Burzdak v. Universal Screen Arts, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-02148
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Burzdak v. Universal Screen Arts, Judge Chen granted plaintiffs’ motions approving a class settlement and awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and a service award.
The plaintiffs, the defendant Universal Screen Arts, Inc., and the 32,504 class members affected by the approved settlement.
What happened
In Burzdak v. Universal Screen Arts, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to give final approval to a class-action settlement and to approve attorney’s fees, costs, and a service award.
The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Notice reached 99.7% of the 32,504 class members; no one objected, and one member asked to be excluded. The court also found the requested fees, costs, and $5,000 service award appropriate.
Judge Edward M. Chen granted both motions. The opinion does not state the settlement fund’s total amount or the dollar amount of attorney’s fees awarded.
The detailed version
- Burzdak v. Universal Screen Arts, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-02148
- Edward Chen
- Jan. 3, 2024
Background
The court considered two motions by the plaintiffs: a motion for final approval of a class-action settlement and a motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and a service award. A class action is a case brought by representative plaintiffs on behalf of a larger group of people with similar claims.
The court had preliminarily approved the proposed settlement on July 27, 2023, after considering Ninth Circuit precedent and the factors in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Since then, class members had the opportunity to object to the settlement or exclude themselves. No objections were received, and one class member requested exclusion.
Settlement and Notice
The court found that the notice process complied with the procedures it had ordered and satisfied due process. Email notice was sent without bounce-back messages to 27,414 people. Postal notice was successfully sent to 5,003 people. Overall, notice was delivered without a bounce-back or undeliverable response to 32,417 of 32,504 class members, or 99.7% of the class.
Based on the notice results and the class members’ reaction, the court found the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable.
Fees, Costs, and Service Award
The plaintiffs requested the benchmark 25% award from the common fund. The court found that request appropriate, citing the action’s recovery of approximately 38% of the potential damages that could have been awarded at trial. The court also noted a lodestar multiplier of 0.73 and concluded that the requested fees were appropriate. A lodestar is a fee calculation based primarily on the reasonable number of hours worked multiplied by reasonable hourly rates.
The court found the requested costs, which largely consisted of a mediation fee, appropriate. It also approved a $5,000 service award. The opinion does not state the total settlement-fund amount or the dollar amount of attorney’s fees requested or awarded.
Disposition
On January 3, 2024, the court granted both the plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the class-action settlement and the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs and a service award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.