N.D. Cal. District Court Approves $11.4 Million Fee Award In Optical Disk Drive Case.
In In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig., No. 3:10-md-02143-RS (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2015), U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg awarded $11.4 million in fees and $1.6 million in expenses in a price-fixing conspiracy class action which produced a $38 million settlement—finding the awarded fees fair under the circumstances.
N.D. Cal. District Court Awards $3.6 Million In Fees/Costs To Plaintiffs’ Counsel In Derivative Case, But Awards Nothing To Objector Requesting $2.3 Million.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, in In re Hewlett-Packard Co. Shareholder Derivative Litig., No. 3:12-cv-06003-CRB (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2015), finally approved a settlement in a derivative case involving Hewlett-Packard’s disastrous acquisition of Autonomy Corp. He awarded plaintiffs’ attorneys $2.7 million in fees and $890,000 in expenses, finding that the litigation did inspire corporate reforms by H-P. However, the district judge awarded objector Rodney Cook nothing, nixing his request for $2.3 million in fees—determining he did not contribute to the outcome and raised a bogus conflicts issue.
E.D. Cal. Magistrate Judge Denies Wage/Hour Class Counsel’s Request For 30% Percentage Of Recovery Award, Finding Only Justification For 25% Benchmark Award.
In Ceja-Corona v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01868-SAB (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2015), plaintiffs brought a class action against CVS, claiming they were misclassified as exempt employees and not paid for overtime work. A settlement of $900,000 was reached and approved, but U.S. Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone denied a second request of plaintiffs’ counsel for a 30% fees/costs award based on the settlement amount. He found that 25% was the Ninth Circuit benchmark set in the Bluetooth decision, with no justification provided by requesting attorneys for going above this benchmark. Plaintiffs argued that California state law applied and higher amounts were countenanced, but Magistrate Judge Boone observed that two state decisions also had approved the 25% benchmark. (Lealo v. Beneficial California, Inc., 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 24 n. 1 (2000); In re Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557 n. 13 (2009).) He did allow for a renewed petition at the 25% level, but refused to give counsel a “third bite” (based on prior warnings) for 30%.
Boy bites hot dog. Coney Island. 1938. Library of Congress.