Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: ) ak@kazlg.com Jason A. Ibey, Esq. (SBN: 0) jason@kazlg.com Fischer Avenue, Suite D Costa Mesa, CA Telephone: (00) 00-0 Facsimile: (00) - HYDE & SWIGART Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: ) josh@westcoastlitigation.com Camino Del Rio South, Suite 0 San Diego, CA 0 Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: () -0 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Reza Barani REZA BARANI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. Case No.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE PAYMENT DATE: September, TIME: :0 p.m. COURTROOM: D HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC

2 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... iii I. INTRODUCTION... II. PROCEEDINGS TO DATE... III. BACKGROUND... A. The Settlement Represents An Outstanding Result for the Class B. Class Counsel Undertook Considerable Risk in Prosecuting This Action... C. Class Counsel Minimized Duplicative Work.. F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA IV. ARGUMENT... A. The Requested Fee Award is Fair, Reasonable, and Justified... The Request Fee is Presumptively Reasonable Because it Resulted From Arm s Length Negotiations The Court Should Apply the Percentage-of-the-Fund Method. Class Counsel s Fee Request is Warranted Under The Percentage-of-the-Fund Method... i. Class Counsel have obtained an excellent result... ii. The risks of litigation support the requested fee... iii. The skill required and quality of work performed supports the requested fee... iv. Class Counsel s undertaking of this action on a contingency-fee basis supports the requested fee.... The Lodestar Plus Multiplier Cross-Check Supports The Requested Fee... CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC i of x

3 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of i. Class Counsel s Lodestar is reasonable... ii. A multiplier is warranted..... B. The Payment of Costs Is Fair and Reasonable... C. Plaintiff s modest Incentive Award Is Reasonable... V. CONCLUSION F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC ii of x

4 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., U.S. Dist. LEXIS (W.D. Wash. Sept., )... Barcia v. Contain-A-Way, Inc., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. 0)... Behrens v. Wometco Enter., Inc., F.R.D. (S.D. Cal. )..... Bellows v. NCO Fin. Sys., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. Jan., 0)... Bert v. AK Steel Corp., 0 WL (S.D. Ohio Oct., 0)... Blum v. Stevenson, U.S. ()... Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, U.S. (0)..., Circle K Stores, Inc., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, (E.D. Cal. 0)... Connelly v. Hilton Grand Vacations, Co., LLC, F.R.D. (S.D. Cal. )... Cook v. Niedert, F.d 00 (th Cir. )... Craft v. County of San Bernardino, 0 WL (C.D. Cal. 0).., Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, F.d (th Cir. )... /// CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC iii of x

5 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 0 WL 0 (S.D. Cal. Oct., 0)... Di Gacomo v. Plains All Am. Pipeline, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Tex. Dec., 0)... Fadhl v. City and County of San Francisco, F.d ( th Cir. )... Fischel v. Equit. Life Assurance Soc y, 0 F.d (th Cir. 0)... Fitzgerald v. City of Los Angeles, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal. Dec., 0)... Florida v. Exxon Corp., 0 F.d 0 (th Cir. )... Garner v. State Farm, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. Apr., 0)... Gene And Gene LLC v. BioPay LLC, F. d (th Cir. 0)... Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, (N.D. Cal. Jan., 0)... Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 0 F.d 0 (th Cir. )...0,, Hartless v. Clorox Co., F.R.D. 0, - (S.D. Cal. )... Hensley v. Eckerhart, U.S. ()... 0 In re Activision Sec. Litig., F. Supp. (N.D. Cal. )..., In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litig., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 0 (N.D. Cal. Nov., 0) CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC iv of x

6 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., F.d (th Cir. )... 0 In re Heritage Bond Litig. v. U.S. Trust Co. of Tex., N.A., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal. June 0, 0)... In re Heritage Bond Litig., 0 WL 0, (C.D. Cal. 0)..., In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., F. Supp. d (S.D. Cal. 0) In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., F. Supp. (N.D. Cal. )... In re M.D.C. Holdings Sec. Litig., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 0, 0)... In re M.L. Stern Overtime Litig., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 0, (S.D. Cal. 0)... In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d at (th Cir. 00)...,, In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d (th Cir. 0)... In re Mercury Interactive Corp., F.d (th Cir. 0)..., 0 In re Omnivision Techs., F. Supp. d 0 (N.D. Cal. 0)...passim In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., F.R.D. (N.D. Ill. 0)... In re Washington Pub. Power Supply System Sec. Litig., F.d (th Cir. )..,,, Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., F.d ( th Cir. )., CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC v of x

7 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, (N.D. Cal. Feb., 0)... Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 0 WL (D.N.J. Jan., 0)... Lee v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. Feb., )... Lemieux v. Schwan's Home Serv., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 0 (S.D. Cal. Sept., )... Lewis v. Starbucks Corp., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, 0 WL (E.D. Cal. September, 0)... Linney v. Cellular Alaska Part., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 00, (N.D. Cal. )... Lobatz v. U.S. West Cellular of Cal., Inc., F.d (th Cir. 00)... Lopez v. Youngblood, U.S. Dist. LEXIS, (E.D. Cal. Sept., )., Louie v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. 0)... Malta v. Federal Loan Home Mort. Corp., U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. Feb., )... Martino v. Denevi, Cal. App. d ()... Melingonis v. Network Communs. Int l Corp., 0 WL (S.D. Cal. Nov., 0)... Milliron v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 0 WL (D.N.J. Sept., 0)... 0 Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., U.S. (0).. CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC vi of x

