<a href="https://cal-employment.com/" title="California Employment Lawyer" rel="home">California Employment Lawyer

1 Comment

Patents and Copyrights

Is Trade Secret Protection Better Than a Patent?

Image by dkpto

R. Mark Halligan has published an excellent article in the American Bar Association’s Landslide.

Since every patent starts out as a trade secret, Mr. Halligan discusses whether, given the trends in patent law, it makes sense for the holder of a trade secret to pursue patent protection.

Patent applications face a Catch-22 in pursuing patents. By “pursuing patent protection unsuccessfully, the inventor has lost both patent protection and trade secret protection because the business method is now in the public domain. This is the ‘Catch-22’ with any patent application disclosed to the public during the USPTO patent prosecution proceedings in the United States. The moment the patent application is published, any trade secret rights in the patent application are vitiated. Then if the patent does not issue, the inventor has lost all proprietary protection. In hindsight, the inventor would have been better off keeping the commercially valuable information secret if patent protection is uncertain.”

Today patents are harder to get and harder to defend. Halligan discusses how in light of recent patent law cases, the scale has now tipped in favor of pursuing a trade secrets strategy over pursuing a patent application. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 138 (Fed. Cir. 2008); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997); In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Mr. Halligan concludes that:

it is now time for the intellectual property bar to revisit the decision whether to protect commercially valuable information as a trade secret asset or a patent asset. In recent years, decisions by the U.S. SupremeCourt and other developments in the law have circumscribed the once broad protection afforded to patent holders as well as remedies available to patent holders. Upon consideration of all the issues discussed in this article, the protection of such assets as trade secrets may provide a better choice for your clients in today’s environment.

Tagged American Bar Association, Intellectual property, Patent, Patent application, Teleflex, United States, United States Patent & Trademark Office, USPTO

CAFA Jurisdiction, Class Actions, Remand

Morgan Stanley Wage and Hour Class Action Remanded to San Diego Superior Court for Failure to Show Diversity or Amount in Controversy

: Image via Wikipedia

Judge James Lorenz faced a remand motion in Martinez v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Civil No. 09cv2937-L(JMA), 2010 WL 3123175 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010). The court remanded, holding that Defendants did not meet their burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the matter in controversy for the class action exceeds $5 million or that Plaintiff’s individual claims exceed $75,000.

Defendants removed this wage and hour class action from state court based on 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1441, or in the alternative, on the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1453. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand arguing that Defendants failed to establish the requisite diversity of citizenship and the jurisdictional amount in controversy. Continue reading →

Tagged Allegedly Unethical Firms, Business, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Defendant, Law, Legal Information, Litigation, Morgan Stanley

Trial

New Trial Granted for Arguing to Jury That Future Wages Are Recoverable Even After Resignation

Image by Eric Chan

In an unreported opinion, Wolfson v. Tukatech, Inc., 2010 WL 3170521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 12, 2010), the Second District Court of Appeal considered whether a new trial was correctly ordered after plaintiff’s attorney argued to the jury about plaintiff’s right to recover for his future wages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the new trial order because the “record supports the trial court’s finding that Wolfson’s trial counsel committed prejudicial misconduct when arguing to the jury about Wolfson’s right to recover for his future wages”.

The court held that the plaintiff’s attorney misstated the law by “repeatedly argu[ing] unauthorized instructions whose flaws should have been obvious, even after repeated objections to those instructions were sustained”; thus, the court held “that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion by finding that misconduct occurred.” Continue reading →

Tagged Breach of contract, Closing argument, Jury instructions, Lawyer, Plaintiff, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Trial, Trial court

Uncategorized

For All the Tea in China: How England Stole the World’s Favorite Drink and Changed History

: Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Sarah Rose recently published a well-received book on one of the Western world’s greatest trade secret thefts called For All the Tea in China: How England Stole the World’s Favorite Drink and Changed History. Ms. Rose discusses how the British government plotted to and then did steal tea plants from China, successfully transplanting them in India, making the British Empire less reliant on trade with China.

You can read an interview here. And you can purchase the book on Amazon.

Tagged British Empire, British government, Burma, Criminal Theft of Trade Secrets, England, Government of the United Kingdom, India, Tea, Trade secret

Federal Question Jurisdiction, FLSA, Remand

Basing a UCL Claim Partially on FLSA Violation Does Not Confer Federal Question Jurisdiction

Photo by Bryan Maleszyk

Judge Percy Anderson of the Central District of California faced the question of whether basing a UCL claim partially on a violation of the FSLA creates federal jurisdiction. The Court held that it did not. The case is Williams, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 10-4761 PA (PJWx), 2010 WL 3184248 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010).

