Case 5:09-cv JZ-OP Document Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:6400

Transcription

1 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: MIKE ARIAS (Bar No. ) marias@aogllp.com ALFREDO TORRIJOS (Bar No. ) atorrijos@aogllp.com 0 Center Drive West, th Floor Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: (0) 0-00 Facsimile: (0) 0- ROBERT L. ESENSTEN (Bar No. ) resensten@esenstenlaw.com JORDAN S. ESENSTEN (Bar No. ) jesensten@esenstenlaw.com 00 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 0 Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) 0- BRIAN D. CHASE (Bar No. 0) bchase@bisnarchase.com One Newport Place 0 Dove Street, Suite 0 Newport Beach, California 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - Attorneys for Class Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HEATHER GUTIERREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and CONNIE KAUPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; and AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation, Defendants. CASE NO. EDCV 0-0-JZ (OPx) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS Date: November, 0 Time: :00 a.m. Crtrm.: TBA Judge: Honorable Jack Zouhary :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

2 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... II. BRIEF FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY... III. IV. A. PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS... B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY... C. THE SETTLEMENT... THE COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFFS REASONABLE REQUEST FOR $,0,000 IN ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS... A. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR LITIGATION COSTS... B. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR NEGOTIATED FEES... 0 C. CLASS COUNSEL S FEES ARE REASONABLE UNDER LODESTAR PRINCIPLES.... Class Counsel s Hourly Rates are Reasonable.... Class Counsel s Hours are Reasonable... D. CLASS COUNSEL S FEES ARE REASONABLE BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE SETTLEMENT... E. THE REQUESTED ATTORNEYS FEE AWARD IS FAIR AND REASONABLE BASED UPON THE APPLICABLE FACTORS... PLAINTIFFS REQUESTED INCENTIVE AWARDS ARE REASONABLE... V. CONCLUSION... i :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

3 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No., Cal. App. th (00)... Barcia v. Contain-AWay, Inc. 00 WL (S.D. Cal. 00)... Bernal v. Paradigm Talent & Literary Agency 00 WL (C.D. Cal. June, 00)... B-K Lighting, Inc. v. Vision Lighting, 00 WL (C.D. Cal. Nov., 00)... Blum v. Stenson U.S. ()... Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., F.d (th Cir. 00)... Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., Cal. App. th (00)... Craft v. County of San Bernardino F. Supp. d (C.D. Cal. 00)... Crommie v. Pub. Utils. Comm., 0 F. Supp. (N.D. Cal. )... Dine v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. 0 WL (C.D. Cal. Dec., 0)... Espinoza v. Domino's Pizza, LLC 0 WL 0 (C.D. Cal. Nov., 0)... Fishel v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of U.S. 0 F.d (th Cir. 00)... 0 Flannery v. Cal. Highway Patrol Cal.App.th ()... ii :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

4 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 Fleury v. Richemont N. Am., Inc. 00 WL 00 (N.D. Cal. Apr., 00)... Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Cal. th (00)... Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. 0 F.d 0 (th Cir. )...,,, Harris v. Marhoefer F.d (th Cir. )... Hemphill v. San Diego Ass n of Realtors, Inc., F.R.D. (S.D. Cal. 00)... Hernandez v. Kovacevich, 00 WL 0 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 0, 00)... Hinman v. Fujitsu Computer Sys. Corp. 00 WL (N.D. Cal. Dec., 00)... Hopson v. Hanesbrands 00 WL (N.D. Cal. 00)... In Re Activision Sec. Litig. F. Supp. (N.D. Cal. )... 0 In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig. F.d (th Cir. 0)... In re Daou Sys., Inc., Sec. Litig. 00 WL (S.D. Cal. July, 00)... In re HP Laser Printer Litig. 0 WL 0 (C.D. Cal. Aug., 0)... In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig. F. Supp. (N.D. Cal. )... In Re Mego Fin. Corp.Sec. Litig. F.d (th Cir. 000)... iii :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

5 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 In re Omnivision Tech., Inc. F. Supp. d 0 (N.D. Cal. 00)... 0 In re Wash. Public Power Supply System Sec. Litig. F.d (th Cir. )... 0,, Kearney v. Hyundai Motor Am. 0 WL (C.D. Cal. June, 0)... Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc. 00 W.L., * (N.D. Cal. 00)... L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. William Carter Co. 00 WL (C.D. Cal. Dec., 00)... Lealao v. Beneficial Cal. Cal.App.th (000)... Lemus v. H & R Block Enters. LLC. 0 WL 0 (N.D. Cal. Aug., 0)... Lewis v. Anderson F.d (th Cir. )... 0 Lobatz v. U.S. Cellular of Cal., Inc., F.d (th Cir. 000)... Mangold v. Cal. Public Utilities Com n F.d 0 (th Cir. )... Martin v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. 00 WL, * (N.D.Cal. 00)... Mathis v. Spears, F.d (th Cir. )... n re First Capital Holdings Corp. Financial Prod. Sec. Lit., U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal. June 0, )... Nwabueze v. AT&T Inc. 0 WL (N.D. Cal. Jan., 0)... 0 iv :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

