Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc.

Filing 338

ORDER Granting 325 Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval. Mr. Hester, class representative, is awarded $15,000.00 from the gross common fund. Class Counsel is awarded $1,587,472.35 in attorneys fees and $398,862.92 in costs from the gross common fund. The remaining net proceeds of the common fund may be distributed according to the allocation plan previously approved by this Court. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 07/10/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11

GERALD HESTER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
VISION AIRLINES, INC.,
15
16

Case No.: 2:09-cv-00117-RLH-RJJ
ORDER
(Motion for Final Approval - #325)

Defendant.
_______________________________________

17
Before the Court is Plaintiff Gerald Hester and Class’ Motion for Final Approval
18
(#325, filed March 13, 2013). The Class seeks to disburse funds according to the Class’ allocation
19
plan, and award Mr. Hester a service award of $15,000.00 for acting as Class representative.
20
Additionally, the Class seeks an award of 30% of the gross common fund to be paid to Class
21
Counsel. The Class’ Motion for Final Approval is granted.
22
DISCUSSION
23
Whether to award Mr. Hester a service award for his efforts is within the Court’s
24
discretion. In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir. 2000). Considering the
25
Mr. Hester’s risk, personal difficulties, time and effort expended, and the nature and length of this
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

case, the Court finds a service award of $15,000.00 to Mr. Hester for acting as Class representative

2

is fair, adequate, reasonable, and warranted. See Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp

3

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

4

The common fund doctrine is a common law rule permitting the recovery of fees

5

from the damage award obtained. See Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S.

6

240 (1975). A reasonable fee under the common fund doctrine is calculated as a percentage of the

7

recovery. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 900 n. 16 (1984). The Ninth Circuit has recognized 25

8

percent of the fund as the “benchmark” award that should be given in common fund cases. Paul,

9

Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the benchmark

10

percentage should be adjusted when special circumstances indicate that the percentage recovery

11

would be either too small or too large in light of the hours devoted to the case or other relevant

12

factors. Id. Here, Class Counsel has expended an extraordinary amount of time, skill, and patience

13

to obtain the damages reward. See Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.

14

1975). Therefore, an upward adjustment to 30 percent is reasonable and warranted.

15

CONCLUSION

16

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Class’ Motion for Final Approval (#325) is

18

GRANTED. Mr. Hester, class representative, is awarded $15,000.00 from the gross common fund.

19

Class Counsel is awarded $1,587,472.35 in attorneys’ fees and $398,862.92 in costs from the gross

20

common fund. The remaining net proceeds of the common fund may be distributed according to

21

the allocation plan previously approved by this Court.

22
23

Dated: July 10, 2013

24
25

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2