Plaintiffs’ alleged that defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) misclassified them as exempt from overtime and failed to pay wages for overtime compensation.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as “Home Mortgage Consultants” sometime between February 10, 2001 and the present. During that time, Plaintiffs were paid on a commission sales basis and were never paid any overtime or premium pay. On May 30, 2010, Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendant in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, alleging (1) violation California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 for unpaid overtime; (2) violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802 for unpaid business expenses; (3) violation California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 for wages not timely paid upon termination; (4) violation California Labor Code § 204 for wages not timely paid during employment; (5) violation California Labor Code § 226(a) for non-compliant wage statements; and (6) violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

Defendant filed a Notice of Removal on June 28, 2010, alleging federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, maintaining that they have only alleged state law claims, and thus there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendant contended that Plaintiffs have effectively alleged a separate federal claim by alleging violation of the UCL based on violation of the FLSA.

Defendant is asking that this Court treat UCL claims and the violations upon which they are based as one in the same. However, Defendant has not cited, and the Court has not found, any authority which supports this position. Indeed, Defendant’s view seems to directly contradict the California Supreme Court‘s characterization of the UCL as a statute that “borrows” violations of other laws and makes them “independently actionable.” Accordingly, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have somehow alleged a federal cause of action by basing their UCL claim in part on Defendant’s alleged violation of FLSA.

Defendant also contended that because most of Plaintiffs’ claims stem from their allegations that Defendant misclassified them as exempt from overtime compensation, and Plaintiffs’ overtime claim is entirely dependent on an interpretation of the FLSA, the resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims depends upon the resolution of whether Defendant violated the FLSA. The court was not persuaded.

Although Defendant is correct in noting that most of Plaintiffs’ claims stem from allegations that Defendant improperly classified them as exempt, there is no indication in the complaint that this misclassification is based on exemptions set forth in federal law, as opposed to California law. . . . Where a plaintiff has alleged a UCL claim based on both the violation of state and federal law, courts have found that federal question jurisdiction does not exist. See, e.g., Holliman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14627 at *13 (N.D. Cal. March 14, 2006) (finding no federal question jurisdiction where UCL claim was based on violations of California Labor Code and FLSA); Roskind v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. 165 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1067 (N.D. Cal. April 11, 2001) (finding no federal question jurisdiction where UCL claim was based on “unfair” misrepresentations and violation of the National Association of Securities Dealers rules); Castro v. Providian Nat’l Bank, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19062 at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2000) (finding that even if plaintiffs were basing UCL claim on violation of federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) in addition to violations of California law, claim did not depend on question of federal law because jury could find violation of section 17200 without finding violation of TILA).

Here, Plaintiffs have alleged a UCL claim based on a number of “unlawful” acts, which include two FLSA violations in addition to nine violations of the California Labor Code. Because a single unlawful business practice may give rise to liability under the UCL, a jury could very well find that Defendant violated section 17200 without also finding that it violated the FLSA. As such, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim does not depend upon the resolution of a question of federal law.

Id. **3-4.

Tagged California, California Supreme Court, Fair Labor Standard Act, FLSA, Law, Morgan Stanley, United States, University College London

Waiting Time Penalties

Waiting Time Penalty Under Labor Code Section 203(a) Should Be Calculated Based on Actual Hours Worked

Image by mdid

The Fourth District issued an unpublished opinion discussing the proper means of calculating the waiting time penalty under Labor Code section 203. In Riley v. Valencia, 2010 WL 3195816 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Aug. 13, 2010), the trial court utilized the actual hours the employee worked to calculate the penalty. The employee, Ashley Riley, contended the trial court improperly calculated the section 203 waiting time penalty, arguing that the court should have multiplied her hourly rate ($6.75) for 30 days at eight hours per day for a total penalty of $1,620, as opposed to multiplying her hourly rate ($6.75) by her average daily hours worked (3.5 hours) for 30 days for a total penalty of $708.75. Riley contends that section 203 required the trial court to use eight hours per day in its calculations, even though Riley actually worked only three to four hours per day.

The Fourth District concluded the trial court properly calculated the penalty and affirmed the judgment.

