Whalen v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 553

ORDER - Further Order Granting #527 Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees signed by Judge Edward M. Chen. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IN RE

8

MYFORD TOUCH CONSUMER
LITIGATION

9
10

FURTHER ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Docket No. 527

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-03072-EMC

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

28

the lodestar ‘favorably,’ Schuchardt v. Law Office of Rory W. Clark, 314 F.R.D. 673, 690 (N.D.

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
for those stated on the record at the fairness hearing, the Court GRANTS the Motion for

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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
28

These expenses do not include the cost of the second mailing, which Plaintiffs’ counsel had
agreed to cover (as discussed above). The estimated cost of that mailing is $119,520.
2
1

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
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3