Julian v. Walgreen Co.
Julian v. Walgreen Co.
Trial Court Opinion
1 Howard L. Magee (State Bar No. 185199) Larry W. Lee (SBN 228175) 2 Simon L. Yang (SBN 260286) DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 3 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 4 (213)488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile 5 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 6 [email protected] 7 William L. Marder, Cal Bar No. 170131 POLARIS LAW GROUP 8 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, California 95023 9 Telephone: 831.531.4214 Facsimile: 831.634.0333 10 Email: [email protected] 11 Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) HYUN LEGAL, APC 12 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 13 (213)488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile 14 Email: [email protected] 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 JOY ANN JULIAN, as an individual and on Case No. 3:20-cv-09446-VC behalf of all others similarly situated, 19 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN Plaintiff, PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 20 ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND vs. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE 21 PAYMENT AS MODIFIED WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation; and 22 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: March 10, 2022 Time: 10:00 a.m. 23 Defendant. Courtroom: 4 Judge: Honorable Vince Chhabria 24 Date Action Filed December 30, 2020 25 Trial Date: Not scheduled 26 27 1 The Court, having read the papers filed with regard to Plaintiff's motion for final approval of 2 || aclass action settlement and Plaintiffs separate motion for award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and 3 || class representative service payment, and after hearing argument regarding the motions on March 4 || 10, 2022, hereby FINDS AND ORDERS as follows: 5 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and over all 6 || parties to this Action, including the members of the Settlement Class. 7 2. The hourly rates claimed by Class Counsel are reasonable and appropriate and 8 || consistent with the rates charged in the Northern District of California for attorneys with similar 9 || qualifications, skills, and experience. The hours expended on the litigation also are reasonable. 10 || Given the amount of work required in this case, the Court finds no reason to depart from the Ninth 11 || Circuit's "benchmark" of twenty-five percent of the recovery. See Powers v. Eichen,
229 F.3d 1249, 12 || 1256 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Court approves an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of 13 || $68,750.00 and costs in the amount of $7,697.30. This Court orders that 10% of the attorneys’ fees, 14 || or $6,875.00, be held by the Settlement Administrator until after the Post-Distribution Accounting 15 || has been filed. This 10% hold-back is equitable in this case as Plaintiff's counsel’s lodestar far 16 || exceeds the attorneys’ fees awarded. The remaining $61,875.00 of attorneys’ fees and $7,697.30 in 17 || costs shall be released within the time frames set out in the Settlement Agreement to be distributed 18 || by the Settlement Administrator among Class Counsel as necessary. 19 3. The request for a class representative service payment to Plaintiff Joy Ann Julian is 20 || reasonable given the risks Plaintiff took and the amount of time Plaintiff spent in conjunction with 21 || prosecuting this case. The requested amount is also within the range of such awards approved in 22 || similar cases. Accordingly, the Court approves the request for a class representative service 23 || payment in the amount of $5,000.00 to be paid within the time frames set out in the Settlement 24 || Agreement care of Diversity Law Group, P.C. AS DISTR7 % cr 25 KP CS IT IS SO ORDERED. (5 CA 26 a GRANTED Dated: March 21, 2022 “ HON. YING fLe-— > 28 2. —< ve Chabria a ON judge VS
2 <LI Vv DOISTpic >
Reference
- Status
- Unknown