Facts

Riley bused tables for employer Valencia (doing business as La Carreta Mexican Restaurant). Eventually, Riley left or was discharged from her employment and filed suit against Valencia for waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due, among other employment-related causes of action. The trial court found in favor of Riley pursuant to section 203 and made the following calculations: “a. Penalty for failure to pay all wages due upon discharge: 6.75 x 3.5 = 23.625 x 30 = $708.75.”

Issue

The sole issue facing the Fourth District was whether the trial court properly calculated the waiting time penalty pursuant to section 203 where it used Riley’s actual hours worked, instead of a generic eight-hour work day, to calculate the “wages” of the employee at the “same rate” pursuant to Labor Code § 203(a).

Because section 203 does not explicitly define “same rate,” Riley contends the waiting time penalty calculus should rely on section 510, subdivision (a)’s definition of a day’s work: “Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work.” We conclude the trial court properly calculated the waiting time penalty because the trial court averaged Riley’s daily pay rate ($6.75 x 3.5 hours) and applied that number ($23.625) to reach the correct penalty result of $708.75.

Section 203(a) states:

If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201.3, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. An employee who secretes or absents himself or herself to avoid payment to him or her, or who refuses to receive the payment when fully tendered to him or her, including any penalty then accrued under this section, is not entitled to any benefit under this section for the time during which he or she so avoids payment.”

The court concluded that “same rate” as used in Section 203(a) means the “employee’s actual daily wage and does not refer to an arbitrary daily wage based on a standard eight-hour workday.” Id. *2.

Following the plain meaning of section 203, California courts have consistently construed the “same rate” variable of the waiting time penalty calculus to consist of the ratio of dollars per hours actually worked. (Mamika v. Barca (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 487, 490; Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1, 7-8; Oppenheimer v. Sunkist Growers, Inc. (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d Supp. 897, 898-899.) Courts take this “daily wage” and multiply it by up to 30 days, thereby yielding the waiting time penalty. (Mamika, at p. 490; Barnhill, at pp. 7-8; Oppenheimer, at pp. Supp. 898-899.)

Following this authority, we also conclude that section 203, subdivision (a) means exactly what it says that “the wages of the employee shall continue … at the same rate” for up to 30 days. Here, the trial court correctly calculated the waiting time penalty because the employee’s “same rate” plainly refers to the employee’s actual daily wage and does not refer to an arbitrary daily wage based on a standard eight-hour workday. (Mamika v. Barca, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 492-493.) This interpretation has been utilized by California courts since at least 1957, and as early as 1909 in other state courts interpreting similar statutes. (Oppenheimer v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., supra, 153 Cal.App.2d at pp. Supp. 898-899; St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Bryant (1909) 92 Ark. 425 [122 S.W. 996].) Riley does not cite, nor have we found, any case law supporting her contention that section 203 requires trial courts to calculate the waiting time penalty with a fixed eight-hour workday.

Plaintiff contended that the court should import section 510(a) statement that eight hours of labor constitutes a “day’s work” into section 203’s waiting time penalty calculation. But the court concluded that section 510(a) “applies to overtime pay rates and thus is not applicable to section 203’s waiting time penalty calculation”. The court noted that “neither a ‘day’s work,’ nor ‘an 8 hour workday,’ nor any reference to section 510 appears in section 203.” Id. *2. The court found that section 203(a) requires “employee-specific calculations because it refers to ‘the wages of an employee’ or the employee’s wage per the employee’s hours worked.”

Judges and Attorneys

The appeal was taken from a judgment of Hon. Eddie C. Sturgeon, the Superior Court of San Diego County.

Justice Gilbert Nares wrote the opinion, with Justices Patricia D. Benke and Cynthia Aaron concurring.

Scott A. McMillan of The McMillan Law Firm, APC in La Mesa, CA represented Plaintiff and Appellant.

Marc Howard Mandelblatt of the Law Offices of Marc Mandelblatt in San Diego, CA represented Defendant and Respondent.

Tagged Capital punishment, Crime and Justice, Death Penalty, Robert Saunders, Superior court, The Hindu Group, Trial court, United States

Preemption

Eastern District of California Rejects UTSA Preemption of Contractual Nondisclosure Claim

: Image via Wikipedia

Since the opinion in Court of Appeal decision in K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 939, 954 (2009), defendants have successfully demurred to common law-based causes of action, arguing that the UTSA preempts them. In this next case, Removable Media Solutions v. AAR Mobility Systems, 2010 WL 3034219 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2010) (slip op.), defense counsel takes it one step further, arguing that the statute preempts a contract claim. This is despite the language of the statute that expressly excludes preemption of “contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret“.

