Percentage of Common Fund Not Dispositive, But Cross-Check Showed Fees As Measured By Value Of Claims Was Still Within the Ballpark. In Litwin v. iRenew Bio Energy Solutions, LLC, Case No. B248759 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion not published), a class action settlement in a false advertising
Around $13.25 Million, 25% Of $53 Million Settlement Fund (After Deducting Class Action Administration Expenses), Is Awarded To Class Counsel. Generally, California uses the lodestar as the fee-setting approach in the class action context, “cross-checked” by the percentage of recovery approach. However, reasoning by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in his fee award
Third Circuit Sustains Using Percentage of Recovery Method, “Cross Checked” By Lodestar Analysis, In Setting Class Action Counsel Fees. In Dewey v. Volkswagen of America Inc., Case Nos. 13-1123/1124 (3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2014) (not published/not precedential), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sustained a $9,207,248 attorney’s fees award to class action counsel
In Villa v. United Site Services of Cal., Inc., Case No. 12-CV-00318-LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013) (Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement), U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh, in a FLSA settlement, denied preliminary approval of a $349,676.30 settlement fund for class members where attorneys were requesting fees
As reported in he January 23, 2014 edition of The Orange County Register, well-known trial attorney Daniel J. Callahan of Callahan & Blaine, who headed a $30 million earlier settlement for carriers obtained from Freedom (together with significant fees) in Orange County Superior Court, has won a $10 million judgment against U-T San
Court Utilizes “Sliding Scale” Percentage of Fund Approach, Checked by Lodestar With Multiplier. The Price? Priceless. After approving a settlement producing a $5.7 billion settlement fund in a class action case brought by merchants against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks relating to certain interchange rates, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson then had to
Ultimately, 27.5% Common Fund Fee Recovery Affirmed, But … With Caveats. Chief Judge Easterbrook, one of the “Chicago School” jurists, authored an interesting decision on August 14, 2013 in Silverman v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 2013 WL 4082893 (3d Cir. Aug. 14, 2013). We will be curious who thinks this cuts one way or
Study Arose Out of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Review. As reported in a December 24, 2013 article in The Wall Street Journal, Mayer Brown law firm for the Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform launched a study out of concern that an ongoing review of arbitration agreements by the new Consumer Financial
Objection Centers on Plaintiffs’ Counsel Allegedly Selling Out For Fees. As reported both in The Daily Journal and ABA Journal (on-line version), Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Curt of Appeals, and his wife, Marcy Tiffany, filed objections to a proposed settlement in a class action alleging defects in
2.0 Multiplier Enhancement Was Justified. In Molina v. Lexmark International, Inc., Case Nos. B227746 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 19, 2013) (unpublished), an employer suffered a $7,777,620 adverse amended judgment in a class action involving employer’s vacation policy violations of Labor Code section 227.3. The lower court also awarded plaintiffs $145,341.93
