Garner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 253

ORDER re 252 on Proposed Attorneys' Fees and Revisions to Notice to Class Members. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/15/2010. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On December 30, 2009, the parties filed motions for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement in this case. The Court has granted the parties' motions. This Order v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. / ARNESHA M. GARNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, No. C 08-01365 CW ORDER ON PROPOSED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REVISIONS TO NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

addresses the parties' proposal concerning Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and the Court's revisions to the parties' proposed notice to class members. The Settlement Agreement indicates the

Class Counsel intends to seek attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed thirty percent of the Gross Settlement Fund. The Court

notes that twenty-five percent is the benchmark award for attorneys' fees, although this amount may be adjusted if necessary. See Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 968 (9th Cir. 2003); Nobles v. MBNA Corp., 2009 WL 1854965, at *3 (N.D. Cal.). If Plaintiff's

attorneys intend to seek fees in excess of this amount, they should submit their "lodestar" numbers and provide further justification. With regard to the proposed notice, the Court suggests that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the parties make the following revisions: 1. On page one, the heading states that this is a notice for "State Farm California Policyholders Who Received a Vehicle Total Loss Payment from State Farm in 2007 or 2008." On page three, the answer to Question One states

that class members received this notice because they "may have made a vehicle total loss claim with State Farm in 2007 or 2008 . . . ." These statements do not account

for the certain "people who reside in or near San Diego and who received a vehicle total loss payment from State Farm between August 2006 and March 12, 2007," who are discussed in Question Four. The parties should revise

the heading on page one and the answer to Question One to be consistent with the answer to Question Four. 2. On page two, the parties should delete the asterisks following "Postmarked" and preceding "by" under the "Deadline" column. In the alternative, the parties could

include a footnote explaining the asterisks. 3. On page six, the answer to Question Fourteen provides the date of the Fairness Hearing. Although the Court has

scheduled the hearing for April 15, 2010 at 2:00 p.m., this date could change. The parties should add the

following sentence to the answer to Question Fourteen: "This date is subject to change. Class members should

check the Court's calendar, located on the Court's website at www.cand.uscourts.gov, to confirm the date of the Fairness Hearing." 4. On page seven, the parties shall delete "Court" between 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated:

"District" and "Judge," so that the line reads: "United States District Judge." IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 15, 2010

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

3