6 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty F.d (th Cir. )... 0, POM Wonderful LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc. F. App'x (th Cir. 00)... POM Wonderful, LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc. 00 WL (C.D. Cal. Sept., 00)... Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc. Cal. d ()... Principe v. Ukropina (In Re Pac. Enter. Sec. Litig.) F.d (th Cir. )... 0 Reed v. -00 Contacts, Inc. 0 WL 0 (S.D. Cal. Jan., 0)... Romero v. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc. 00 W.L. (E.D.Cal. 00)... Serrano v. Priest ("Serrano III"), 0 Cal. d ()..., Shames v. Hertz Corp. 0 WL (S.D. Cal. Nov., 0)... Six () Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers 0 F.d 0 (th Cir. 0)... 0 Staton v. Boeing Co., F.d (th Cir. 00)... 0,, Stuart v. Radioshack Corp. 00 WL (N.D. Cal. Aug., 00)... Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co. F.d 0 (th Cir. )... 0 v :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

7 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., F.d 0 (th Cir. 0)... Van Vranken v. Alt. Richfield Co. 0 F. Supp. (N.D. Cal. )..., Vandervort v. Balboa Capital Corp. 0 WL 0 (C.D. Cal. 0)... Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc. F.R.D. (E.D. Cal. 00)..., Vinh Nguyen v. Radient Pharm. Corp. 0 WL 0 (C.D. Cal. May, 0)... Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp. 0 F.d 0 (th Cir. 00)... passim Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., Cal. App. th (00)... Williams v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co. F.d 0 (th Cir. )... 0 Wing v. Asarco, Inc., F.d (th Cir. )... Statutes Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Cal. Civ. Code 0... California Civil Code 0(e)... California Code of Civil Procedure Other Authorities Conte & Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions :, p. (th Ed. 00)... 0 vi :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

8 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 Rules Fed. R. Civ. Proc., (h)... 0 vii :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

9 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 I. INTRODUCTION A class action settlement was reached on behalf of a Settlement Class between Plaintiffs Heather Gutierrez and Connie Kaupa ( Plaintiffs ) and Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ( AHM ) concerning allegations that certain Honda Accords are prone to experiencing an unwarranted and inadvertent deployment of the side airbag system. Pursuant to the Settlement, all Settlement Class Members who have already experienced an inadvertent deployment of the side airbag system in their Class Vehicles (the Deployment Class ) will receive 00% reimbursement of the moneys they incurred repairing their vehicles. The Settlement additionally provides for injunctive relief requiring AHM to repair all Class Vehicles that experience an inadvertent deployment prior to the Effective Date free of charge. Thus, the Settlement ensures that Settlement Class Members will not be responsible for any expenses associated with repairing a side airbag that experiences an inadvertent deployment, thereby satisfying the goal of this litigation and providing Settlement Class Members with relief similar to what they could expect to receive only after a full trial on the merits. This highly favorable settlement is the product of five years of hotly contested litigation, an extremely thorough examination and investigation of the facts and law, a comprehensive discovery plan, and over one year of extensive settlement negotiations that included two full-day mediations. Plaintiffs counsel, Arias, Ozzello & Gignac, LLP ( AOG ), Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP ( WCCE )/Esensten Law, and Bisnar Chase (collectively, Class Counsel ), devoted substantial time, resources, and moneys over the previous five years to this matter and seeking the best settlement for the Class. Class Counsel undertook Following preliminary approval of the settlement, the class action department at WCCE formed a new firm, Esensten Law. On May, 0, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information (Dkt. #) to reflect the change in firm name. :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

10 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page 0 of Page ID #:0 0 0 significant risk in litigating this extremely complex case, incurring $,. in costs and $,,. in attorney time with no guarantee that they would see a return of any portion thereof. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, AHM has agreed to pay Class Counsel s fees and costs in the amount of $,0,000, representing a substantial reduction from Class Counsel s actual lodestar, and incentive awards in the amount of $0,000 to Plaintiff Kaupa and $,000 to Plaintiff Gutierrez. The costs, fees, and incentive awards agreed between the Parties are separate and apart from the monetary benefits for the Class. Through this Motion, Plaintiffs seek approval of their agreed-upon attorneys fees, costs, and incentive awards. As set forth below, the requested and agreed-upon attorneys fees and costs and incentive awards fall well within the range of reasonableness given the work completed by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, the complex facts and circumstances of this case, and the length and scope of this litigation. Accordingly, the Court should grant this Motion in its entirety. II. BRIEF FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS Plaintiffs claims in this action revolve around their contention that AHM markets, distributes, and sells Honda Accord vehicles allegedly equipped with a defective side airbag system in that the side airbags are prone to deploying without cause and in the absence of a crash. (Esensten Decl.,.) According to Plaintiffs and their experts, AHM set a threshold for deployment that does not protect against inadvertent deployments. (Id..) Following an inadvertent deployment, consumers are left without a working side airbag system and are required to incur thousands of dollars, between $,000 and $,000, to repair their vehicles and have a working side airbag system. [Dkt. # ( Second Amended Complaint ). at,.) Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for violation of :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

