Steering Committee v. Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. , 386 F. App'x 584 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 25 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: BEXTRA AND CELEBREX                       No. 09-16928
    MARKETING SALES PRACTICES AND
    PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION,                    DC No. M 05-1699 CRB
    PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING                             MEMORANDUM *
    COMMITTEE,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR.; et al.,
    Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 18, 2010 **
    San Francisco, California
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    Before:         TASHIMA and BEA, Circuit Judges, and READE, District Judge.***
    Appellants Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., and the Becnel Law Firm, L.L.C. (together,
    “Becnel”), appeal the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees in this multidistrict
    litigation (“MDL”). We review the district court’s fee award for abuse of
    discretion. In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 
    19 F.3d 1291
    , 1296-97
    (9th Cir. 1994). Because we see no such abuse here, we affirm.
    1. The district court’s decision to strike the $17,400 in fees recommended
    by the Special Master for the time billed by Ruche Marino was justified by
    Becnel’s failure to provide the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee with Marino’s time
    records in a timely fashion.
    2. We further agree that the negative multiplier applied to Becnel’s lodestar
    fee was appropriate in light of Becnel’s failure to identify any common-benefit
    work product that the firm produced over the course of this litigation.
    3. Finally, the district court acted within its discretion when it declined to
    compensate Becnel for time spent on Bextra and Celebrex matters prior to the
    commencement of the MDL. Becnel’s fee request included only a minimal amount
    of hours that predated the MDL. Given that the district court consistently applied a
    ***
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief United States District Judge,
    Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
    -2-
    pre-MDL cutoff to the fee requests of all firms, its decision was not an abuse of
    discretion.
    For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order awarding common-
    benefit attorneys’ fees is AFFIRMED.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-16928

Citation Numbers: 386 F. App'x 584

Judges: Tashima, Bea, Reade

Filed Date: 6/25/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024