Ofik Kyurkjian, et al v. AXA, et al

Filing 369

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Settlement Fund Board's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 301 . The Board is hereby awarded $3000.00 in costs, to be disbursed from the costs fund. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:02-cv-01750-CAS(Mcx); c/w
2:05-cv-02596-CAS(Mcx)

Title

OFIK KYURKJIAN, ET AL. V. AXA, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 21, 2014

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(IN CHAMBERS): SETTLEMENT FUND BOARD’S MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES (Dkt. 301, filed February 14, 2014)

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On February 14, 2014, the Settlement Fund Board (“Board”) filed a motion for
attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) and 54(d)(2). The Board seeks
fees in the amount of $18,250.00 and costs in the amount of $28,511.93, for a total of
$46,761.93. On February 25, 2014, Geragos & Geragos (“G&G”) and Kabateck Brown
Kellner LLP (“Kabateck”) filed an opposition. Dkt. 312. On February 28, 2014, the
Board filed a reply. Dkt. 338. On March 31, 2014, the Court held a hearing. After
considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

DISCUSSION

Beginning with fees, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) states that a “court may award
reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the
parties’ agreement.” Although the Board are not class counsel, they argue that they are
still entitled to receive fees based on the Advisory Committee notes for Rule 23(h):
This subdivision does not undertake to create new grounds for an award of
attorney fees or nontaxable costs. Instead, it applies when such awards are
authorized by law or by agreement of the parties. Against that background, it
provides a format for all awards of attorney fees and nontaxable costs in
connection with a class action, not only the award to class counsel. In some
situations, there may be a basis for making an award to other counsel whose
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:02-cv-01750-CAS(Mcx); c/w
2:05-cv-02596-CAS(Mcx)

Date

Title

April 21, 2014

OFIK KYURKJIAN, ET AL. V. AXA, ET AL.
work produced a beneficial result for the class, such as attorneys who acted for
the class before certification but were not appointed class counsel, or attorneys
who represented objectors to a proposed settlement under Rule 23(e) or to the
fee motion of class counsel. Other situations in which fee awards are authorized
by law or by agreement of the parties may exist.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory committee’s note (emphasis added). The Court agrees that
Rule 23(h) authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to attorneys other than class counsel.
Here, however, the Board has not shown that the fees are compensation for work that
“produced a beneficial result for the class.” Id. The billing records submitted by the
Board indicate that the fees sought were incurred preparing for various status conference
hearings and researching a never-filed motion to intervene. The Board does not point to
any concrete “beneficial result” that this work produced for the class. Accordingly, the
Court concludes that an award of fees would be inappropriate under Rule 23(h).
Turning to costs, the Board requests costs in the amount of $28,511.93. The bulk
of the requested costs are travel costs associated with the Board member’s travel to attend
the April 28, 2011 status conference. The Court previously denied the Board’s request
for reimbursement of these costs because the Board members was neither invited to nor
needed at the status conference. See Geragos Decl. Ex. B. The Court declines to revisit
that conclusion now.
In addition to travel reimbursement, the Board requests costs for $3000.00
expended in secretarial costs. Board Decl. ¶ 4. The Court finds that these costs should be
reimbursed pursuant to the November 2005 settlement agreement, which provides for
reimbursement of “out-of-pocket expenses.” See Boyd Decl. Ex. A § XIV.A.5. Beyond
this $3000.00 for secretarial expenses, however, the Board does not separately tabulate its
costs. As a result, the Court cannot identify what portion of the requested $28,511.93 is
attributable to costs other than travel or secretarial expenses. Accordingly, the Court
finds that all other requests for costs should be denied.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:02-cv-01750-CAS(Mcx); c/w
2:05-cv-02596-CAS(Mcx)

Title

OFIK KYURKJIAN, ET AL. V. AXA, ET AL.

III.

Date

April 21, 2014

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
the Board’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Board is hereby awarded $3000.00
in costs, to be disbursed from the costs fund.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3