Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc., 3:19-cv-07918

Background

Plaintiff Gerrie Dekker brought a class action on behalf of customers who signed Vivint Solar "Version 1" PPA contracts (947 class members), alleging unlawful liquidated-damages/default provisions.
After extensive procedural skirmishes (arbitration battles, appeals, and narrowing of plaintiffs), the class was certified under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive/declaratory relief.
Parties reached a no-cash settlement: Vivint will modify Version 1 PPAs to reduce the buyout price from $7/watt to $4/watt with a 5% annual discount; this formalizes a practice Vivint had already been applying in rare defaults.
Notice was provided to the class (955 mailed, 947 emailed), four opted out, and the court found >99% participation; final approval was sought.
Class counsel sought $1,859,273 in fees, $168,276.05 in costs, and $15,000 service award; defendants proposed much lower amounts.
The court granted final approval of the settlement, awarded attorney’s fees of $100,000 now (with leave to seek more in three years if realized class benefit exceeds expectations), approved $25,427.60 in costs, and a $500 class representative award.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate	Settlement delivers meaningful relief equivalent to what could be achieved at trial; negotiations were arm’s-length; class will receive automatic contract modifications	Settlement formalizes existing Vivint practice and provides no cash; but still acceptable given litigation risks	Approved: Court found Churchill and Rule 23(e)(2) factors and additional local factors support final approval
Whether class counsel are entitled to fees under CLRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1780)	Counsel succeeded on a significant issue (private injunctive/declaratory relief) and thus are prevailing parties entitled to fees	Argued fee award must be proportionate to the actual benefit realized by the class; defense disputed amount	Held: Counsel are prevailing parties under CLRA; entitlement to fees is mandatory, but amount must be reasonable in light of class benefit
Appropriate amount of attorney’s fees (lodestar vs. percentage cross-check)	Lodestar of ~$929,636 with 2.0 multiplier justifies ~$1.86M fee request	Fees must be tied to class benefit; percentage-of-recovery cross-check yields much smaller figure (~$72.5k)	Held: Large lodestar request denied; award limited to $100,000 now (with ability to seek additional fees after 3 years if realized defaults > anticipated)
Recoverable costs and class representative service award	Counsel sought $168k (including expert fees) and $15k service award for Dekker	Defense opposed unrecoverable expert fees and argued for much lower service award	Held: Expert-related costs denied (not court-ordered); $25,427.60 miscellaneous costs approved; additional notice cost denied; service award reduced to $500

Key Cases Cited

Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (describing risks of class-action settlements and need for court scrutiny)
Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (benchmarks for fee awards and warning signs of collusion)
Kim v. Allison, 8 F.4th 1170 (9th Cir. 2021) (Churchill factors guide Rule 23(e)(2) fairness review)
Briseño v. Henderson, 998 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2021) (Rule 23(e) and Erie-related analysis regarding fee issues in settlement contexts)
Lowery v. Rhapsody Int’l, Inc., 75 F.4th 985 (9th Cir. 2023) (emphasizing that fee awards must be anchored to benefit to the class)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar principles and that fees must be reasonable in relation to results obtained)
Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 376 P.3d 672 (Cal. 2016) (discussing lodestar, percentage-of-recovery, and cross-checking methods under California law)
Lealao v. Beneficial Cal., Inc., 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 797 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (approving cross-check of lodestar against class benefit and adjusting lodestar accordingly)