8 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Morris v. Lifescan, Inc., Fed. Appx., 0 U.S. App. LEXIS (th Cir. 0)... Opson v. Hanesbrands Inc., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 00 (N.D. Cal. Apr., 0)... Ordick v. UnionBancCal Corp., U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. Dec., )... Parker v. Time Warner Entm t Co., L.P., F.d (d Cir. N.Y. 0)... Perkins v. Mobile Housing Board, F.d, (th Cir. )... Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, U.S. ().. POM Wonderful, LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc., 0 WL (C.D. Cal)... Robbins v. Coca-Cola Company, WL (S.D. Cal. May, )... Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., F.d ( th Cir. 0).. Sandoval v. Tharaldson Emp. Mgmt., Inc., 0 WL (C.D. Cal. June, 0)... Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., F.d (th Cir. Cal. 0)... Serrano v. Unruh, Cal. d ()... Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. Feb., )... Smith v. Microsoft Corp., U.S. Dist. LEXIS... CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC vii of x

9 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Staton v. Boeing Co., F.d (th Cir. 0), Steiner v. Am. Broad. Co., Fed. Appx. 0 (th Cir. Cal. 0)... Stern v. DoCircle, Inc., U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal. Jan., )... Swedish Hosp. Corp. v. Shalala, F.d (D.C. Cir. )..., Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lou Fusz Auto. Network, Inc., 0 F.d (th Cir. 0)... Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC et al., :-cv-0-lab-mdd (S.D. Cal. Nov., )... Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 0 F. Supp., (N.D. Cal. )... Vasquez v. Coast Roofing, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Cal. 0)... Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 0 F.d 0 ( th Cir. 0)...passim West v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Cal. 0)... Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D.N.Y. 0)... Woo v. The Home Loan Group, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. 0)..., Young v. Polo Retail, LLC, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. 0)... /// CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC viii of x

10 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page 0 of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 STATUTES U.S.C... U.S.C. (a)()... U.S.C. (b)()(a)... U.S.C. (b)()(a-b)... U.S.C. (b)()(b)... RULES Fed. R. Civ. P.... passim Fed. R. Civ. P. (a).....,, Fed. R. Civ. P. (e)... Fed. R. Civ. P. (h). OTHER Alba Cone & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions. (th ed. 0)... Alba Cone & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions : (th ed. 0)..., Joseph McLaughlin, McLaughlin on Class Actions : ( th ed. ) Black s Law Dictionary, ( th ed. 0)... Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation,., p. ( th ed. 0)... National Law Journal Billing Survey, ALM Legal Intelligence..., CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC ix of x

11 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey P. Miller, Attorneys Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements: -0, (0) F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC x of x

12 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 I. INTRODUCTION Counsel for Plaintiff REZA BARANI ( Plaintiff ), hereby seek Court approval of the agreed-upon payment of $,00 for attorneys fees and up to $,000 in litigation costs. As discussed in Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Parties voluntarily agreed upon these payments during the mediation that amicably resolved the current dispute. [Dkt. No., 0:-.] In addition, Plaintiff s counsel also seeks an incentive payment of $,00 to be paid to Plaintiff as the Class Representative for Plaintiff s substantial efforts in both bringing and litigating this matter. These terms are set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release ( SA ) previously filed as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Telephone Consumer Protection Act, et seq., due to the alleged unsolicited communications negligently and/or intentionally sent by Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ( Defendant ) without the consent of Plaintiff or other wireless phone subscribers and users within the United States of America. [Dkt. No., :-0]. Following months of good faith, arm s length settlement negotiations, including an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, telephonic Case Management Conference, and full day of mediation, the Parties reached an amicable settlement. [SA.0.] Subsequently on April,, this Court granted Preliminary Approval of the current Class Action Settlement based upon the unopposed Motion for Agreements not to oppose an attorneys fee request up to a certain amount are proper. See In re M.L. Stern Overtime Litig., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 0, at * (S.D. Cal. 0). Unless otherwise specified, defined terms used in this memorandum are intended to have the meaning ascribed to those terms in the Settlement Agreement. Consistent with In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d (th Cir. 0), and best practices, a copy of Plaintiffs Motion will be uploaded to the settlement website. CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

13 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Preliminary Approval. [See ECF No. and ]. Pursuant to said Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, among other things, (i) preliminarily certified a class of Plaintiffs for settlement purposes; (ii) preliminarily approved the proposed settlement; (iii) appointed Plaintiff as Class Representative; and, (iv) appointed the Kazerouni Law Group, APC and Hyde & Swigart as Class Counsel. To date, there have been zero objections to the Class Settlement or the amount currently requested by Plaintiff, and only one class member has elected to opt-out. By this Motion, and as detailed in the support declarations filed herewith, Plaintiff s counsel seeks an award of attorneys fees and costs as follows: HRS. INCURRED RATE/HR. TOTAL A) ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN. $ $, B) JASON A. IBEY. $ $, HYDE & SWIGART A) JOSHUA B. SWIGART. $ $,.0 TOTAL COMBINED LODESTAR. - $,.0 TOTAL COMBINED COSTS - - $,.0 Therefore, Plaintiff s counsel seeks Court approval of the agreed-upon fees in the amount of $,00, and litigation costs up to $,000. See Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian ( Kazerounian Decl. ),, -; Declaration of Swigart B. Swigart ( Swigart Decl. ),, -. Consequently, a multiplier of. is sought by Plaintiff s counsel. See Kazerounian Decl., -; Swigart Decl. -. See, e.g., Bellows v. NCO Fin. Sys., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, * (S.D. Cal. Jan., 0) (Plaintiff's counsel spent a total of.0 hours in litigating this case. Plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated for all time that would, in the exercise of billing judgment, be billed to a fee-paying client.). Said costs are detailed below and in the Declarations filed herewith. See Perkins v. Mobile Housing Board, F.d, (th Cir. ) (attorney hours sworn to are evidence of considerable weight on the issue of the time required in the usual case and should not be reduced unless the time claimed CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

