Parry v. National Seating & Mobility Inc

Filing 140

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 11/4/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

NATIONAL SEATING & MOBILITY, INC.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 10-02782 JSW

Plaintiff,
v.

12

MICHAEL PARRY, et al.,

13

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION
AND ORDER EXTENDING
DEADLINE

Defendants.

14

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM
/

15
16

On November 1, 2013, the parties appeared for the final approval hearing. Prior to that

17

hearing, the parties submitted several supplemental briefs addressing the Court’s Notice of

18

Tentative Ruling and Questions for Hearing. At the hearing, the Court stated that these filings

19

had mooted the Court’s questions. The Court clarifies that these filings mooted the Court’s

20

concerns raised in questions 1 through 3. The Court’s Notice of Tentative ruling was not an

21

invitation to argue its conclusion that Class Counsel had not adequately supported their lodestar

22

request or shown why the Court should award fees in excess of the benchmark of 25% that the

23

Ninth Circuit applies when a court relies on the percentage-of- recovery method. In their

24

supplemental brief, Class Counsel construed that statement as a “question” about whether they

25

could provide additional support for the requested attorneys’ fees. (See Docket No. 136,

26

Supplemental Brief at 2:4-6, 9-15.) The Court HEREBY CLARIFIES that the Supplemental

27

Brief filed at Docket No. 136 did not moot the Court’s conclusion regarding the lodestar

28

method or the 25% benchmark.

1

In the event the parties construed the Court’s statement to the contrary, the Court issues

2

this Order clarifying that statement. In addition, the Court realized that it inadvertently set the

3

deadline for additional documents in support of the attorneys’ fee request on November 9, 2013,

4

which is a Saturday. Accordingly, once again, if Class Counsel seeks to have the Court award

5

the full amount of attorneys’ fees requested ($197,581.96), by no later than November 12,

6

2013, they must provide the Court with a generalized breakdown, per attorney, of the type of

7

work performed (e.g., research on motion for class certification, drafting motion for class

8

certification, prepare discovery requests, respond to discovery requests, document review), the

9

number of hours spent on each task, and the billing rate per hour for that attorney.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 4, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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