269 F. Supp. 3d 975
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Class action by California private‑fleet truck drivers against Wal‑Mart alleging minimum‑wage underpayments for various off‑the‑clock tasks; tried in October 2016 after long litigation.
- Jury found Wal‑Mart liable on four tasks and awarded class damages totaling roughly $60.8 million (including individual awards and restitution).
- Plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees, costs, and $50,000 incentive awards for each of nine named plaintiffs; they sought both statutory fee‑shifting under Cal. Labor Code §1194 (lodestar/multiplier) and a one‑third recovery under the common‑fund doctrine.
- Wal‑Mart opposed as to reasonableness, billing practices, duplicative entries, travel and lobbying time, and the size of incentive awards; also contested certain revised materials submitted in reply.
- The Court evaluated fee reasonableness under California law (using lodestar for fee‑shifting and percentage method for common fund, with lodestar cross‑check), adjusted hours and costs for various issues, applied a multiplier, and set incentive awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to statutory fees and amount (lodestar + multiplier) | Plaintiffs entitled to fees under Cal. Labor Code §1194; lodestar supports a large multiplier (requested ≈2.71) due to contingency, complexity, and results. | Wal‑Mart conceded liability for fee‑shifting but argued plaintiffs’ lodestar is inflated and multiplier unwarranted; proposed much lower lodestar. | Court awarded statutory fees of $12,983,324.25 (lodestar after deductions, then 2.0 multiplier). |
| Fee award from common fund (percentage) | Counsel sought one‑third of $60.8M common fund (~$20.27M) to compensate class counsel and share costs among class. | Wal‑Mart argued one‑third was excessive relative to work and results; cross‑check with lodestar would produce high multiplier. | Court awarded 25% of common fund = $15,200,002.90; Wal‑Mart’s statutory fee award credited against this leaving $2,216,678.65 net from the fund. |
| Taxable and non‑taxable costs | Plaintiffs sought $220,149.89 taxable costs from Wal‑Mart and ~$1.59M non‑taxable costs from fund. | Wal‑Mart challenged documentation for increased taxable costs and many non‑taxable items as vague, duplicative, or excessive (mileage, meals, lobbying). | Taxable costs reduced to the originally filed $160,417.32 (insufficient documentation for the increase). Non‑taxable costs awarded at $1,574,189.79 from the common fund after reductions (50% cut to excess mileage and meals). |
| Incentive awards for named plaintiffs | Plaintiffs requested $50,000 each for nine named plaintiffs to compensate time, risk, and effort. | Wal‑Mart challenged both authority and amount, arguing such large awards are unwarranted after verdict. | Court found incentive awards appropriate but reduced them to $15,000 each for the nine plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 810 F.3d 693 (9th Cir. 2016) (federal courts apply state law for attorney fee awards on state claims under Erie)
- Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (guidance on common fund and percentage method)
- Laffitte v. Robert Half Int'l Inc., 1 Cal.5th 480 (Cal. 2016) (California recognizes percentage of common fund and lodestar cross‑check; factors for percentage awards)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (lodestar method and multiplier principles under California law)
- Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977) (foundation for lodestar/multiplier approach in California)
- PLCM Group v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) (trial court discretion in fee determinations)
- Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (duplicative or excessive hours may be excluded; note on law firm billing models)
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 2004) (contingent risk and market compensation considerations for multiplier)
- Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 970 (Cal. 2010) (fees limited to work related to successful claims unless claims are factually intertwined)
- Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, 63 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (discussion on multipliers under California law)
- Sundance v. Municipal Court, 192 Cal.App.3d 268 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (declining to reduce fees simply because not all claims succeeded)
- Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, 92 Cal.App.4th 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (compensation may include efforts not demonstrably productive but reasonably expended)