Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc.
223 Cal. App. 4th 1309
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- After Pineda v. Williams‑Sonoma held ZIP codes are protected personal identification information, multiple putative class actions were filed against Party City alleging unlawful ZIP‑code collection; the state actions were coordinated.
- The parties reached a class settlement providing $300,000 in merchandise certificates to qualifying class members and reserved attorney‑fee determination to the court.
- Class counsel sought $350,000 (fees + costs) based on a lodestar derived from ~720 claimed hours across six firms; initial declarations summarized time in broad categories and offered unredacted time records for in camera review.
- The trial court tentatively requested detailed time records for in camera review to assess duplication and reasonableness; supplemental unredacted billing records were lodged with the court but were not produced to Party City.
- The court approved the settlement and awarded the full $350,000. Party City appealed, arguing the court improperly relied on evidence (billing records) not disclosed to it, denying due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Party City waived right to appeal fee award by settlement terms | Settlement procedure limited delayed payment only if a class member timely appealed; thus Party City lacked an express waiver of appeal | Party City retained right to appeal; settlement did not clearly and expressly waive appellate rights | No waiver—appeal not contractually barred; waiver must be explicit and was not present |
| Whether trial court may rely on in camera billing records it alone reviewed to set lodestar without disclosure to opposing party | In camera review is routine and permissible; privileged material justified non‑disclosure | In camera reliance deprived Party City of opportunity to contest evidence and denied due process | Reversed: trial court abused discretion by deciding fees based on billing records not made available to Party City; opposing party must be given access or a fair opportunity to respond |
| Whether class counsel carried burden to prove reasonable, non‑duplicative hours | Declarations and summary category listings sufficed; offered records for in camera review | Summaries were inadequate to assess duplication; detailed records were necessary for meaningful review and response | Trial court may request more detail, but cannot base award on ex parte, undisclosed material; fee award reversed and remanded for new hearing with materials provided to Party City |
| Whether costs award must be reconsidered because it was based on the same improper procedure | Costs were modest and within requested aggregate cap; procedural irregularity was harmless | Costs were at least in part determined from the in camera material and thus tainted | Costs remanded for reconsideration because the court’s cost ruling relied at least in part on improperly sequestered records |
Key Cases Cited
- Pineda v. Williams‑Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 524 (California Supreme Court) (ZIP code is personal identification information under Song‑Beverly)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (California Supreme Court) (lodestar is the starting point for fee awards)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (California Supreme Court) (trial court must review documentation; unreasonable or duplicative hours not compensable)
- Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal.App.4th 224 (Court of Appeal) (detailed timesheets not always required; declarations can suffice)
- In re Vitamin Cases, 110 Cal.App.4th 1041 (Court of Appeal) (concern about duplicative fees when multiple counsel prosecute overlapping class actions)
- Ruiz v. California State Automobile Assn. Inter‑Ins. Bureau, 222 Cal.App.4th 596 (Court of Appeal) (settlement provisions that appear to accept a trial court ruling do not necessarily waive appeal rights)