11 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 00, et seq. ( UCL ) and Cal. Civ. Code 0, et seq. ( CLRA ) on behalf of the following classes: () all current owners and lessees of Honda Accords; and () all previous owners and lessees of Honda Accords that experienced an inadvertent deployment. B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Prior to initiating this action, Plaintiffs conducted an extensive factual investigation into a potential defect in the side airbags in Honda vehicles that was alleged to cause the airbags to deploy under normal driving conditions, without warning. (See Esensten Decl. ; Arias Decl.,.) After that investigation and upon evidence that they believed demonstrated the existence of such a defect, on August 0, 00, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that AHM failed to disclose the existence of the side airbag defect. (Esensten Decl., ; Compl. (Dkt. #) at -; Second Am. Compl. (Dkt. #) at -.) Class Counsel coupled their extensive pre-filing investigation of this action with a thorough examination and investigation of the facts and law relating to the allegations in their Second Amended Complaint through a comprehensive discovery plan that spanned over the course of four years. (Esensten Decl..) The Parties participated in extensive written discovery, including AHM s production of nearly 00,000 pages of documents, many of which were produced in Japanese and required translation. (Id.) The Parties also worked together to subpoena and obtain over 00 design documents from third parties, such as AHM s sensing system suppliers. (Id.) The Parties discovery plan was remarkably efficient, as the Parties were able to cohesively and synergistically work together on the voluminous production of documents as well as responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions. (Id..) The only discovery dispute that existed between the Parties was in regard to the :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

12 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 production of customer information. (Id.) After receiving briefing from the Parties, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that they were entitled to unredacted form documents containing customer information. (See Aug., 00 Order, Dkt. #.) Upon receiving the class member information, Class Counsel initiated a class member outreach program that resulted in dozens of interviews and declarations from absent class members that alleged they experienced an inadvertent deployment of the side airbag system in their Class Vehicles. (Esensten Decl..) As part of Plaintiffs continuing investigation of the facts relating to the side airbag defect, Class Counsel continually monitored complaints posted on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) online database of complaints. (Esensten Decl. 0.) In doing so, Class Counsel thoroughly reviewed and analyzed thousands of complaints that spanned over thirteen model years of Honda Accords (000 through 0) to determine the number and frequency of complaints of inadvertent side airbag deployments on Class Vehicles. (Id.) Class Counsel also reviewed thousands of additional complaints for peer vehicles (vehicles that are similar to Class Vehicles) to compare the frequency of complaints of inadvertent deployments. (Id.) The Parties additionally engaged in comprehensive expert discovery. (Esensten Decl..) Plaintiffs side airbag expert, Geoffrey Mahon, submitted an expert report regarding the alleged side airbag defect. (Id.) AHM submitted expert reports from two side airbag experts and a statistician. (Id.) In response thereto, Plaintiffs submitted a rebuttal expert report from Mr. Mahon as well as a rebuttal expert report from a NHTSA expert, Allan Kam. (Id.) In addition to exchanging seven () expert reports, the Parties traveled across the country, including San Francisco, New Jersey, and Washington D.C., deposing all five of the Parties experts. (Id.) AHM also conducted three party/lay witness depositions of Plaintiff Gutierrez, Plaintiff Kaupa, and Plaintiff Kaupa s son. (Id..) :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

13 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Class Counsel expended significant time and expenses consulting with Plaintiffs retained side airbag expert and reviewing the extremely complex design documents to determine the cause of the alleged side airbag defect and the viability of obtaining class certification based upon the alleged design defect. (Esensten Decl..) Indicative of the complexity of the facts and specifically, the side airbag defect, is the fact that Class Counsel incurred over $,000 in expert costs. (Chase Decl..) After comprehensive discovery, on November, 0, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification that thoroughly detailed the cause of the alleged side airbag defect. [See Dkt. # ( Mot. for Class Certification ).] Plaintiffs motion was supported by extensive declarations from Class Counsel and Plaintiffs side airbag expert, exhibits that totaled nearly,000 pages, as well as a 00-page detailed trial plan. [See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Class Cert. and Declarations in Support (Dkt. ## -0).] The exhibits that Plaintiffs submitted in support of class certification included, among other things, design documents, the declarations from absent class members, and comprehensive charts and tables comparing the frequency of complaints of inadvertent deployments of Class Vehicles to those of peer vehicles and to applicable commonly accepted industry standards and practices. The detailed trial plan was broken down into three sections. The first section thoroughly compiled the evidence that Plaintiff intended to use to prove the existence of the side airbag defect, the cause of the side airbag defect, and that it constitutes a safety hazard. The second and third sections detailed the evidence Plaintiffs intended to use at trial use to prove each element of Plaintiffs causes of action under the UCL and CLRA, respectively. [See Dkt. # ( Trial Plan ).] After Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification, AHM agreed to mediation. (Esensten Decl..) On April, 0, the Parties proceeded to a :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

