Crump v. Hyatt Corporation

Background

Christine Crump worked as a line cook at Hyatt House in Emeryville, California, from approximately January through June 2019. She alleged that Hyatt used a timekeeping policy that rounded hourly employees’ time to the nearest hour instead of paying for every minute worked. She further alleged that this caused Hyatt to fail to pay minimum wages and overtime, timely pay wages at termination, and maintain accurate payroll records.

The proposed settlement class covered all current and former non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for Hyatt in California at any time from December 6, 2015, through June 9, 2019. The parties agreed to a non-reversionary $990,000 settlement fund. Half was to be paid ten days after judgment and the remaining half six months later. Class members’ payments would be based on the number of weeks they worked. The agreement also allocated $50,000 to civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act: $37,500 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $12,500 to class members.

Final Settlement Approval

The court found that the notice plan complied with the applicable class-action rules. Notice packets were mailed to all 15,870 class members on the class list; after efforts to locate recipients and resend returned packets, 254 remained undeliverable. Ninety-seven class members requested exclusion, representing less than one percent of the class, and no objections were received.

The court concluded that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. It considered the risks and complexity of continued litigation, including difficulties in certifying a class of more than 15,000 people. Based on sampled timekeeping records, the parties’ expert estimated class underpayment from the rounding policy at approximately $860,161.60 to $1,298,131.81. The court found that the $990,000 settlement fell within a reasonable range in light of those risks and the information developed through discovery.

The court therefore granted Crump’s motion for final approval of the class-action settlement.

Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award

Class counsel requested $346,500 in attorneys’ fees, $97,158.56 in costs, and a $10,000 incentive award for Crump. The court used 25% of the common fund as a benchmark for evaluating the fee request and found that some increase was justified by the estimated recovery, but that the record did not support the requested 35% fee award.

The court also found that counsel’s billing records lacked important detail and included time that appeared excessive, inefficient, unrelated to the case, or insufficiently supported. Counsel initially reported 908 hours and a $499,500 lodestar, then reported 925 hours and a $431,327.50 lodestar after submitting additional records. The court concluded that the lodestar information was not a useful measure of reasonableness and awarded 28% of the settlement fund—$277,200—in attorneys’ fees. It found the requested costs reasonable and awarded $97,158.56 in costs.

The court found that Crump participated closely in the case, provided employment records, remained available to counsel, attended a full-day deposition, and spent more than 35 hours working on the litigation. But because the requested $10,000 award was nearly 400 times the average class-member recovery, the court found that $5,000 was reasonable.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted in part and denied in part the motion for attorneys’ fees and incentive awards. The court awarded $277,200 in attorneys’ fees, $97,158.56 in costs, and a $5,000 incentive award to Crump. It directed the parties and settlement administrator to implement the settlement and directed the parties to file a short stipulated final judgment within 21 days.