UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AMENDMENT OF FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES (Dkt. 160, filed on November 6, 2023) The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L-.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of December 11, 2023, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission. I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Presently before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and amendment of the Court’s final order approving class action settlement and judgment with respect to attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 223. The history of this case 1s well-known to the parties and set forth in the Court’s October 19, 2023 Order. Dkt. 158. On December 1, 2020, plaintiffs filed this class action against the trustees of the SAG Health Plan and the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan (the “Trustees”) pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seg. (“ERISA”) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties. On July 12, 2023, plaintiffs submitted a motion for final approval of (1) a settlement agreement, (2) award of attorneys’ fees, (3) expense reimbursement, and (4) service awards for class representatives (the “Final Approval Motion”). Dkt. 141. Defendants opposed only the request for attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 149.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). See also School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Relief under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that “the Court committed clear error” and “failed to consider the [HRA] payments after 2023 in [valuing] the amount of the monetary fund or in determining the appropriate percentage of the fund to award as attorneys’ fees.” Mot. at 1, 8 (emphasis in original). They argue that, during the hearing, defendants “informed the Court that the Plan projects the payments after 2023 will be $400,000 to $600,000 per year.” Id. at 9. Plaintiffs argue that, assuming annual HRA payments of $500,000 for each of the seven years, the settlement will provide an additional discounted present value benefit of $3,235,996. Id. Plaintiffs claim that this benefit should be added to the Court’s previous valuation of $15,450,000 for a total valuation of $18,685,996. Id. at 10. They request 25% of this total amount in attorneys’ fees, or $4,671,499. Id. Alternatively, if the Court is not inclined to modify the $15,450,000 valuation, plaintiffs ask for an upward adjustment of the attorneys’ fee percentage to 30.2% which would also increase the award to $4,671,499. Id.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AMENDMENT OF FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES (Dkt. 160, filed on November 6, 2023) The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L-.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of December 11, 2023, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission. I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Presently before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and amendment of the Court’s final order approving class action settlement and judgment with respect to attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 223. The history of this case 1s well-known to the parties and set forth in the Court’s October 19, 2023 Order. Dkt. 158. On December 1, 2020, plaintiffs filed this class action against the trustees of the SAG Health Plan and the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan (the “Trustees”) pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seg. (“ERISA”) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties. On July 12, 2023, plaintiffs submitted a motion for final approval of (1) a settlement agreement, (2) award of attorneys’ fees, (3) expense reimbursement, and (4) service awards for class representatives (the “Final Approval Motion”). Dkt. 141. Defendants opposed only the request for attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 149.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). See also School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Relief under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that “the Court committed clear error” and “failed to consider the [HRA] payments after 2023 in [valuing] the amount of the monetary fund or in determining the appropriate percentage of the fund to award as attorneys’ fees.” Mot. at 1, 8 (emphasis in original). They argue that, during the hearing, defendants “informed the Court that the Plan projects the payments after 2023 will be $400,000 to $600,000 per year.” Id. at 9. Plaintiffs argue that, assuming annual HRA payments of $500,000 for each of the seven years, the settlement will provide an additional discounted present value benefit of $3,235,996. Id. Plaintiffs claim that this benefit should be added to the Court’s previous valuation of $15,450,000 for a total valuation of $18,685,996. Id. at 10. They request 25% of this total amount in attorneys’ fees, or $4,671,499. Id. Alternatively, if the Court is not inclined to modify the $15,450,000 valuation, plaintiffs ask for an upward adjustment of the attorneys’ fee percentage to 30.2% which would also increase the award to $4,671,499. Id.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘
—— —_ Ms