Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

Filing 623

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 603 Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2018)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA,
et al.,

Case No. 09-cv-00037-CW

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

6
v.
7
8
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

(Dkt. Nos. 603 & 615)

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
et al.,
Defendants.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pursuant to the stipulation regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and service awards, the Court orders
the parties to comply with the stipulation and to that extent
grants Plaintiffs' motion.

The Court finds Plaintiffs’

attorneys' stipulated fees to be reasonable.

The hours claimed

are well-supported and the rates are those allowed under the
Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
603-2.

See generally, Docket No.

Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs is sufficiently itemized and

the costs they are seeking are statutorily permitted under 28
U.S.C. § 1920 or the EAJA.

Docket No. 604.

The Court further

finds Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees to be reasonable because they
were substantially discounted from the original total amount of
$20 million down to $4.5 million using the statutory EAJA rates
and discounting hours.

This amount was further reduced to the

stipulated amount of $3.4 million.
This was a class action.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)(A), “the

court may direct appropriate notice to the class” of attorneys’

1

fees requests for Rule 23(b)(2) classes.

2

Plaintiffs’ counsels’ posting of the motion papers on the class

3

website, see Docket 616-1, Declaration of James Bennett, ¶ 5, was

4

sufficient notice for purposes of Rules 23(h) & 23(b)(2)(A).

5

The Court finds that

“A class member . . . may object to the motion” for
attorneys’ fees.

7

Djina Meirow (on behalf of decedent Larry Meirow), and Frank

8

Rochelle have sent letters expressing various opinions.

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Docket Nos. 619, 620 & 621.

10
11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h).

Plaintiffs Bruce Price,

See

However, these letters do not appear

to object to the attorneys’ fees and costs.
Service awards to class representatives compensate them for

12

the work they have done for the class, for the financial or

13

reputational risk they have undertaken in bringing the action,

14

and for their willingness to act as a private attorney general.

15

In re Mego Financial Corp. Securities Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 463

16

(9th Cir. 2000); Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d

17

948, 958–959 (9th Cir. 2009).

18

evaluated using the following five factors: (1) the risk to the

19

class representative in commencing a class action, both financial

20

and otherwise; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulties

21

encountered by the class representative; (3) the amount of time

22

and effort spent by the class representative; (4) the duration of

23

the litigation; and (5) the personal benefit, or lack thereof,

24

enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the

25

litigation.

26

294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

27
28

Requests for service awards may be

Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp.

Plaintiffs have sought a total of $160,000 total in service
awards, or $20,000 per named Plaintiff for their work in this
2

litigation.

2

$10,000 or $25,000 to be “quite high” and outside the $5,000

3

amount presumed to be reasonable.

4

Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2012 WL 381202, at * 7 (N.D. Cal. Oct.

5

22, 2014) (summarizing authority).

6

circumstances here warrant this amount.

7

lengthy duration of this litigation spanning almost a decade,

8

Plaintiffs’ participation in discovery and hearings, along with

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

their participation with the media, and because their service

Some courts in this district have found payments of

Harris v. Vector Marketing

However, the Court finds the
Specifically, given the

10

awards will not prejudice the other class members and is

11

unopposed by Defendant, the Court finds $20,000 per named

12

Plaintiff to be reasonable and proper here.

13

Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 14-md-2541-CW, 2017 WL 6040065, at *11

14

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017) (approving award of $20,000); see id. at

15

*11, n.69 (summarizing cases with service awards ranging from

16

$20,000 up to $120,000 in instances of a $415 million dollar

17

settlement fund).

18

the service awards be higher or that they be tax-free.

19

above, the service awards are higher than what is presumptively

20

reasonable in this District and a higher amount will not be

21

ordered.

22

the jurisdiction of the Court.

See In re: Nat’l

Plaintiffs' letters to the Court request that
As noted

The request for a change in tax treatment is not within

23

Plaintiffs' letters also request a formal apology and

24

express concerns over whether Defendants will abide by the

25

injunction.

26

attorneys’ fees and costs and service awards.

27

apology is likewise not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

28

Defendants do not abide by the injunctions, class counsel will

These are not valid objections to the motion for

3

Ordering an
If

1

bring that to the Court’s attention.

2

that this payment of fees would not constitute an “admission of

3

liability or fault” to the issues litigated here, Docket 615 at

4

2-3, is misplaced.

5

findings and has “no impact on the injunctions, judgment, and

6

relief ordered by the Court” provided to Plaintiffs here.

7

2.

8

Lastly, Plaintiffs’ concern

This provision is unrelated to the Court’s

Id. at

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

Dated: October 4, 2018
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4