14 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 II. PROCEEDINGS TO DATE Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Defendant on December,. [ECF. No..] Defendant filed an answer on January,. [ECF No..] An Early Neutral Evaluation was held on April, before Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. [ECF No..] A telephonic Case Management Conference was held on June, before Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. [ECF No..] The Parties also engaged in a full day of mediation before Honorable Leo S. Papas (Ret.), before agreeing on the proposed Settlement terms. [See SA.0.] On July,, Class Counsel served Defendant with Confirmatory Discovery, and on August, Defendant responded to Confirmatory Discovery. [Kazerounian Decl.,.] On January,, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the current Class Action Settlement, which was granted on April,. [ECF. Nos. and ]. III. BACKGROUND The Parties settled this matter after many months of good faith, arm s length settlement negotiations, including an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and a telephonic Case Management Conference, as well as a full day of mediation before the Honorable Judge Leo Papas (ret.). [Kazerounian Decl.,.] Working independently of the Court, the Parties also participated in direct discussions about possible resolution of this litigation including numerous telephonic conferences, and were able to reach a settlement. Defendant has identified, unique cellular telephone numbers of non- Wells Fargo customers that were sent a text message regarding Wells Fargo s send/receive money product program. [See SA.0,.0; see also Preliminary is obviously and convincingly excessive under the circumstances ). In Malta, this Court granted preliminary approval (and later granted final approval) of a very similar TCPA class action where the parties reached a settlement after mediation before Judge Papas (Ret.) and Judge Howard B. Wiener (Ret.). See Malta, U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. Feb., ). CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

15 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Approval Order, Dkt. No., pp. -.] The Settlement establishes that Defendant shall pay $0,000 into a Settlement Fund to settle this action and obtain a release of all Related Claims in favor of Defendant. [SA.,.0.] The Settlement Fund will be used to pay Approved Claims after Settlement Costs are deducted. [See id..0.] Based upon this substantial settlement, Class Counsel respectfully moves this Court for an award of attorneys fees from the Settlement Fund in the total amount of $,00, which is % of the common fund created for the Class, as well as a total of up to $,000 in litigation costs from the Settlement Fund. In common fund cases such as the current matter, the Ninth Circuit s benchmark for attorneys fees is % of the fund created for the benefit of the Class, plus recovery of costs. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 0). Here, Class Counsel seeks attorneys fees and costs within this benchmark and well within the range commonly awarded in comparable cases. CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF This request is also supported by a lodestar plus multiplier cross-check, if the Court chooses to perform such an optional cross-check. Said cross-check reveals that the fee amount requested by Class Counsel would result in a multiplier of., which is also within the range for such multipliers established by the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 0; and, fn.. In light of the strong result, and for the reasons discussed below, Class Counsel The amount of compensation to which class counsel is entitled is that which is deemed reasonable under the circumstances. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, U.S., (0); see also Florida v. Exxon Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0 ( th Cir. ). Federal courts have consistently approved of attorney fee awards over the % benchmark. In re Heritage Bond Litig., 0 WL 0, at * (C.D. Cal. 0). The % [benchmark] is substantially below the average class fund fee nationally... Craft v. County of San Bernardino, 0 WL, at * (C.D. Cal. 0). Indeed, in most common fund cases, the award exceeds the benchmark. Young v. Polo Retail, LLC, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (0) (awarding %); see also Barcia v. Contain-A-Way, Inc., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at * (S.D. Cal. 0) ( [t]he requested fee falls at the bottom end of the Ninth Circuit s benchmark of % to 0% of a common fund... ).

16 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 respectfully requests the Court grant Class Counsel s fee request in full, and approve the modest incentive award for Plaintiff. A. THE SETTLEMENT REPRESENTS AN OUTSTANDING RESULT FOR THE CLASS The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendant will pay $0, into a Settlement Fund to settle this action. [See Agr...] The amount paid per Approved Claim shall be divided on a pro rata basis from the amount remaining in the Settlement Fund after deducting the Settlement Costs. [Id. at.0.] Settlement Costs shall include Claims Administration costs, Notice costs, attorney s fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel, an incentive payment awarded to the Class Representative, and all other costs of administering the settlement. [Id..0.] If all,0 0 Class Members submit a valid claim, each claimant would be entitled to a payment of approximately $.. Conversely, if only five percent (%) of Class Members submit a valid claim, each claimant would be entitled to a payment of approximately $0. As of July,, the total number of valid claims received was, or.0% of Class members (there are a total of,0 Class members). If no further class members present valid claims, each class member would be entitled to payment of approximately $. To make a claim, a Class Member must complete the Claims Form received in the mail, downloaded from the Settlement Website, or by calling the toll-free number. SA. at 0.0. Since the Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata, no portion of the $0, settlement will revert back to Defendant. Thus, the 0 This figure includes the named Plaintiff. See Declaration of Lisa M. Mullins ( Mullins Decl. ),, filed concurrently. Settlement Fund ($0,000) Attorney Fees (% = $,00) Estimated Litigation Costs ($,000) Administration Costs to date ($,0.) Incentive Payment ($,00) = Total Fund Remaining ($,.). $,./,0 = $. per claim. $,./(% of,0) =,0; and,./,0 = $0 $,./ = $. CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

