Denham v. Global Distribution Services, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 20, 2021
• Docket: 3:18-cv-01495
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 RYAN GARY DENHAM, et al., CASE NO. 18cv1495-LAB-MDD 10

Plaintiffs, 11 ORDER VACATING FINAL 12 vs. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING BRIEFING ON 13 GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION INCENTIVE AWARDS 14 SERVICES, INC. d/b/a AMERICA’S ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA’S 15 CHOICE GARAGE DOOR SERVICE, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the Collective Action Settlement 19 seeks unspecified incentive awards for Plaintiff Ryan Gary Denham and two 20 opt-in Plaintiffs, Luis Cisneros and Timothy Patterson. Plaintiffs typically “must 21 justify an incentive award through ‘evidence demonstrating the quality of 22 plaintiff’s representative service,’ such as substantial efforts taken . . . to justify 23 the discrepancy between his award and those of the unnamed plaintiffs.” 24 Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 306 F.R.D. 245, 266 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 25 2015). This requirement applies with special force where (as here) the plaintiffs 26 seek awards amounting to more than 1% of the total settlement fund. See, e.g., 27 Ontiveros v. Zamora, 303 F.R.D. 356, 365 (“A[n] . . . incentive award consisting 1 || Liquidators, Inc., Case No. CV-09-4812 SC, 2015 WL 2174168, at *4 (N.D. 2 ||Cal. May 8, 2015) (“[l]Jncentive awards at or near just one percent of the 3 || common fund payable to the class ‘will receive intense scrutiny and require 4 || exceptional justification.”). 5 Plaintiffs provide no such evidence, offering only the vague statement of 6 || counsel that Denham, Cisneros, and Patterson “contributed [services] to the || case, including but not limited to, investigative work, meetings with Collective 8 || Action Counsel, assumption of risk, and for serving as representatives of the 9 || Settlement Opt-In Plaintiffs.” (Dkt. 100-1 at 16.) 10 Plaintiffs may supplement their briefing with evidence of the efforts that 11 || Denham, Cisneros, and Patterson made in support of this litigation on or before 12 || April 30, 2021. In light of the pending motion for approval of the parties’ 13 || settlement, the final pretrial conference scheduled for April 26, 2021 is 14 || VACATED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 47 || Dated: April 20, 2021 bi A. ‘b wy 18 Hon. LARRY ALAN BURNS 49 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28