Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 22, 2024

Swetz v. The Clorox Company

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:22-cv-09374
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Fee PetitionClass ActionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Swetz v. The Clorox Company, Judge Halpern granted the motion for settlement-related fees, costs, and service awards.

Who this affects

The order affects the settlement class, class counsel, and the five settlement-class representatives by approving payment of $1,883,145 in attorneys’ fees, $29,175.16 in litigation costs, and five $1,000 incentive awards from the settlement fund.

What happened

Swetz v. The Clorox Company involved a settlement resolving economic claims in three related actions. The settlement created a $5.65 million cash fund for the settlement class, and the fee motion received no objections.

The court awarded class counsel $1,883,145 in attorneys’ fees and reimbursed $29,175.16 in litigation costs. It also approved $1,000 incentive awards for each of five settlement-class representatives: Bryan Swetz, Michael Charles, Olivia Kossel, Tina Donohue, and Alyce Lacey.

Judge Philip M. Halpern found the fees and costs fair, reasonable, and appropriate, and granted the motion for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and service awards. The awards are to be paid and distributed under the settlement agreement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Swetz v. The Clorox Company · No. 7:22-cv-09374
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
May 22, 2024

Background

Bryan Swetz filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and service awards on January 24, 2024. Although Swetz is the only plaintiff in this action, the settlement agreement resolved the economic claims of three related actions, and the plaintiffs in those actions joined in the motion. The court therefore referred to the plaintiffs in the plural.

The settlement agreement created a $5.65 million cash fund for the settlement class. Notice of the fee request was provided to potential class members in a manner the court found reasonable and consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) and due process. Class members were told that class counsel could seek fees and costs up to one-third of the settlement fund and were given an opportunity to object. No objections were made.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that class counsel had devoted approximately 1,460.25 hours to the litigation, producing a lodestar of $1,068,298. A lodestar is a calculation based on reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates. After considering the factors identified in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., the court found the requested attorneys’ fee award fair, reasonable, and appropriate. The court incorporated its more detailed findings from the May 22, 2024 final approval hearing.

The court also found that class counsel’s $29,175.16 in litigation costs were reasonably incurred and necessary given the case’s complexity and scope. In approving the awards, the court considered the benefits to class members who submitted timely and valid claims, counsel’s work and diligence, the complexity of the factual and legal issues, the risk that the plaintiffs and class members might have recovered substantially less or nothing without the settlement, and public-policy considerations.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the motion and awarded class counsel $1,883,145 in attorneys’ fees and $29,175.16 in litigation-cost reimbursement. The court also approved a $1,000 incentive award for each settlement-class representative—Bryan Swetz, Michael Charles, Olivia Kossel, Tina Donohue, and Alyce Lacey—for their participation in the litigation. The fees, costs, and service awards must be paid and distributed according to the settlement agreement. Class counsel must allocate the fees and expenses among counsel based on their judgment of each firm’s contributions to prosecuting and settling the litigation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.