17 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 settlement achieved by Class Counsel provides exceptional monetary relief in this TCPA class action. B. CLASS COUNSEL UNDERTOOK CONSIDERABLE RISK IN PROSECUTING THIS ACTION While Class Counsel strongly believes in the merits of their case, there are risks to both sides of continuing this action. Although Class Counsel understand there are uncertainties associated with complex class action litigation and that no one can predict the outcome of the case, Class Counsel is confident that a class would be certified here, should the case proceed. If the Action were to continue, challenges would likely be made to any class certification motion made by Plaintiff, thereby placing in doubt whether a class could be certified, and additional substantive challenges to the claims might be raised. In considering the Settlement, Plaintiff and Class Counsel carefully balanced the risks of continuing to engage in protracted and contentious litigation, against the benefits to the Class including the significant Settlement Fund and the deterrent effects it would have. Courts have split on class certification in TCPA cases, increasing the risk of maintaining the class action through trial. Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., U.S. Dist. LEXIS, * (W.D. Wash. Sept., ). See Smith v. Microsoft Corp., U.S. Dist. LEXIS, * (Class certification denied); Connelly v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC, F.R.D., (S.D. Cal. ) (Class certification denied); but see Lee v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. Feb., ) (same); Stern v. DoCircle, Inc., U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal. Jan., ) (same); Lemieux v. Schwan's Home Serv., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 0 (S.D. Cal. Sept., ) (Granting class certification); Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC et al., :-cv-0-lab-mdd (S.D. Cal. Nov., ) (Class certification granted). The unpublished Van Patten decision is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian. Each Class Member allegedly received an unsolicited text message on their CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

18 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 cellular telephone, via an automatic telephone dialing system ( ATDS ) without their prior express consent, which is required by the TCPA. A text message is a call within the TCPA. Robbins v. Coca-Cola Company, WL, * (S.D. Cal. May, ) (citing Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., F.d, (th Cir. Cal. 0)). The content of the text message is immaterial as the TCPA applies regardless of the content of the call. Melingonis v. Network Communs. Int l Corp., 0 WL, * (S.D. Cal. Nov., 0). To allege a call under the TCPA, Plaintiffs need only allege text messages to their cellular telephones by Defendant. Robbins, WL at * (citing Satterfield, F.d at ). Moreover, while Defendant strongly contends that the equipment used was not an ATDS as defined by the TCPA ( U.S.C. (a)()), Plaintiff believes that case law would support a finding that the dialer used is an ATDS. See Satterfield, F.d at. However, this is still a substantial risk for proceeding with litigation. See Kazerounian Decl., ; Swigart Decl.,. Additionally, the affirmative defense of prior express consent ( U.S.C. (b)()(a)) has been defined as [c]onsent that is clearly and unmistakably stated. Satterfield, F.d at (citing Black s Law Dictionary (th ed. 0). This poses a challenge for the Class, as Defendant would likely argue that consent was obtained for many if not most of the people text messaged whose numbers were provided to Defendant through third parties, and that possible consent is an individualized issue that precludes certification. Moreover, other Courts have viewed awards of aggregate, statutory damages with skepticism and reduce such awards even after a plaintiff has prevail on the merits on due process grounds. [See e.g., Parker v. Time Warner Entm t Co., L.P., F.d, (d Cir. N.Y. 0) ( [T]he potential for devastatingly large damages awards, out of all reasonable proportion to the actual harm suffered by members of the Plaintiffs class, may raise due process issues ); In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., F.R.D., 0- (N.D. Ill. 0) (declining to certify a CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

19 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 class where it could result in statutory minimum damages of over $ billion, which is grossly disproportionate to any actual damage ). Finally, there is the risk of losing a jury trial and even if Plaintiff did prevail, any recovery could be delayed for years by an appeal. Despite these numerous issues the Settlement provides a substantial benefit to Class Members without further delay. C. CLASS COUNSEL MINIMIZED DUPLICATIVE WORK Although Class Counsel seek fees based on a percentage of the common fund, Class Counsel nonetheless worked closely and in cooperation with one another to divide tasks, ensure efficient case management, and prevent duplication of efforts. By assigning specific tasks among firms, Class Counsel was able to avoid duplicating and/or replicating work. For purposes of the lodestar cross-check, Class Counsel has also carefully reviewed internal time records and deleted entries for duplicate work. For example, Class counsel reduced or eliminated time reported where necessary to ensure that Class Counsel are not seeking reimbursement for unnecessary duplication of efforts. Kazerounian Decl., ; Swigart Decl.,. IV. ARGUMENT Class Counsel assert that: (A) the request fee award is fair, reasonable, and justified; (B) the payment of costs is fair and reasonable; and, (C) the named Plaintiff s incentive award is reasonable. A. THE REQUESTED FEE AWARD IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND JUSTIFIED Class Counsel seek a total award of: () attorneys fees of $,00 or % of the Settlement fund of $0,000. [SA.0; Swigart Decl., ]; () the costs of A court may review summaries provided in declarations by counsel without reviewing contemporaneous time records. Lobatz v. U.S. West Cellular of Cal., Inc., F.d, (th Cir. 00); see also Martino v. Denevi, Cal. App. d, () (finding testimony of attorney as to total hours worked was sufficient without time records). Courts regularly award % fee requests in consumer class actions. See Lewis CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

