply evidence is not "new," but is rather responsive to the arguments raised in Wal–Mart's opposition brief. Dkt. No. 600, Tr. at 4:15–7:20.

The Court finds it appropriate to consider the evidence provided by plaintiffs with their reply. Cf. In re Washington Public Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig. ("In re WPPSS") , 19 F.3d 1291, 1306 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding district court abused its discretion in refusing to reconsider its initial fee decision where moving party provided more detailed records in support of fee request). The Court has allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs, thus ensuring that Wal–Mart had an opportunity to respond to all evidence submitted with plaintiffs' fee request. The Court addresses the matter of Mr. Artenian's time further below.

II. ATTORNEYS' FEES

Plaintiffs move for fees under a California fee-shifting statute and the common fund doctrine. Plaintiffs seek to recover attorneys' fees of $20,266,670.50,¹ which is equal to approximately one-third of the $60.8 million common fund. Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to this amount under the common fund doctrine, in addition to statutory...