14 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 full-day mediation overseen by Hon. Howard B. Wiener (Ret.). Although the action did not settle at mediation, settlement discussions between the Parties continued over the course of more than a year. (Id.) Meanwhile, AHM filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification on January, 0. (Esensten Decl..) AHM supported its Opposition with extensive declarations from AHM s counsel and AHM s airbag and statistical experts, exhibits, and objections to Plaintiffs evidence and exhibits. [See Dkt. #00 ( AHM Opp. to Mot. for Class Cert. ).] While Plaintiffs were preparing their reply to AHM s Opposition and conducting further discovery to respond to arguments AHM raised therein, the Parties agreed to engage in another mediation session in an attempt to resolve the action. (Esensten Decl. at 0.) And on August, 0, the Parties proceeded to their second full-day mediation session overseen by Justice Wiener. (Id.) With the Parties close to a settlement at the conclusion of the mediation, the Parties continued settlement negotiations over the course of the next two months. (Id.) On October, 0, the Parties advised the Court that after over four years of litigation and over one year of settlement negotiations, including two separate, full-day mediations, the Parties reached a settlement. (Id..) After over three additional months of continued negotiations over the minute details of the settlement (Esensten Decl. ), the Parties memorialized the terms of that agreement in a formal Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release. C. THE SETTLEMENT The Settlement provides real and substantial benefits to all members of the Settlement Class. The Settlement consists of two classes: the Deployment Class and the Injunctive Class. Relief to the Settlement Class is provided in two ways. First, members of the Deployment Class will be entitled to reimbursement of all expenses incurred, but not previously reimbursed, to repair or replace a Side Airbag that :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

15 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 experienced a Reimbursable Deployment. (See Settlement Agreement IV, (A).) In order to receive reimbursement, a member of the Deployment Class must file a Claim Form attesting, under the penalty of perjury, that he or she experienced a Reimbursable Deployment of one or more Side Airbags. (See id. V, (B).) The Settlement Agreement details the procedure for AHM and class members to resolve claim disputes. (See Settlement Agreement IV,.) Second, AHM has also agreed to repair or replace the Side Airbag for members of the Injunctive Class who experience a Reimbursable Deployment of a Side Airbag, provided that the member of the Injunctive Class presents his or her vehicle to an Authorized Honda Dealer within the two () years of the Effective Date. (See id. IV,.) On February, 0, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement. [See Dkt. # ( Feb., 0 Order ).] Thereafter, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, AHM proceeded to mail approximately,0 notices to Deployment Class Members and approximately 0, notices to Injunctive Class Members. The deadline to file claims, object, and opt out is September, 0. (Esensten Decl..) Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and subject to Court approval, Ms. Kaupa will receive $0,000, Ms. Gutierrez will receive $,000, and Class Counsel will receive $,0,000 in attorneys fees and costs, representing a substantial haircut from Class Counsel s actual lodestar. (See Settlement Agreement VII.) All Class Counsel s Attorneys Fees and Costs and Plaintiffs Incentive Awards will be paid by AHM, separate and apart from the benefits to the Settlement Class. (Id.) Through this Motion, Plaintiffs seek approval of these negotiated amounts. :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

16 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 III. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFFS REASONABLE REQUEST FOR $,0,000 IN ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS This Court has discretion to determine reasonable attorneys fees at the conclusion of class action litigation. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 0 F.d 0, 00- (th Cir. 00). AHM has agreed to pay Class Counsel, up to $,0,000, independently and apart from the relief that will be provided to the Class, for attorneys fees and costs. This amount was negotiated at arm s-length and overseen by Justice Wiener. (Esensten Decl. ; Arias Decl..) To date, Class Counsel has incurred $,. in costs, meaning that Class Counsel seeks $,. in attorneys fees, representing a negative multiplier of 0. (or %) of Class Counsel s actual lodestar figures. As discussed further in detail below, compensating Class Counsel $,0,000 in attorneys fees and costs, to the financial detriment of AHM, is appropriate under general class action principles and is reasonable based upon lodestar principles and the value of the settlement. A. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR LITIGATION COSTS Plaintiffs also request that Class Counsel be reimbursed in the amount of $,. for litigation costs and expenses that they incurred in prosecuting this action. (Arias Decl., 0, ; Esensten Decl. ; Chase Decl..) Attorneys who create a common fund are entitled to the reimbursement of expenses they advanced for the benefit of the class. In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., F. Supp., (N.D. Cal. ) ( Reasonable costs and expenses incurred by an attorney who creates or preserves a common fund are reimbursed proportionally by those class members who benefit from the settlement. ). :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