20 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 litigation, up to $,000 [see id. at.; Kazerounina Decl., ]; and, () any costs of notice and claims administration costs, estimated by the ILYM Group to be just under $00,000, and has now reached $,0. (see Declaration of Lisa Mullins, and, filed concurrently; see also Kazerounian Decl.,.c). As explained by the Ninth Circuit, [a]ttorneys fees provisions included in proposed class action settlement agreements are, like every other aspect of such agreements, subject to the determination whether the settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. Staton v. Boeing Co., F.d, ( th Cir. 0) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. (e)). The common fund doctrine applies where, as here, a litigation results in the recovery of a certain and calculable fund on behalf of a group of beneficiaries. [Id.]. The Ninth Circuit and other federal courts have long recognized that when counsel s efforts result in the creation of a common fund that benefits Plaintiffs and unnamed class members, counsel have an equitable right to be compensated from that fund for counsel s efforts in creating said fund. See Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, U.S., (0) ( lawyer who recovers a common fund...is entitled to a reasonable attorney s fee from the fund as a whole ); Staton, F.d at (quoting Boeing); In re Washington Pub. Power Supply System Sec. Litig., F.d, 00 (th Cir. ) ( those who benefit in the creation of a fund should share the wealth with the lawyers whose skill and effort helped create it ). In common fund cases, as opposed to cases analyzing fees under a feeshifting provision, Courts within the Ninth Circuit have discretion to use one of two v. Starbucks Corp., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, 0 WL 0 (E.D. Cal. September, 0) (approving % fee request); and, Woo v. The Home Loan Group, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, 0 WL (S.D. Cal. 0) (same). The % fee request is reasonable in this matter. See e.g., Morris v. Lifescan, Inc., Fed. Appx., 0 U.S. App. LEXIS (th Cir. 0) (approving award of % of settlement fund); Vasquez v. Coast Roofing, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Cal. 0) (same). CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

21 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 methods to determine whether the request is reasonable: () percentage-of-the-fund; or, () lodestar plus a risk multiplier. Staton, F.d at -; see also In re Mercury Interactive Corp., F.d, (th Cir. 0). Though courts have discretion to choose which calculation method they use, their discretion must be exercised so as to achieve a reasonable result. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., F.d, (th Cir. ). Here, Class Counsel s request for fees is reasonable under and warrants application of the percentage-of-the-fund analysis. The reasonableness of Class Counsel s fee award request is confirmed by a lodestar plus multiplier cross-check, which courts in the Ninth Circuit may choose to employ in their discretion.. The Requested Fee Is Presumptively Reasonable Because It Resulted From Arm s Length Negotiations As the United States Supreme Court has explained: A request for attorneys fees should not result in a second major litigation. Ideally, of course, litigants will settle the amount of a fee. Hensley v. Eckerhart, U.S., (). While the Court must perform its own evaluation to verify that the requested fees are reasonable and not the product of collusion, it should give weight to the judgment of the parties and their counsel where, as here, the fees were agreed to at arm s length negotiations after the parties agreed on the key deal terms. See, e.g. In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litig., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 0, at * (N.D. Cal. Nov., 0). Here, Class Counsel negotiated with Defendant to reach an agreed-upon fee amount that was deemed reasonable based upon the benefits achieved for the Class and applicable legal principles, and did so only after the Parties reached an agreement on the other key terms. [See SA.0]. This serves as independent confirmation that the fee was not the result of collusion or a sacrifice of the interests CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC 0 OF

22 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 of the class. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. ). Under these circumstances, the Court may give weight to the judgment of the Parties and their counsel regarding reasonable fees.. The Court Should Apply the Percentage-of-the-Fund Method The most fair and efficient way to calculate a reasonable fee where, as here, contingency fee litigation has produced a common fund is by awarding class counsel a percentage of the total fund. [See Newberg on Class Actions : (th Ed. 0)]. There is a logical and important policy reason behind choosing to apply the percentage-of-the-fund method, rather than the lodestar method, in common fund cases: Unlike the lodestar method which can encourage class counsel to devote unnecessary hours to generate a substantial fee, under the [percentage-of-the-fund] method, the more the attorney succeeds in recovering money for the client, and the fewer legal hours expended to reach that result, the higher dollar amount of fee the lawyer earns. Thus, one of the primary advantages of the [percentage-of-the-fund] method is that it is thought to equate the interests of class counsel with those of the class See also Milliron v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 0 WL, at * (D.N.J. Sept., 0) (approving a settlement after a one-day mediation before a retired federal judge and noting that the participation of an independent mediator in settlement negotiation virtually insures that the negotiations were conducted at arm s length and without collusion between the parties (emphasis added) ); Sandoval v. Tharaldson Emp. Mgmt., Inc., 0 WL, at * (C.D. Cal. June, 0) (approving settlement after a one-day mediation and noting that the assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process confirms that the settlement is non-collusive (emphasis added) ; Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 0 WL, at * (D.N.J. Jan., 0) (same); Bert v. AK Steel Corp., 0 WL, at * (S.D. Ohio Oct., 0); McLaughlin on Class Actions : ( th ed) ( A settlement reached after a supervised mediation receives a presumption of reasonableness and the absence of collusion (emphasis added). ); and, Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 0 WL 0, at * (S.D. Cal. Oct., 0) (the parties engaged in a full-day mediation session, thus establishing that the proposed settlement was noncollusive (emphasis added). ). CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

