125 F. Supp. 3d 1034
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Carrie Couser sued Comenity Bank for negligent/knowing/willful TCPA violations seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief.
- Class settlement seeks non-reversionary $8,475,000 fund to cover incentive, fees, costs, and class payments.
- Court held final approval hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) and granted final approval and partial fees.
- 308,026 valid claims filed; 168 opt-outs; high claims rate supports settlement fairness.
- Net Settlement Fund to class members is approximately $4,237,650.52 with about $13.75 per approved claim (subject to later adjustments).
- Court retained jurisdiction over the settlement administration and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under Rule 23(e). | Counsel say the settlement provides substantial relief and was negotiated at arms’ length. | Defendant notes risks of class certification and potential defenses; may undermine recovery. | Yes; Court grants final approval after evaluating factors and finds the settlement fair and reasonable. |
| Reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. | Fees of 16.9% of the fund are justified by results and work. | Ask argues for lower fee given risks and early settlement. | Court approves 15% ($1,271,250) plus $25,000 costs; 16.9% rejected. |
| Award of class representative incentive payment. | Couser should be compensated for efforts as class representative. | No opposing objections. | $1,500 incentive award approved. |
| Distribution framework and expected payments to class members. | Settlement amount should fairly compensate class members; checks will be issued. | Not necessary to discuss; standard distribution. | Net fund $4,237,650.52; approximately $14.28 per claim approved (post-adjustment). |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (factors for evaluating settlement fairness in class actions)
- Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (court may review settlement to ensure not product of collusion)
- Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (factors for evaluating fee awards and settlements)
- DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (settlement fairness and benefit to the class; discovery not required for settlement)
- Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (class action settlement considerations and certification)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (multiplier and lodestar considerations in common-fund fees)
- Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) (benchmark 25% fee in common-fund settlements; adjustments possible)
- Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (guides fee analysis, lodestar cross-check, and multiplier considerations)
- In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) (early guidance on fiduciary role in fee setting)