17 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 The $,. in litigation expenses are distributed across each of the three firms that comprise Class Counsel as follows: (Arias Decl., ) Incurred Firm Costs Bisnar Chase $,. Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP $,. Esensten Law/WCCE $,. Total $,. Expenses that are of the type normally charged to hourly paying clients are reimbursable. Harris v. Marhoefer, F.d, (th Cir. ) (recovery of those out-of-pocket expenses that would normally be charged to a fee paying client are reimbursable); see also, Hopson v. Hanesbrands, 00 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. 00) (holding that filing fees, Westlaw charges, Pacer charges, courier charges, travel costs and class investigation costs are reasonable and reimbursable from the common fund). Here, the expenses for which Class Counsel seek reimbursement are the type of expenses routinely charged to hourly paying clients. For example, Class Counsel seeks reimbursement for filing fees, legal research, expert costs, mediation fees, necessary travel costs, photocopies, and postage, delivery and messenger fees. (Arias Decl., 0; Esensten Decl., ; Chase Decl.,.) All of these charges are commonly accepted as reimbursable in a common fund case. A significant portion of Plaintiffs costs are attributed to expert fees, made necessary by a hotly contested and a thorough motion for class certification outlining what Plaintiffs believe is the cause of the side airbag defect. The retention of two experts (an airbag expert and a NHTSA expert) was critical to the successful result in settlement and for the possibility of prevailing at class certification. Class Counsel will continue to accrue costs with respect to this litigation, including costs :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

18 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 related to filing this Motion and the Motion for Final Approval, and for attending the Fairness Hearing. Based thereon, an award of costs in the amount of $,. is warranted. B. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR NEGOTIATED FEES Rule (h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, [i]n a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney s fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties agreement. Fed. R. Civ. P. (h). The Ninth Circuit has long-recognized that [w]hen counsel recover a common fund which confers a substantial benefit upon a class of beneficiaries, they are entitled to recover their attorney s fees from the fund. Fishel v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of U.S., 0 F.d, 00 (th Cir. 00) (citing Lewis v. Anderson, F.d, 0 (th Cir. )). Fairness mandates the application of this rule known as the common fund doctrine because those who benefit from the creation of a fund should share the wealth with the lawyers whose skill and effort helped create it. In re Wash. Public Power Supply System Sec. Litig., F.d, 00 (th Cir. ). In short, the common fund doctrine, is designed to prevent unjust enrichment by distributing the costs of litigation among those who benefit from the efforts of the litigants and their counsel. In re Omnivision Tech., Inc., F. Supp. d 0, 0 (N.D. Cal. 00) (citing Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, F.d, (th Cir. )). After subtracting $,. in costs, Plaintiffs request, and are entitled to, $,. in attorneys fees, as agreed by the Parties. Attorneys 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. 00). In cases such as this one, where the defendant in form agrees to pay the fees independently of any monetary award or injunctive relief provided to the 0 :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

19 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 class... the court need not inquire into the reasonableness of the fees even at the high end with precisely the same level of scrutiny as when the fee amount is litigated. Id. at ; see also Hernandez v. Kovacevich, 00 WL 0, at *-0 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 0, 00) (applying Staton); Wing v. Asarco, Inc., F.d, (th Cir. ) (holding attorneys fees agreed to in a class settlement are constrained only by reasonableness ). This is particularly true when nothing before the court suggest[s] any collusion occurred between the parties. Lobatz v. U.S. Cellular of Cal., Inc., F.d, (th Cir. 000); Hemphill v. San Diego Ass n of Realtors, Inc., F.R.D., (S.D. Cal. 00). Where there is such arm s length negotiation and there is no evidence of self-dealing or disabling conflict of interest, the Court is reluctant to interpose its judgment as to the amount of attorneys fees in the place of the amount negotiated by the adversarial parties in the litigation. In re First Capital Holdings Corp. Fin. Prod. Sec. Lit., U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at * (C.D. Cal. June 0, ). Here, no collusion was involved in the process of negotiating and agreeing upon the compensation for Class Counsel, as the amount of attorneys fees was negotiated at arm s length before a neutral mediator. (Esensten Decl. ; Arias Decl.,.) The parties agreed to an amount of up to $,0,000 in attorneys fees and costs after the basic benefits to the Class had already been reached. (Esensten Decl. ; Arias Decl.,.) Naturally, as the fee was a financial detriment to AHM, as opposed to the Class, AHM had an incentive to negotiate a fee as low as possible. Class Counsel has already devoted over $. million in attorney and professional time to the prosecution of this action and expects to continue to devote significant additional attorney time to this action during final approval and postsettlement administration. (Arias Decl.,.) When coupled with the significant relief that was obtained for class members, there is no evidence that the fee agreement came at the expense of an unfair settlement on behalf of the Class. :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

20 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page 0 of Page ID #: 0 0 In the Ninth Circuit, courts have discretion to employ either the lodestar method or the percentage-of-recovery method to establish the reasonable amount of attorneys fees to award. See In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig., F.d, (th Cir. 0) (citing In re Mercury Interactive Corp., F.d, (th Cir. 00)). Regardless of the method used, however, the goal is the same: to reasonably compensate counsel for their efforts in creating the common fund. See Paul, Johnson, F.d at -. Here, both methods for calculating attorneys fees support awarding Class Counsel $,. in fees. C. CLASS COUNSEL S FEES ARE REASONABLE UNDER LODESTAR PRINCIPLES The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by counsel s reasonable hourly rates. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. ); Serrano v. Priest ( Serrano III ), 0 Cal. d, - (). The resulting figure may then be adjusted upward or downward to account for several factors including the quality of the representation, the novelty and complexity of the issues, the results obtained, and the contingent risk presented. Hanlon, 0 F.d at 0; Lealao v. Beneficial Cal., Cal. App. th, (000). It is well-settled that a positive multiplier is appropriate in common fund cases to reward attorneys for the risk assumed in taking and litigating the case. [C]ourts have routinely enhanced the lodestar to reflect the risk of non-payment in common fund cases. Wash. Public Power, F.d at 00. This mirrors the established practice in the private legal market of rewarding attorneys for taking the risk of nonpayment by paying them a premium over their normal hourly rates for winning contingency cases. Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 0. In Vizcaino, the court examined a survey of multipliers in common fund cases, and found that they ranged from 0.-. with most (0 of, or %) from.0-.0 and a bare majority ( of :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