23 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Id. members and encourage class counsel to prosecute the case in an efficient manner. The percentage-of-the-fund method comports with the legal marketplace, where counsel s success is frequently measured in terms of the result counsel has achieved. See Swedish Hosp. Corp. v. Shalala, F.d, (D.C. Cir. ) (in common fund cases the monetary amount of the victory is often the true measure of [counsel s] success ). By assessing the amount of the fee in terms of the amount of the benefit conferred on the class, the percentage method more accurately reflects the economics of litigation practice which given the uncertainties and hazards of litigation, must necessarily be result-oriented. Id. Moreover, it most efficiently aligns the incentives of the class members and their counsel and thus encourages counsel to spend their time efficiently, and to focus on maximizing the relief available to the class, rather than their own lodestar hours. Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 00 fn. ; In re Activision Sec. Litig., F. Supp., (N.D. Cal. ). Finally, it comports with the established practice in the private legal market to reward attorneys for taking the risk of nonpayment by paying said attorneys a premium for successfully resolving contingency fee cases. See In re Washington, F.d at ; see also Newberg on Class Actions : ( th Ed. 0). [I]f this bonus methodology did not exist, very few lawyers could take on the representation of the class client given the investment of substantial time, effort, and money, especially in light of the risks of recovering nothing. In re Washington, F.d at 00 (quoting Behrens v. Wometco Enter., Inc., F.R.D., (S.D. Cal. ), aff d, F.d (th Cir. 0)). For these reasons, the percentage-of-the-fund method is applied more frequently than the lodestar plus multiplier method in common fund cases in the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., In re Omnivision Techs., F. Supp. d 0, 0 (N.D. CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

24 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Cal. 0) ( [U]se of the percentage method in common fund cases appears to be dominant ); Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 00 ( [T]he primary basis of the fee award remains the percentage method ); Lopez v. Youngblood, U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at * (E.D. Cal. Sept., ) ( [W]hile the Court has discretion to use either a percentage of the fund or a lodestar approach in compensating class counsel...the percentage of the fund is the typical method of calculating class fund fees ); and, In re Activision Sec. Litig., F. Supp., - (N.D. Cal. ) (discussing advantages of percentage of recovery method in common fund cases). Further confirming courts preference for awarding attorneys fees in class cases on a percentage-of-the-fund basis, an empirical study based on eighteen years of published opinions on settlements in common fund class action and shareholder derivative settlements in both state and federal courts found the following: () 0% of cases employed the percentage-of-the-recovery method; and, () the number of courts employing the lodestar method has declined over time, from.% from -0 to.% from 0-0. See Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffery P. Miller, Attorneys Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements: - 0, (0). By contract, courts rely on the lodestar method under circumstances not applicable here, such as where there is no way to gauge the net value of the settlement or of any percentage thereof. Hanlon, 0 F.d at 0. Thus, Class Counsel requests that the Court use the standard percentage-ofthe-fund approach to determining the award of attorneys fees in this action.. Class Counsel s Fee Request Is Warranted Under The Percentage-Of-The-Fund Method Class Counsel s request for attorneys fees and costs in a total amount of $,00 approximately % of the $0, common fund is fair and reasonable. See Kazeronina Decl., -; Swigart Decl., -. In the Ninth Circuit, the benchmark percentage is % of the common fund with costs and expenses awarded on top of this amount. Moreover Courts in this Circuit often CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

25 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 award a percentage of the fund that is greater than the % benchmark. Omnivision, F. Supp. d at 0 ( [I]n most common fund cases, the award exceeds th[e] benchmark. ); see also Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 0-00 (awarding %); Garner v. State Farm, 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *- (N.D. Cal. Apr., 0 (awarding 0%); Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at * (N.D. Cal. Feb., 0 (same). Based on this authority, Class Counsel s request for the benchmark award is conservative and justifiable. Courts consider a number of factors to determine the appropriate percentage to apply, including: (a) the results achieved; (b) the risk of litigation; (c) the skill required and the quality of work; (d) the contingent nature of the fee; and, (e) awards made in similar cases. Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 0-00; Omnivision, F. Supp. d at 0. Plaintiff contends that all of these factors favor approval of the Plaintiffs % fee award requested here. i. Class Counsel have obtained an excellent result The results obtained for the class are generally considered to be the most important factor in determining the appropriate fee award in a common fund case. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, U.S., (); Omnivision, F. Supp. d at 0; see also Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation,., p. ( th Ed. 0) (the fundamental focus is on the result actually achieved for calls members ) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. (h) committee note). Standing alone, this factor supports Class Counsel s fee request. As stated above, the Settlement required Defendant to pay $0, into a Settlement Fund. [SA at. and.0.] See also In re Mego, F.d at, (th Cir. 00) (affirming fee award of one third of common fund); In re Heritage Bond Litig. v. U.S. Trust Co. of Tex., N.A., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at * (C.D. Cal. June 0, 0) (awarding one-third of fund); In re M.D.C. Holdings Sec. Litig., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *, (S.D. Cal. Aug. 0, 0) (awarding 0% fee where settlement obtained in a very short amount of time and finding that class counsel should be rewarded, not penalized, for achieving early success on behalf of the class). CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

