Miranda v. Coach, Inc., 3:14-cv-02031

Two consolidated wage-and-hour actions against Coach alleging unpaid wages from off-the-clock security checks and improper overtime calculation; Ayala is the sole remaining named plaintiff representing CA sales associates from March 20, 2010 to May 3, 2016.
Parties mediated and agreed to a revised non-reversionary $1.75 million settlement fund covering class payments, notice/admin costs, fees, PAGA payment, and a class representative enhancement; average class member payment ≈ $260.82.
Court previously denied initial preliminary approval due to disclosure/notice concerns; parties executed an Addendum addressing deficiencies and Court granted preliminary approval thereafter.
Notice was mailed to 4,598 members (≈3% undeliverable after forwarding efforts); emails sent to 1,957 members with minimal bounces; no objections and no opt-outs were received.
The parties estimated gross potential recovery near $22 million, but after risk adjustments the litigation value was discounted to approximately $1.78 million, supporting settlement reasonableness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final approval of class settlement	Settlement provides meaningful relief, notice adequate, no objections	Settlement resolves claims and is reasonable given litigation risks	Granted: settlement finally approved
Adequacy of notice and class reaction	Notice complied with Rule 23; class reaction favorable (calls of support, no objections)	Adequacy and reaction support approval	Held adequate; lack of objections weighed in favor
Attorneys’ fees (25% of fund)	25% of fund reflects percentage-of-fund and lodestar cross-check (lodestar $380,246; multiplier 1.15)	Fees should reflect risk, hours, and common-fund principles	Granted: $437,500 (25%) reasonable under percentage and lodestar cross-check
Costs and expenses ($50,175.24)	Requested costs are reasonable and necessary	Defendant did not oppose fee/costs request	Reduced: costs trimmed to $49,936.44 due to some personal meal expenses
Service (enhancement) award ($7,500 requested)	Ayala invested time/effort after co-plaintiff settled, warranting enhancement	Excessive awards to rep. discouraged; should be modest and justified	Reduced: awarded $1,500 based on effort and Ninth Circuit guidance

Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (absence of class objections supports settlement fairness)
Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (class reaction is a factor in settlement evaluation)
In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) (percentage-of-the-fund method acceptable for common-fund fee awards)
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (lodestar cross-check and multipliers to account for risk are appropriate)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (factors for awarding service enhancements to class representatives)