21 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0, or %) in the.-.0 range). Id. at 0; see also Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., Cal. App. th, (00) ( Multipliers can range from to or even higher ); Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., Cal. App. th, (00) (same). Here, however, because the fees sought by Class Counsel are less that their lodestar, Class Counsel s fee request results in a negative multiplier. The lodestar method is the appropriate means of judging the reasonableness of Plaintiffs fee request because it is extremely difficult to guess how many Injunctive Class Members will take advantage of the injunctive relief over the next two years and how many class members will be entitled to reimbursement. In class action settlements providing for injunctive relief, such as this, courts often use a lodestar calculation because there is no way to gauge the net value of the settlement or any percentage thereof. Hanlon, 0 F.d at 0. Here, the settled claims arose under state statutes containing fee shifting provisions. See Cal. Civ. Code 0(e) (providing for attorneys fees in CLRA action); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 0. (providing for attorneys fees when the action has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest ). Thus, state law governs both the right to recover attorney s fees and the computation of the amount. Mangold v. Cal. Public Utilities Com n, F.d 0, (th Cir. ). In actions arising under the UCL, fees are typically awarded under California Code of Civil Procedure 0.. See, e.g., Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No., Cal. App. th, (00) (awarding lodestar fees for UCL action under 0.). Fee awards granted pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 0. must be calculated using a lodestar analysis. Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc., Cal. d, - (); see also Flannery v. Cal. Highway Patrol, Cal. App. th, 0 (). Class Counsel s lodestar, unadjusted by a multiplier, is $,,.. (Esensten Decl. 0; Arias Decl., ; Chase Decl..) Class Counsel is :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

22 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 seeking only $,. in attorneys fees, which represents a negative multiplier of 0.. (Arias Decl.,.) In light of Class Counsel s reasonable hourly rates, reasonable hours worked for complex litigation involving complex facts and an even more complex automobile defect, and the additional house Class Counsel will inevitably have to work post-approval, Class Counsel s request for $,. is imminently reasonable.. Class Counsel s Hourly Rates are Reasonable Under the lodestar method, a reasonable hourly rate is the rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., F.d, (th Cir. 00) (internal citations omitted); see also Ketchum v. Moses, Cal. th at (court should apply rates commensurate with hourly rates for private attorneys conducting non-contingent litigation of the same type ). Ordinarily, reasonable hourly rates are based on each attorney s current hourly rates. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 00) ( calculating fees at [current hourly rates] compensate[s] for delay in receipt of payment ); In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., F.d, 0 (th Cir. ) ( The district court has discretion to compensate delay in payment in one of two ways: () by applying the attorneys current rates to all hours billed during the course of the litigation; or () by using the attorneys historical rates and adding a prime rate enhancement. ). The relevant community is the location where the district court sits, in this case the Central District of California. Camacho, F.d at. Plaintiffs and the Class were represented by three law firms experienced in class action automobile defect litigation on a contingency basis. The hourly rates for each law firm are listed below. :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

23 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Law Firm Partners Associates Paralegals Esensten Law/WCCE $0-$0 $0-$00 $0-$0 Arias, Ozzello & Gignac $0-$0 $-$ $ Bisnar Chase $0 $0 $0 Class Counsel s rates have previously been approved by California courts as reasonable in class action cases. (See Esensten Decl. ; Arias Decl., -.) Rate determinations from other cases are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 0). Courts also frequently use survey data in evaluating the reasonableness of attorneys fees. B-K Lighting, Inc. v. Vision Lighting, 00 WL, at * (C.D. Cal. Nov., 00) (citing Mathis v. Spears, F.d, - (th Cir. )). Class Counsel s hourly rates are within the range of those reasonable in the Central District. See, e.g., Vinh Nguyen v. Radient Pharm. Corp., 0 WL 0, at * (C.D. Cal. May, 0) (approving as reasonable partner rates of $0, associate rates ranging from $ to $0, and paralegal rates ranging from $00 to $); Kearney v. Hyundai Motor Am., 0 WL, at * (C.D. Cal. June, 0) (approving, as reasonable, class counsel rates ranging from $0 to $00 for attorneys); POM Wonderful, LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc., 00 WL, at * (C.D. Cal. Sept., 00) (approving, as reasonable, hourly rates ranging from $0 to $0 for partners and $ to $ for associates), aff'd sub nom. POM Wonderful LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc., F. App'x (th Cir. 00); In re HP Laser Printer Litig., 0 WL 0, at * (C.D. Cal. Aug., 0) (approving, as reasonable, $00 hourly rates for partners); Dine v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 0 WL, at * (C.D. Cal. Dec., 0) (approving, as reasonable, $00 hourly rate for senior associates); Craft v. County of San Bernardino, F. Supp. d, (C.D. Cal. 00) (approving, as reasonable, $ rate reasonable for paralegals); Bernal v. :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

