Corker v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

8 BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL themselves and others similarly situated, 9 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT 10 OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS v. COSTCO WHOLESALE 12 CORPORATION, et al., 13 Defendants.

Upon review and consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards (“Motion”), and all declarations and exhibits submitted in support thereof, the Court GRANTS the motion and finds as follows: 1. Unless otherwise provided, all capitalized terms shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Motion.

2. Plaintiffs have presented three class action settlements for the Court’s approval.

The settlements include monetary relief totaling $2,150,000.00, and injunctive provisions that institute labeling changes for the products supplied and sold by the Settling Defendants.

2. Attorneys’ Fees 3. Class Counsel have requested attorneys’ fees in the amount of $537,500, or 25 percent of the settlement fund.

1 4. The requested fees are fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The Court reaches this conclusion upon consideration of the results achieved, the complexity of the case and risks involved in prosecuting it, especially on a contingent basis, the benefits to the class beyond the immediate generation of a cash fund, fees awarded in similar cases, and a lodestar cross-check. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-52 (9th Cir. 2002).

6 5. First, the results obtained by Class Counsel are excellent. In addition to the substantial monetary component of the settlements, the settlements also provide for meaningful injunctive relief in the form of practice changes on the part of the Settling Defendants, and a name change on the part of one of the Settling Defendants.

10 6. Second, the Court finds that the complexity of this case presented unusual risks, particularly in a contingent fee case. The sheer number of defendants presented its own complexities, as did pursuing Lanham Act claims on a class basis, in the onset of and through a global health crisis. These circumstances weigh in favor of the requested fee.

14 7. Third, the Court has considered the benefits to the Settlement Class beyond the cash component of the settlements. The Court finds that the injunctive relief provisions of the settlements support the requested fee.

17 8. Fourth, the Court has considered other cases involving the creation of both a cash fund and valuable injunctive relief, and finds that the requested fee is consistent with awards in analogous cases.

20 9. The Court also exercises its discretion to perform a lodestar cross-check. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050. The Court finds that the hours and rates used to generate the overall lodestar figure are reasonable. Taking into account fees previously awarded in connection with prior settlements, that cross-check reveals a negative multiplier of 0.64, which confirms the reasonableness of the requested fee.

25 10. The Court grants Class Counsel’s request of a fee of $537,500 to be paid from the Settlement Funds generated by the settlements presented to the Court to date.

1 3. Costs and Expenses 2 11. Class Counsel has also requested reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $450,000.

4 12. The Court has reviewed Class Counsel’s costs and finds that they were reasonably incurred, and accordingly grants reimbursement of $450,000 from the Settlement Funds.

6 4. Service Awards 7 13. Class Counsel requests service awards of $2,500 for each farm whose owners have served as class representatives in this litigation: Rancho Aloha, Kanalani Ohana Farm, and Smithfarms.

10 14. The requested awards are fair and reasonable. Each class representative invested substantial amounts of time in this case and have made significant contributions to the case on behalf of the members of the Settlement Class. See Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 13 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court accordingly awards each farm the requested service awards of $2,500.

Dated this 3rd day of June, 2022.

18 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge