Shea v. Kahuku Housing Foundation, Inc., 1:09-cv-00480

Plaintiffs filed a class action on September 8, 2009 in state court alleging improper utility allowance adjustments under Section 8 housing and related rental obligations.
Defendants Kahuku Housing Foundation, Inc. and Hawaiian Properties, Ltd. removed the case to federal court on October 9, 2009 based on federal question jurisdiction.
Named Plaintiffs resided in Kahuku Elderly Housing Project and paid rents with utility allowances deducted according to regulations; plaintiffs alleged underpayment of adjustments caused economic injury.
The First Amended Complaint (Nov. 2, 2010) added facts about Bookmobile access and Community Center access allegedly in retaliation for enforcing rights.
The court certified the class (Nov. 4, 2010), approved preliminary settlement, and conducted a final fairness hearing on March 14, 2011.
A proposed settlement provided a Settlement Fund of $59,806.13, with allocations for attorney fees, named plaintiffs, and distribution procedures, and required mutual releases and dismissal with prejudice upon court approval.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 480-13(b) fees apply in a class action without a judgment for the plaintiff	Shea argues § 480-13(b) authorizes fees for either injunctive relief or damages received.	KHFI/HPL contend § 480-13(b) requires a judgment for the plaintiff to award fees.	Fees may be awarded under Rule 23(h) independent of § 480-13(b) since a lodestar-based award is permissible.
Whether the proposed fee amount is reasonable under lodestar analysis	Plaintiffs’ counsel contend the requested fees reflect reasonable compensation.	Defendants did not object to the argument but challenge lack of judicial basis beyond settlement terms.	Court independently reviewed and found the proposed amount reasonable under the lodestar framework.
Whether final settlement approval is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)	Plaintiffs assert the settlement provides meaningful relief and benefits with broad class release.	Defendants did not oppose final approval in briefing.	Court reaffirmed preliminary finding and granted final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate; no objections were filed.
Whether notice and settlement procedures appropriately protected class members	Notice reached all potential class members; opt-outs and opt-ins were handled.	No opposing arguments raised at hearing regarding notice.	Court found notice directed in a reasonable manner and procedures satisfied Rule 23(e)(1)-(3).

In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) (court may review settlements for overall fairness in class actions)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar calculation; hours × rate; potential adjustments)
Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (Kerr factors for determining fee reasonableness)
Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) (limitations on considering contingent-fee status in lodestar)
Davis v. City & County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (lodestar considerations; not all Kerr factors apply)
Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711 (1987) (lodestar figure presumed reasonable; adjustments rare)
Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1996) (subsumption of initial Kerr factors into lodestar; remaining factors applied)