24 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Paradigm Talent & Literary Agency, 00 WL, at *, * (C.D. Cal. June, 00) (approving, as reasonable, paralegal rate of $); L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. William Carter Co., 00 WL, at *- (C.D. Cal. Dec., 00) (approving, as reasonable, paralegal rates of $.0 and $0.0); (see also Esensten Decl. (citing additional cases approving hourly rates similar to, or in excess of, rates sought by Class Counsel.) A 0 National Law Journal survey confirms the rates charged by Class Counsel are reasonable, even if judged by standards in effect prior to today. (See Esensten Decl., Ex..) This survey establishes that other firms in Los Angeles charge rates ranging up to $0 for partners and up to $ for associates, commensurate with or exceeding those charged by Class Counsel. (Id.) The requested $,. fee award represents an average hourly rate of only $. per hour (based upon,. hours to date). See Stuart v. Radioshack Corp., 00 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Aug., 00) (average hourly rate of $0 reasonable); Hinman v. Fujitsu Computer Sys. Corp., 00 WL, at *- (N.D. Cal. Dec., 00) (average hourly rate of $. reasonable); Shames v. Hertz Corp., 0 WL, at * (S.D. Cal. Nov., 0) (average hourly rate of $. reasonable); In re Daou Sys., Inc., Sec. Litig., 00 WL, at * (S.D. Cal. July, 00) (average hourly rate of $0 reasonable). Given that Class Counsel s rates are commensurate with the amounts typically charged by attorneys in the relevant legal community, and have been routinely approved in prior class action cases requested by Class Counsel, the hourly rates are reasonable.. Class Counsel s Hours are Reasonable As of August, 0, Class Counsel has jointly dedicated,. hours and incurred attorneys fees in the amount of $,,. prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class: :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

25 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Firm Hours Loadstar Esensten Law/WCCE,.0 $ 0,0.00 Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP. $,00. Bisnar Chase 0. $,.0 (Arias Decl.,.) Total,. $,,. Although Class Counsel have incurred a lodestar of $,,. in prosecuting this action, Class Counsel only seeks an award of $,., representing a negative multiplier of 0.. (Arias Decl.,.) In just over five years since the filing of this action, Class Counsel has dedicated significant time and effort getting this case to this point and reach a favorable settlement that seeks to reimburse class members for 00% of the expenses they incurred as a result of the defect as well as preventing others from having to incur those costs in the future. Class Counsel s substantial time and effort in this litigation is evident simply by the length of the Docket in this case which lists entries over the course of five years. Class Counsel s work can be described as remarkably efficient, as Class Counsel (based in large part due to the working relationship with opposing counsel) was able to avoid a significant amount of discovery disputes. Instead, Class Counsel devoted time to substantive areas in this litigation that directly led to this favorable settlement, such as investigating and conducting lay and expert discovery on the cause of the side airbag defect, preparing and drafting the motion for class certification as well as the 00-page trial plan, and negotiating the terms of the Settlement. See Esensten Decl., at 0. See Arias Decl.,at. See Chase Decl. at. :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

26 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Class Counsel s work on this case includes without limitation: () Extensive pre-filing investigation; () Researching and drafting the three complaints filed in this action; () Researching and drafting letter to judge regarding production of documents containing customer contact information and ability to reach out to putative class members; () Conducting a class member outreach program that resulted in dozens of interviews with absent class members who contacted Class Counsel about the litigation and obtaining declarations that Plaintiffs submitted in support of class certification to prove the existence of a classwide defect; () Conducting discovery and reviewing nearly 00,000 pages of documents produced by AHM; () Working with AHM in obtaining discovery from third parties and reviewing thousands of pages of documents produced by third party airbag suppliers; () Consulting with experts concerning cause of side airbag defect; () Conducting depositions of AHM s three experts across the country; () Defending three lay witness depositions and two expert depositions across the country; (0) Researching and drafting an extremely detailed motion for class certification that detailed how side airbag system worked and cause of the side airbag defect and supported by six declarations, exhibits, and a comprehensive 00-page trial plan; () Reviewing and analyzing AHM s opposition to class certification and determining what is necessary to prepare reply memorandum; () Working with AHM in obtaining discovery necessary to respond to :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

