Harrison v. Bank of America, N.A.

Background

The order concerns three consolidated class actions brought by current and former nonexempt employees at Bank of America’s California branches. The plaintiffs alleged violations involving unpaid off-the-clock work, overtime and regular wages, meal and rest breaks, unreimbursed business expenses, derivative claims, California Labor Code provisions, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the Private Attorneys General Act.

The three settlement classes were the Harrison Class, consisting of tellers; the Mendoza Class, consisting of financial-center operations managers and assistant managers; and the Kaffishahsavar Class, consisting of specified personal bankers, senior personal bankers, relationship managers, lending specialists, sales and service specialists, and relationship bankers. The court identified 20,190 class members. The parties conducted formal and informal discovery, exchanged information about class size, employment, pay, timekeeping, and policies, obtained a damages analysis, participated in mediation, and settled on December 31, 2020.

Class Certification

For settlement purposes only, the court certified the classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The court found that the classes were sufficiently numerous, that common legal and factual questions predominated, that the representative plaintiffs’ claims were typical, and that the representatives and their lawyers could adequately protect the classes’ interests. The court also found that a class action was the superior method of resolving the claims because the individual claims were relatively small and substantially similar.

The certification was limited to settlement purposes. The court explained that a settlement class does not present the same trial-management concerns as a class that proceeds to trial.

Settlement Terms and Notice

The gross settlement amount was $11,500,000 and was non-reversionary. The approximately $7,497,202.97 net settlement amount was calculated after deductions for $86,250 in Private Attorneys General Act penalties, $30,000 in service awards, $84,000 in administration expenses, $3,450,000 in attorney’s fees, $54,356.17 in litigation costs, and $298,190.86 in employer payroll taxes.

Class members were to receive settlement checks without filing claim forms. Individual shares were based on credited California workweeks during the applicable class period, adjusted by subclass-specific factors: 1.00 for the Harrison Class, 1.66 for the Mendoza Class, and 1.27 for the Kaffishahsavar Class. The settlement released class and Private Attorneys General Act claims that were pleaded or could have been pleaded under the facts alleged in the complaint, as well as a general release by the named plaintiffs.

Notice was initially sent to 19,895 class members. After the parties reported that 295 Mendoza Class members had been omitted because of a job-code error, the court required amended notice and an additional 35-day period to opt out or object. Notice was ultimately successful for all class members, and no class member objected or opted out.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that it had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. It reviewed the proposed settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which requires a class settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate after a hearing. The court considered the strength of the claims, the risks and costs of further litigation, the settlement amount, the discovery completed, the views of counsel, and the class members’ response.

The court concluded that the settlement was fair in light of the litigation risks, disputes about damages, the discovery and damages assessment, and the benefit of providing class members with payment promptly. The court also found that the Private Attorneys General Act allocation was within a reasonable range.

Awards and Appointments

The court confirmed Andrea Harrison, Miguel Mendoza, Kimberly Jaco, and Kiarash Kaffishahsavar as class representatives for their respective classes. It appointed the Markham Law Firm, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, and Quintilone & Associates as settlement class counsel for the respective classes and approved Simpluris, Inc.’s $84,000 administration costs.

The court awarded $7,500 to each of the four named plaintiffs, for a total of $30,000, rather than the requested $40,000. It found the awards justified by the representatives’ work, the benefits obtained for the classes, and the risks they undertook.

The court awarded $3,450,000 in attorney’s fees, equal to 30 percent of the settlement fund, and $54,356.17 in litigation costs. It found the fee request reasonable based on the results, the litigation, the lack of objections, counsel’s work on a contingency basis, billing records, and a lodestar cross-check.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler ordered that the classes be certified for settlement purposes only, the settlement be approved, the funds be distributed under the settlement terms, the class representatives, class counsel, and claims administrator be confirmed, the specified fees, costs, administration expenses, and service awards be approved, and the parties and Simpluris carry out their settlement obligations. The order stated that it disposed of ECF Nos. 80 and 83.