FOLEY et al v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY, INC.
Filing
318
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Special Master awarding fees and costs to Nagel Rice, LLP in the sum of $2,309,086.21. Signed by Judge Faith S. Hochberg on 5/15/2012. (nr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
RONALD DRAZIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
NEW JERSEY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.
Civil Case No. 06-6219
ORDER
Date: May 15, 2012
HOCHBERG, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon Special Master Douglas K. Wolfson’s Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding Nagel Rice LLP’s (“Nagel Rice”) lodestar, filed on
April 5, 2012.
Special Master Wolfson recommends a lodestar amount of fees and expenses of
$1,681,491.79, comprising a recommended adjusted lodestar of $1,568,986.05 and a
recommended allowance for expenses of $112,505.74. In reaching this recommendation, Special
Master Wolfson excludes $73,405.25 in billed time from the time and expense reports submitted
to the Court by Nagel Rice. This exclusion comprises $42,065.25 in fees which Nagel Rice
acknowledged were excludable and $31,340 in fees which Special Master Wolfson found to be
excludable because that billable time was either related to the side battle with Mazie Slater Katz
& Freeman LLC or was duplicative and unnecessary.
1
On April 9, 2012, the Court ordered the parties to file any responses to Special Master
Wolfson’s R&R by April 19, 2012. Bruce Nagel, Esq. of Nagel Rice LLP filed the only
response, in which he stated that Nagel Rice LLP has no objection to the R&R. No response was
filed by any other party. Therefore, the Court will adopt Special Master Wolfson’s R&R.
In its response, Nagel Rice seeks a lodestar multiplier of 1.4. If the Court were to grant a
multiplier of 1.4 to the recommended lodestar of $1,568,986.05, it would result in a total fee
award of $2,196,580.47. After adding the recommended allowance for expenses of $112,505.74,
the total award of fees and costs to Nagel Rice would be $2,309,086.21.1
In the Settlement approved by this Court on May 29, 2009, Defendants agreed not to
object to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs of up to $2,450,000. The upward multiplier of 1.4
requested by Nagel Rice, which results in a total award within those parameters, is reasonable
given the significance and complexity of this action as well as the substantial relief obtained for
the Class. See e.g., In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 Fed. Appx. 815, 818-19 (3d Cir.
2010) (finding a lodestar of 1.52 to be “well within the range of attorneys’ fees awarded and
approved by [the Third Circuit]”); In re Cendant PRIDES Litig., 243 F.3d 722, 742 (3d Cir.
2001) (suggesting a multiplier of 3 as a ceiling); McCoy v. Health Net, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 448,
479 (D.N.J. 2008) (finding a multiplier of almost 2.3 to be reasonable); In re Remeron Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 03-0085, 2005 WL 3008808, at *17 (D.N.J. Nov. 9, 2005)
(approving a multiplier of 1.8 and noting that “[a]n examination of recently approved multipliers
reveals” that multiplier to be “on the low end of the spectrum”) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
For the reasons stated above, IT IS on this 15th day of May, 2012,
1
It is not necessary to deduct Special Master Wolfson’s fees ($19,260), as that amount has
already been paid by Nagel Rice per the Court’s April 27, 2012 Order (Docket # 317).
2
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Special Master Wolfson is
ADOPTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nagel Rice’s request for a lodestar multiplier of 1.4
is GRANTED, which results in a fee award of $2,196,580.47 plus expenses of $112,505.74,
resulting in a total award of fees and costs of $2,309,086.21; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nagel Rice LLP shall recover $2,196,580.47 in fees
and $112,505.74 in costs.
/s/ Faith S. Hochberg
Hon. Faith S. Hochberg
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?