Whalen v. Ford Motor Company ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE Case No. 13-cv-03072-EMC 8 MYFORD TOUCH CONSUMER LITIGATION FURTHER ORDER GRANTING 9 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 10 Docket No. 527 11 12 13 14 On August 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees. See Docket No. 527 15 (“AF Mot.”). Plaintiffs seek $16 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, which was the figure that 16 Magistrate Judge Kim “independently proposed to the parties.” See AF Mot. at 1. Class Counsel 17 represents that it accrued approximately $5,800,535 in expenses, of which $4.1 million went 18 towards expert fees (primarily related to hiring engineers to review software code). Id. at 17. 19 Subtracting these costs from the $16 million request, Class Counsel is effectively seeking 20 $10,199,465 in attorneys’ fees. 21 In assessing the request for attorneys’ fees, the Court employed both the lodestar approach 22 and the percentage-of-recovery method. When compared to the $31,445,713.25 in fees accrued by 23 Class Counsel (as reflected in their contemporaneously tracked records), id. at 7, the fee request 24 represents a negative multiplier of .32. As the Court noted in its order granting Preliminary 25 Approval: “The Ninth Circuit has observed that lodestar multipliers ranging from one to four are 26 frequently awarded in complex class action cases, Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 27 1051 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002), and ‘courts view self-reduced fees’ representing a negative multiplier on 1 Cal. 2016). . . . [Thus,] the negative multiplier it has applied to its fee request suggests the request 2 is reasonable.” Docket No. 526 at 13. Nothing has changed since the Court’s earlier order that 3 would disturb its prior analysis, thus the lodestar analysis counsels in favor of granting the fee 4 request. The Court also employed the percentage-of-recovery method in assessing the request for 5 fees. See Bluetooth Headset, 654 F.3d at 944. The attorneys’ fees of $10,199,464.94 represent 6 approximately 31% of the estimated $33 million that Ford will pay in settling this case ($17 7 million settlement fund + $16 million fees and costs); while slightly high, that percentage is not so 8 excessive relative to the 25% benchmark in the Ninth Circuit, see Bluetooth Headset, 654 F.3d at 9 942, to impugn the request. The request for attorneys’ fees is reasonable. For these reasons and 10 for those stated on the record at the fairness hearing, the Court GRANTS the Motion for 11 Attorneys’ Fees in the amount of $10,199,464.94. 12 Turning next to the issue of costs, as noted above, Class Counsel represents that it has 13 accrued approximately $5,800,535.06 in expenses, of which $4.1 million went towards expert 14 fees. AF Mot. at 17.1 As with the lodestar numbers, each firm provided an individualized expense 15 report further explaining their expenditures. See Docket No. 528-3 at 2 (Chimicles); Docket No. 16 529-1 at 2 (Hagens Berman); Docket No. 530-3 at 2 (DLG); Docket No. 531-4 at 2 (Baron & 17 Budd). In addition, Plaintiffs note that some of counsel’s expenses were reduced in order to 18 comply with the Court’s cost-limiting order. See, e.g., Docket No. 528 at 12 and Docket No. 528- 19 3 (noting that actual Travel/Food/Lodging expenses totaled $79,479.91, but $9,220.10 of those 20 expenses exceeded the limitations set forth by the Court, so only $70,259.81 was submitted). For 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 the reasons stated on the record, as well as those reasons reflected in the Court’s order granting 2 || preliminary approval, see Docket No. 526, the Court GRANTS the request for expenses in the 3 amount of $5,800,535.06. 4 This order disposes of Docket No. 527. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || Dated: December 17, 2019 9 LL 10 | : hfe —__§_§_ ED M. CHEN I United States District Judge a 12 15 16 it 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28