$1.5 Million Fee Recovery To Plaintiff Held Up, With City’s Petition For Review Being Denied. On August 28, 2015, we posted on Walker v. City of San Clemente, a Fourth District, Division 3 unpublished decision sustaining a $10.5 million refund judgment against City under the Mitigation Fee Act and also upholding a $1.5 […]
Class Counsel Asked For $100.8 Million In Fees/Expenses But Were Awarded “Only” $74 Million. On December 4, 2015, a New York federal district judge awarded class counsel in the JP Morgan Chase mortgage-backed securities class action about $74 million in fees and costs based on a $388 million settlement. This was less than
High Percentage Of Common Fund That Is Much Lower Than Lodestar Is Reasonable Way To Calculate Fee Award In Class Action. A fee award to plaintiffs’ attorneys of 37.5% of the settlement fund may seem generous. Indeed, it seemed too generous to objectors in Roos v. Honeywell International and Rogers, A142156 (1/1 Nov.
City Was Not Aggrieved So As To Have Appellate Standing. In Walker v. City of San Clemente, Case No. G050987 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 28, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs successfully obtained a refund from San Clemente of about $10.5 million in unexpended development fees to property owners on which the City had imposed unwarranted
7% Payment For Use Of Steering Committee’s Work Product Was Proper, Covering Both California State Cases And Other Federal Cases. In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Product Liab. Litig., No. 14-2980 (3d Cir. July 2, 2015) (not precedential) involved a dispute between California firm Girardi Keese (GK) and an MDL Plaintiffs’ Steering
Actions Resulted in Younger Generations Getting $1 Million in Distributions Where Prior Distributions Only Went To Senior Generation Beneficiaries. Neither the lower nor appellate courts in Gaynor v. Bulen, Case No. D064872 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 20, 2014) (unpublished) had much trouble with awarding certain former trustees of a trust attorney’s fees
Fee Award Was One-Third of $19 Million Settlement Common Fund, With Percentage Of Recovery Being Acceptable Method Of Recovery In Common Fund Cases. In Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc., Case No. B249253 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 29, 2014) (unpublished), a $19 million class action settlement was approved in a tricky wage/hour
CRC Rules on Filing Fee Motions Did Not Govern Probate Proceedings. The overall, convoluted probate dispute in Sheen v. Sheen, Case No. B243847 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 1, 2014) (unpublished)—although colorful—does not involve extended discussion on the facts, although the appellate court did reverse lower court failures to award attorney’s fees to beneficiaries given
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
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