Plaintiff Removable Media Solutions, Inc. (“RMSI”) previously sought to sell a telecommunications device to the California National Guard. RMSI sought the assistance of defendant AAR Manufacturing, Inc., (“AAR”) in this endeavor. The California National Guard eventually elected to retain the services of AAR but not RMSI in producing the device, and AAR subsequently sold similar devices to other states.

RMSI’s claims alleged that AAR breached a non-disclosure agreement. AAR sought summary judgment on both. The court denied the motion as to the non-disclosure agreement.

AAR’s sole argument for summary judgment on this claim was that it was preempted by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as by California, and in particular by Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7. In pertinent part, this statute provides that:

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided, this title does not supersede any statute relating to misappropriation of a trade secret, or any statute otherwise regulating trade secrets.

(b) This title does not affect

(1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret,

(2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or

(3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.

“Undaunted by the statute’s explicit statement that it does not affect contractual remedies, AAR argues that the statute preempts for breach of the non-disclosure agreement. This assault on the plain language of the statute fails.”

The Court wrote:

Courts have held that except for the three exemptions noted in subsection (b), the statute implicitly “preempts common law claims that are based on misappropriation of a trade secret.” Ali v. Fasteners for Retail, Inc., 544 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1070 (E.D.Cal.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc., 171 Cal.App. 4th 939, 954 (2009), Accuimage Diagnostics Corp. v. Terarecon, Inc., 260 F.Supp.2d 941, 954 (N.D.Cal.2003) (holding that this interpretation was implied by Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 29 Cal.4th 215, 224 (2002)).

AAR’s argument that this implicit preemption extends to contract claims invokes a gross misreading of the caselaw. AAR quotes the statement from Digital Envoy, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 370 F.Supp.2d 1025 (N.D.Cal.2005) that “all state law claims based on the same nucleus of facts as the trade secrets claim are preempted under California’s UTSA.” Id. at 1034.FN4 AAR argues that notwithstanding the statute’s explicit saving of contract claims, courts have stated that “common law claims” arising out of the same operative facts as a trade secret claims are preempted, and that contract claims are common law claims, so contract claims must be preempted.

To the extent that Digital Envoy held that “all claims” are preempted, it plainly referred to “all claims” argued to be preempted in that case, i.e., claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment. Id. at 1035 (“California’s statute. preempts Digital’s claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment.”). Digital Envoy and other cases have explicitly recognized that § 3426.7 does not preempt contract claims. Id. (§ 3426.7 “explicitly states that claims based upon breach of contract … are not preempted by the statute.”); see also First Advantage Background Servs. Corp. v. Private Eyes, Inc., 569 F.Supp.2d 929, 936 (N.D.Cal.2008), HiRel Connectors, Inc. v. United States, No. CV 01-11069, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93332 (C.D.Cal. July 18, 2006) (“Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract is not preempted by California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act.”). While few California courts have spoken to the scope of this statute, at least one state court has allowed a claim for breach of a non-disclosure agreement to proceed in parallel with a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. Glue-Fold, Inc. v. Slautterback Corp., 82 Cal.App. 4th 1018, 1021 (2000). Although Glue-Fold did not discuss possible preemption of the contract claim, this may well be because the issue was so clear as to require no discussion.

Although this conclusion should be obvious, the court has exhaustively searched cases citing § 3426.7, finding no cases providing even implicit support for AAR’s theory. AAR’s motion is therefore denied as to this claim.

Id. **4-5.

Senior District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton wrote the opinion.

Tagged California, California National Guard, Cause of action, Food and Drug Administration, Lawrence K. Karlton, Non-disclosure agreement, Uniform Trade Secrets Act, United States

News

Chicago Sued Over BlackBerry Overtime

A Chicago police sergeant has brought an FLSA collective action against the city for overtime pay related to the off-hours use of his BlackBerry PDA device. The complaint in Allen v. City of Chicago, No. 10-CV-03183, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. You can view the complaint here.