26 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Thereafter, Class Member claimants will receive a pro rata share of cash payments. [Id. at.0]. This Settlement achieved by Class Counsel provides significant monetary relief for the, Class Members;,0 when including Mr. Barani. The fact that the Settlement Fund does not constitute the maximum measure of statutory damages potentially available to the Class does not merit deviation from the % benchmark. The proposed settlement is not to be judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what might have been achieved by the negotiators because the very essence of a settlement is compromise, a yielding of absolutes and abandoning of highest hopes. Linney, F.d at (citations omitted); see also In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d, (th Cir. 00) (settlement of only a fraction of potential recovery fair given nature of claims and facts of case). This is particularly true where, as here, the Settlement was reached at arm s length through protracted negotiations by experienced counsel. Each Class Member that filed a timely and valid claim is poised to receive approximately $, which exceeds the maximum recovery for statutory damages for a negligent violation of the TCPA, which is $ CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF These Class Members did not have to invest the time and money in hiring their own legal counsel or take upon themselves the risks of litigation. Moreover, the Parties were only able to resolve the dispute following substantial discovery, multiple lengthy direct negotiations, a full day of mediation before Honorable Leo S. Papa (Ret.), and after taking into consideration the risks involved in the action. [Kazerounian Decl. and ; Swigart Decl., and.] Thus, the requested % award is reasonable. /// /// The TCPA affords $00 in statutory damages for a negligent violation. U.S.C. (b)()(b). The exact amount that each claiming Class Member will receive will be stated in Plaintiff s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement to be filed with the Court by August,.

27 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 ii. The risks of litigation support the requested fee. The risk that further litigation might result in Plaintiffs not recovering at all, particularly a case involving complicated legal issues, is a significant factor in the award of fees. Omnivision, F. Supp. d at 0-; see also Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 0 (risk of dismissal or loss on class certification is relevant to evaluation of a requested fee). Here, there was a realistic risk that the Court would refuse to certify the class based upon individualized issues of consent. [Preliminary Approval Motion, Dkt. No., :-]. While Plaintiffs believes the law is in Plaintiff s favor on this matter, Plaintiff is also aware of cases that reject this position, although on seemingly distinguishable grounds. See Gene And Gene LLC v. BioPay LLC, F. d, (th Cir. 0); but see Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., U.S. Dist. LEXIS, * (S.D. Cal. Feb., ) ( even assuming, arguendo, Plaintiff had provided the unidentified Yahoo! user his mobile phone number, it cannot be interpreted as consent to receive Yahoo!'s Messenger Service messages. ). Moreover, there is the risk of losing a jury trial and even if Plaintiff did prevail, any recovery could be delayed for years by an appeal. Despite these numerous issues the Settlement provides a substantial benefit to Class Members without further delay, which renders Class Counsel s fee award request reasonable. iii. The skill required and quality of work performed supports the requested fee The prosecution and management of a complex [] class action requires unique legal skills and abilities that are to be considered when evaluating fees. Omnivision, F. Supp. d at 0. Class Counsel are experienced class action litigators who have successfully prosecuted complex privacy and consumer cases, and who have become particularly skilled and experienced in litigating TCPA class See also Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lou Fusz Auto. Network, Inc., 0 F.d, n. (th Cir. 0) (noting [t]he Act makes no exception for senders who mistakenly believe that the recipients permission or invitation existed. (internal citation omitted)). CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

28 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 actions. [Kazerounian Decl., -; Swigart Decl. -.] In addition, Class Counsel performed significant factual investigation prior to bringing the consolidated actions, engaged in substantial formal and informal discovery, participated in protracted and hard-fought negotiations, vigorously negotiating a six-figure settlement for the benefit of the Class Members. Thus, Class Counsel s skill and expertise, reflected in the prompt and significant Settlement, support the fee request. iv. Class Counsel s undertaking of this action on a contingency-fee basis supports the requested fee The Ninth Circuit has long recognized that the public interest is served by rewarding attorneys who assume representation on a contingent basis to compensate them for the risk that they might be paid nothing at all for their work. In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., F.d, ( Contingent fees that may far exceed the market value of the services if rendered on a noncontingent basis are accepted in the legal profession as a legitimate way of assuring competent representation for Plaintiffs who could not afford to pay on an hourly basis regardless of whether they win or lose ); Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 0 (courts reward successful class counsel in contingency cases for taking risk of nonpayment by paying them a premium over their normal hourly rates ). Class Counsel prosecuted this matter on a purely contingent basis while agreeing to advance all necessary expenses and knowing that Class Counsel would only receive a fee if there was a recovery. In pursuit of this litigation, Class Counsel have spent considerable outlays of time and money by, among other things, () investigating the actions; () conducting formal and informal discovery; () negotiating the Settlement over a period of months, including a full-day mediation; Given the circumstances, a multiplier is warranted. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0 (affirming enhanced fee where counsel pursued this case in the absence of supporting precedent and against [defendant s] vigorous opposition throughout the litigation ). CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

