Riendeau et al v. Apache Carson Partners LP et al

Filing 77

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED DENYING the parties' joint motion seeking to stay pending Rule 16 deadlines 76 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit, on or before December 12, 2013, a memorandum, not exceeding 5 pages in length, and providing support for the reasonableness of the requested fee. (See attached PDF for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 12/9/13. (JAMA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Bonnie Riendeau, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

vs.

12
Apache Carson Partners LP, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-00988-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16
Before the court is the parties’ joint motion to approve settlement agreement and
17
dismissal of lawsuit, and joint motion to stay pending deadlines (doc. 76). The parties have
18
submitted a proposed settlement agreement under which the named plaintiffs and the one opt19
in plaintiff will receive a total of $83,000 in stipulated damages. The proposed settlement
20
agreement also provides that plaintiffs’ lawyers will receive a total of $113,000 in attorney’s
21
fees. We have concerns about the fairness of the proposed attorney’s fees.
22
First, the amount of the stipulated attorney’s fees is in excess of 136% of the total
23
damages awarded to plaintiffs. The “disparity between the value of the class recovery and
24
class counsel’s compensation raises at least an inference of unfairness.” See In re Bluetooth
25
Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, we note that the
26
named plaintiffs entered into fee agreements with class counsel whereby counsel was entitled
27
to receive up to 40% of any gross recovery. Obviously, the proposed attorney’s fee award
28

1

vastly exceeds the parties’ agreed upon fee payment. Without more, we cannot satisfy our

2

independent obligation to ensure that the fee award is not unreasonably excessive in light of

3

the results achieved.

4

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit, on or before December 12,

5

2013, a memorandum, not exceeding 5 pages in length, and providing support for the

6

reasonableness of the requested fee.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the parties’ joint motion seeking to stay

8

pending Rule 16 deadlines (doc. 76). Our Rule 16 order clearly provides that no extensions

9

will be given due to settlement negotiations. See doc. 27 at 1.

10

DATED this 9th day of December, 2013.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-