Photo by Cheon Fong Liew

The complaint alleges that it is brought by a Chicago Police Sergeant on behalf of himself and other similarly situated members of the Chicago Police Department for purposes of obtaining relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended, 29 U.S.C. §201, et. seq. (hereinafter “FLSA”) for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

Defendant has willfully violated the FLSA by intentionally failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all compensation due them under the FLSA and its implementing regulations over the course of the last three years. Defendant administered an unlawful compensation system that failed to provide hourly compensation and premium overtime compensation to employees that work overtime hours “off the clock.” Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were issued personal data assistants (“PDA’s”), such as BlackBerry devices, that they are required to use outside their normal working hours without receiving any compensation for such hours. Defendant’s deliberate failure to compensate its Chicago Police Department employees for these hours worked violates federal law as set forth in FSLA.

The plaintiff’s attorneys are MaryAnn Pohl and Paul D. Geiger.

Tagged Chicago, Chicago Police Department, Fair Labor Standards Act, Law, Overtime, Police, United States, Working time

23(b)(3) Class, Attorneys' Fees, Class Actions, Settlement

Northern District Approves 28.9% Fee Award in Wage and Hour Class Action Settlement

: Image via Wikipedia

Judge Jeffrey S. White approved a wage and hour class action settlement of a non-reversionary $1.8 million, inclusive of $520,000 in attorneys fees, in Ozga v. U.S. Remodelers, Inc., No. C 09-05112 JSW, 2010 WL 3186971 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010).

Plaintiff filed a class action in the Alameda Superior Court on February 17, 2009, alleging that Defendant U.S. Remodelers Inc. violated the California Labor Code and violated California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by: (1) requiring its Installer employees to work substantial amounts of time without compensation; (2) regularly failing to provide Installers with meal and rest periods; and (3) refusing to reimburse expenses that Installers incurred in the performance of their work duties, including travel expenses and equipment costs.

Defendant removed the action to this Court, and Plaintiff subsequently moved to remand. But before the hearing on the motion to remand, the parties reached a settlement, which was facilitated, in part, by a mediation that occurred on October 1, 2009, before Michael Loeb. The parties also engaged in some discovery, and Class Counsel interviewed a number of Settlement Class members.

The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, adequate and reasonable. As noted, the settlement was reached after the parties engaged in discovery, conducted a meditation, and continued to engage in arms-length negotiations. The parties agreed to a Settlement payment of $1,800,000.00, none of which will revert to the Defendant. The overall reaction to the settlement has been positive. The Claims Administrator has received 156 claim forms from the 270 Class Members. (Id., ¶¶ 20-21.) Neither the Claims Administrator nor the Court received any objections to the Settlement. No Class Member appeared at the final approval hearing to object. According to the Claims Administrator, assuming the Court were to grant in full Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and service awards, approximately $1,108,917.72 would be available to distribute Class Members who submitted timely claim forms, for an average award of just over $7,000. (Id. ¶¶ 16-18.)

The Court approved costs to be paid to the Claims Administrator of $10,000.00 from the Settlement Fund.

Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Service Awards

Plaintiff brought an unopposed fee application, seeking $600,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, $11,274.89 in costs, and $10,000.00 in service awards to him and to class member Boris Moskovich.

Plaintiff’s counsel sought an award of attorneys’ fees based on the percentage method, asking for 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund. The court agreed to depart from the 25% benchmark. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that 25% is benchmark and “usual” range of awards is 20-30%); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that 25% is benchmark). But the court would not vary from the benchmark to the degree requested by counsel.

The Court concludes that counsel did achieve an excellent result for the class, that the reaction to the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive, and that Plaintiff faced significant risk in prosecuting this case given the uncertain state of California law in similar wage and hour cases. The Court also recognizes that other courts have awarded settlement fees of up to 33 1/3% in such cases. However, the parties reached this settlement quickly and did not engage in any motion practice. See, e.g., Navarro v. Servisair, 2010 WL 1729538 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2010) (finding that proposed award of 30% of settlement fund unjustifiably departed from benchmark based in part on speed with which parties reached a settlement). Moreover, the requested percentage would amount to award that is more than double the fees actually incurred by counsel. Compare Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 482, 491 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (awarding 33 1/3% of settlement fund which was “significantly less” than asserted lodestar).

Thus the court found that an award of $520,000.00 was reasonable.

The court found counsels’ requests for costs in the amount of $11,274.89 reasonable.

The court also approved service awards in the amount of $10,000.00 for the lead plaintiff and for a class member.