Turk v. Gale/Triangle, Inc., 2:16-cv-00783

Plaintiff Steve Turk brought a California wage-and-hour class action on behalf of drivers and yard goats against Gale/Triangle, Inc. and Performance Team Freight Systems, alleging missed meal/rest breaks, unpaid wages for rest/nonproductive time, inaccurate wage statements, and unpaid wages at termination, plus a UCL claim; defendants denied liability.
The settlement class comprises 365 employees who worked in California as drivers or yard goats between April 15, 2010 and April 20, 2016.
After roughly three years of litigation, extensive discovery, and a full-day arms-length mediation, parties agreed to a $650,000 gross settlement fund with no reversion to defendants.
Deductions from the gross fund include $195,000 attorneys’ fees, $17,925 costs, $10,000 class representative incentive, $9,499 administration, and $7,500 PAGA allocation, leaving a net settlement of $410,076 to be distributed pro rata by weeks worked (average recovery ≈ $1,100; max ≈ $9,817).
Notice was provided per the court-approved plan; zero class objections were filed and four class members opted out.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class should be certified for settlement purposes and the settlement finally approved	Settlement certification appropriate; settlement fair after discovery/mediation	Agreed to settlement; contested underlying claims but not settlement fairness	Court affirmed prior settlement-only certification under Rule 23 and granted final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate
Whether the settlement is the product of collusion or overreaching	Settlement resulted from arms-length mediation and extensive discovery; no collusion	No evidence of collusion; defendants participated in negotiation	Court found no fraud/collusion and gave weight to counsel’s judgment; settlement approved
Whether attorneys’ fees ($195,000 / 30% of GSA) are reasonable	Counsel sought 30% of GSA based on results, risks, contingency, and experience; defendants agreed	Defendants agreed to the requested fee	Court approved 30% as fair despite being above 25% benchmark, applying percent-of-recovery and lodestar cross-check; fees reimbursable
Whether incentive payment ($10,000) and costs ($17,925) are appropriate	Incentive justified by Turk’s active participation; costs incurred in litigation and below agreed cap	Defendants agreed; no class objections	Court approved $10,000 incentive and $17,925 in costs as fair and reasonable

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (settlement-before-certification requires court scrutiny of certification and fairness)
Rodriguez v. West Pub. Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors for assessing class settlement fairness)
Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2003) (settlement fairness factors)
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of S.F., 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (court should guard against collusion and weigh counsel judgment)
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (require courts to ensure fee awards are reasonable; consideration of negotiated fees)
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (percentage-of-recovery and lodestar cross-check explained)
Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2000) (benchmarks for percentage awards and reasonableness factors)
Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) (percentage-of-fund method for fee awards)
In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (observing typical common-fund awards exceed 25%)
In re Activision Sec. Litig., 723 F. Supp. 1373 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (noting common-fund awards often around 30%)