Moran v. FCA US LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative service awards following the preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The court granted the motion, awarding $688,920.60 in attorneys' fees, $146,079.40 in costs, and $10,000 service awards to each plaintiff.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Service Awards“The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees, costs, and service awards as stated above, and awards a total of $835,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs combined, and $10,000 for each service award.” | agree with court The court correctly applied California law to the fee calculation in a diversity action, as required by the Ninth Circuit. The use of the lodestar method is the standard approach. The court found the hours and rates reasonable and applied a negative multiplier because the requested fee was less than the billed amount. The award of costs and service awards is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. The order is internally consistent and follows the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the governing law for fees (California) and costs (FRCP 54) in a diversity case. It applies the lodestar method, which is the preferred method in California and the Ninth Circuit. The court reviews the hours and rates for reasonableness and applies a multiplier (negative in this case) to reach the final fee amount. The service award is supported by Ninth Circuit precedent. The reasoning is complete and answers the motion with the appropriate authorities.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 ALFONSO and ARLENE MORAN, Case No.: 3:17-CV-02594-JO-AHG 12 || individually, and on behalf ofa class of similarly situated individuals, Hon. JutSog 2 13 Plaintiffs, PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 14 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, V. COSTS, AND CLASS 15 REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited AWARDS 16 || liability company, Date: February 15, 2023 17 Defendant. Time: 9:15am. Place: Courtroom 4C 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 On February 15, 2023, this Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 3 || Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Service Awards. Having carefully 4 || considered the papers, evidence, and arguments presented by the parties, the Court finds, 5 || and orders, as follows: 6 1. Plaintiffs have entered into a proposed Settlement Agreement with 7 || Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant” or “FCA”) that has been preliminarily approved by 8 || separate order as fair, adequate, and reasonable to the certified Settlement Class. Plaintiffs 9 || now seek entry of an order for attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards. 10 2. The Court exercises diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 11 || U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ right to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, as 12 || well as the method of calculating the amount of that award, is governed by California law. 13 || Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1985). 14 || The Court finds that Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties for settlement purposes, having 15 || achieved a Settlement that provides substantial relief and benefits for Class Members. 16 || Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs/expenses under 17 || California law. 18 3. The Court applies California’s lodestar/multiplier method to calculate the 19 || appropriate attorneys’ fees to be awarded to Plaintiffs. Under this method, the Court first 20 || determines the lodestar by multiplying the number of hours Class Counsel reasonably 21 || spent by reasonable hourly rates. Also under this method, the Court may then apply a 22 || multiplier to the lodestar. 23 4. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ submission and finds that Class 24 || Counsel’s time was reasonably spent and that their hourly rates are commensurate with 25 || the hourly prevailing rates for private attorneys in the community conducting class action 26 || litigation. Multiplying the documented hours Class Counsel reasonably spent litigating 27 || this case by their hourly rates, the Court finds that Class Counsel’s $1,066,528.50 lodestar 28 || is reasonable.
l 5. Because Plaintiffs seek an amount in fees that is less than what is actually 2 || billed, the requested fee amount is reasonable and appropriate. Applying a negative 3 || multiplier of .65 to Class Counsel’s lodestar of $1,066,528.50 yields the requested fee 4 || amount of $688,920.60, which the Court finds to be reasonable attorneys’ fees for the 5 || services rendered. 6 6. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 governs the determination of costs and 7 || expenses in a diversity action in federal court. Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 8 || 1167 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court has reviewed the evidence of Class Counsel’s costs and 9 || expenses and concludes that they were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the 10 || litigation, and are the type of expenses that firms ordinarily bill to a paying client. The 11 || Court therefore awards Class Counsel their requested costs and expenses in the sum of 12 || $146,079.40. 13 7. The Court finds Plaintiffs have rendered services on behalf of the Settlement 14 || Class, and therefore the Court hereby awards each Plaintiff a service award of $10,000. 15 || See Inre Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 943 (9th Cir. 2015). 16 8. The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees, costs, and 17 || service awards as stated above, and awards a total of $835,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs 18 || combined, and $10,000 for each service award. 19 20 IT ISSO ORDERED. 21 3 □ 22 Hoy ee United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 Deen) Cece kn RT OEOA TO □□□