Gallion v. Apple, Inc

Filing 148

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION RE FEE AND COST AWARD. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/17/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12
13

IN RE APPLE IPHONE/IPOD
WARRANTY LITIGATION

14

No. C 10-1610 RS
ORDER OF CLARIFICATION RE
FEE AND COST AWARD

15
16
17

____________________________________/

18
By order filed April 14, 2014, plaintiffs’ counsel was awarded fees and costs of 25% of the
19
settlement fund remaining after deduction of the expenses of settlement administration. Apple now
20
seeks clarification because, under the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, it is obliged to pay
21
administrative expenses in addition to the $53 million settlement fund. The April 14th order was
22
premised on the mistaken understanding that settlement expenses were to be deducted from the
23
fund, and on the view that it would therefore be inappropriate to allow fees on the portion of the
24
fund consumed by such expenses rather than distributed to the class.
25
Apple notes that the April 14th order also noted that a recovery of somewhat less than the
26
full 25% “benchmark” in fees could be warranted, and that deducting administrative expenses would
27
serve that additional purpose. Apple proposes, therefore, that the fee recovery still be calculated
28

1

against the amount of the fund less the amount of administrative expenses, even though those

2

expenses will not actually decrease the fund.

3

Because applying the 25% benchmark against the actual fund amount will continue to result

4

in a fair and reasonable fee and cost award notwithstanding the fact it will be slightly higher than

5

contemplated by the April 14th order, the approach Apple suggests will not be required.

6

Accordingly, the fee and cost award is set at $13.25 million (25% of $53 million) and plaintiffs are

7

relieved from the obligation to file an accounting of the administrative expenses.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: 4/17/14
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2