29 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 () serving and reviewing confirmatory discovery; () administering the Settlement; and, () responding to Class Member inquiries. Class Counsel expended these resources despite the risk that Class Counsel would never be compensated at all. Thus, Class Counsel s substantial outlay, when there is a risk that none of it will be recovered, further supports the award of the requested fees in this matter. Omnivision, F. Supp. d at 0.. A Lodestar Plus Multiplier Cross-Check Supports The Requested Fee A court applying the percentage-of-the-fund method may use the lodestar method as a cross-check on the reasonableness of a percentage figure. Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 00. However, a cross-check is optional. See Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at * (N.D. Cal. Jan., 0) (finding that where the early settlement resulted in a significant benefit to the class, there is no need to conduct a lodestar cross-check ). If the Court chooses to perform such a cross-check in this matter, it will confirm that a % fee award is reasonable. The first step in the lodestar-multiplier approach is to multiply the number of hours counsel reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. Hanlon, 0 F.d at 0. Once this raw lodestar figure is determined, the Court may then adjust that figure based upon its consideration of many of the same enhancement factors considered in the percentage-of-the-fund analysis, such as: () the results obtained; () whether fee is fixed or contingent; () the complexity of the issues involved; () the preclusion of the other employment due to acceptance of the case; and, () the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys. See Kerr v, Screen Extras Guild, Inc., F.d, 0 (th Cir. ). The Ninth Circuit stresses that [i]t is an abuse of discretion to fail to apply a risk multiplier when...their is evidence that the case was risky. Fischel v. Equit. Life Assurance Soc y, 0 F.d, 00 (th Cir. 0); Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 0 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. 0). /// CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

30 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page 0 of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 i. Class Counsel s Lodestar is reasonable The accompanying declarations of Class Counsel set forth the hours of work and billing rates used to calculate their lodestar. As described in said declarations, Class Counsel and their staffs have devoted a total of.0 hours to this litigation, and have a total lodestar to date of approximately $,.0. These amounts do not include the additional time that Class Counsel will spend going forward in seeking approval of, and implementing, the Settlement, including assisting Class Members with claims and overseeing claims administration generally, tasks that can require substantial additional hours not reflected in the multiplier calculated on the current lodestar. Class Counsel s lodestar will continue to grow as Class Counsel finalizes the settlement process and closes the litigation. The claims period will last for several months, and Class Counsel s commitment of time and labor to this case will continue until (and likely beyond) that date. From previous experience, these responsibilities will require a substantial number of hours of work by Class Counsel over the coming months, estimated at 0 hours ( from each of the two firms). [Kazerounian Decl.,, -; Swigart Decl., -.] These estimated 0 hours are included in the total hours amount to.. See Section I, p., supra. Based upon the above, Class Counsel s lodestar is reasonable. Class Counsel prosecuted the claims at issue efficiently and effectively, making every effort to prevent the duplication of work that might have resulted from having multiple firms working on this case. In this regard, tasks were reasonably divided among laws to ensure avoiding the replication of work. Further, tasks were delegated appropriately among partners, associate attorneys, paralegals, and other staff according to their complexity such that the attorneys with higher billing rates billed time only where necessary. In addition, Class Counsel s contemporaneous time records were carefully reviewed and duplicative work was deleted. Similarly, Class Counsel s hourly rates are also reasonable. In assessing the reasonableness of an attorney s hourly rate, courts consider whether the claimed rate CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF

31 Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of F ISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 is in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation. Blum v. Stevenson, U.S.,, n. (). See also Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, F.d, (th Cir. ); Serrano v. Unruh, Cal. d, (). Class Counsel here are experienced, highly regarded members of the bar with extensive expertise in the area of class actions and complex litigation involving consumer claims like those at issue here. [Kazerounian Decl.,, -; Swigart Decl., -.] Plaintiff submits declarations from other experiences attorneys supporting such hourly rates. See Declaration of Todd Friedman, - ( Friedman Decl. ); Declaration of Stephen G. Recordon, -; Declaration of Clinton Rooney, -. Moreover, according to a survey from the National Law Journal in, the average hourly rate for a partner at a surveyed law firm in Irvine, California, was $, with a high of $0 and a low of $; and the average hourly rate for a partner at a surveyed law firm in Riverside, California was $, which a high of $ and a low of $0. CASE NO.: -CV-0-GPC-KSC OF See Exhibit B to Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian. Thus, the billing rate for both partners is well with the normal range of fees charged by firms in Southern California for partners. Additionally, associate Jason A. Ibey of Kazerouni Law Group, APC, who contributing much to this litigation, has significant experience in litigating Also, a 0- survey from of consumer attorney rates for this district during 0- (Ronald L. Burdge, United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report 0-,Top 0 Cities, at (nd ed. ), available at Edition-US-Consumer-Law-Attorney-Fee-Survey-0-.pdf), support these rates. See Hartless v. Clorox Co., F.R.D. 0, - (S.D. Cal. ), aff d in part, F. Appx. (th Cir. ) (approving hourly rates in the San Diego area of $- for partners, up to $0 for associates, and up to $ for paralegals); see also POM Wonderful, LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc., 0 WL at * (C.D. Cal) (finding partner rates of $0 to $ and associate rates of $ to $ reasonable).