27 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 AHM s arguments in opposition to class certification; () Preparing and drafting two mediation briefs; () Participating in two all-day mediations before the Justice Wiener; () Negotiating the terms of the settlement and drafting the settlement documents (settlement agreement and preliminary approval papers) with AHM; and () Responding to class member inquiries concerning the Settlement. (Esensten Decl. -; Arias Decl., -.) The requested attorneys fees do not include compensation for inevitable further events necessary to properly represent the Class, such as drafting the final approval motion, attending the final approval hearing, responding to objectors, and following up with class members during the administration and distribution of the Settlement. It is highly likely that Class Counsel will be required to incur significant additional time mediating and negotiating disputes concerning the right of class members to reimbursement and the existence of a Reimbursable Deployment. Therefore, given Class Counsel s high lodestar, exceptional work and results, and the significant work Class Counsel can be expected to perform in the future, Class Counsel s moderate request for $,. is eminently reasonable under the lodestar method. D. CLASS COUNSEL S FEES ARE REASONABLE BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE SETTLEMENT Cross-checking the lodestar with the value of the settlement demonstrates that Plaintiffs fee request is reasonable. The typical range of acceptable attorneys fees in the Ninth Circuit is 0% to /% of the total settlement value, with % considered the benchmark. Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., F.R.D., (E.D. Cal. 00) (citing Powers v. Eichen, F.d, (th Cir. 000); Hanlon, 0 F.d at 0; Staton, F.d at ); see also Vizcaino, 0 F.d at :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

28 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 0; Williams v. MGM-Pathe Comms. Co., F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. ) (% is the benchmark for attorneys fees ); Principe v. Ukropina (In Re Pac. Enter. Sec. Litig.), F.d, (th Cir. ) (benchmark is %); Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., F.d 0, (th Cir. ) (observing that % allocated to attorneys fees is a benchmark in the Ninth Circuit); Six () Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 0 F.d 0, (th Cir. 0) (same); In Re Activision Sec. Litig., F. Supp., (N.D. Cal. ) (fee awards almost always hover[ ] around 0% ); Conte & Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions :, p. (th ed. 00) ( fee awards in class actions average around one-third of the recovery ). To calculate appropriate attorneys' fees under the constructive common fund method, the Court should look to the maximum settlement amount that could be claimed. Nwabueze v. AT&T Inc., 0 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Jan., 0). Here, since there is no common fund and no cap for recovery, it is very difficult to ascertain the value of the settlement. However, if there was a common fund it would consist of the maximum amount class members could claim in reimbursement, the moneys class members could be expected to save over the next two years by not having to repair their vehicles following an inadvertent deployment, and the attorneys fees and costs award, which would ordinarily be paid from the moneys awarded to a prevailing plaintiff. As discussed above,,0 notices were mailed to Deployment Class Members and the cost to repair a vehicle following an inadvertent deployment ranges from $,000 to $,000 and averages approximately $,00. Thus, the maximum settlement value is approximately $,,00 (,0 x $,00) for reimbursements. Conservatively assuming an additional 00 persons experience an inadvertent deployment over the next two years (or otherwise obtain a free repair of their vehicles), class members will receive another $0,000 in value under the settlement, 0 :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

29 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 resulting in a total value of $,00,00. Adding the $,0,000 in attorneys fees and costs to the $,00,00 in value that will directly benefit the Class, a common fund in this case would be approximately $,,00. The $,. that Plaintiffs request in a fee award represents only % of the $,,00 total, thereby falling within the Ninth Circuit s range of reasonableness. It is also below the prevailing 0%-0% market rate for contingency fee litigation. See, e.g., Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 0 (noting that the district court found a % fee rate was below the market rate of 0% for contingency fee cases); In Re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d, (th Cir. 000). Currently, counsel in contingency fee cases may receive at least 0%, if not % to 0%, of the plaintiffs recovery, id., but here Class Counsel seeks the approximate benchmark of % of the settlement value due to the early nature of the settlement. Cf. Singer, 00 WL 0, at * (approving attorney fee award of.% of the common fund and holding that award was similar to awards in three other class action cases where fees ranged from 0.% to 0%); Martin v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 00 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. 00) (%); Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc., 00 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. 00) (0%); Romero v. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc., 00 WL, at * (E.D. Cal. 00) (awarding % and noting, fee awards in class actions average around one-third of the recovery ). Thus, the agreed-upon fee award is reasonable under both the lodestar method and the value of the Settlement method. E. THE REQUESTED ATTORNEYS FEE AWARD IS FAIR AND REASONABLE BASED UPON THE APPLICABLE FACTORS. The factors employed in determining whether a fee award is fair and reasonable are as follows: () whether Class Counsel achieved an exceptional result; () whether Class Counsel s performance generated benefits to the class beyond monetary benefits; () the legal and financial risks undertaken by Class Counsel in litigating this :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

30 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page 0 of Page ID #: 0 0 matter, including whether Class Counsel had to forego other work; () whether the requested percentage is consistent with the market rate for contingency fee litigation; and () the extent to which litigating this case prevented work on other cases. See Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 0-0. The Court should also consider the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorneys as part of the reasonableness determination. Blum v. Stenson, U.S., -00 (); Crommie v. Pub. Utils. Comm., 0 F. Supp., (N.D. Cal. ); Serrano III, 0 Cal. d at -. As discussed below, each of these factors supports Class Counsel s requested fee award. Class Counsel weathered substantial risk when they took this complex case on a wholly-contingency basis, while also advancing hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation costs with no guarantee that they would recoup the substantial time devoted or any portion of the costs incurred. Class Counsel has not received any payment for their time or expenses thus far, which they began incurring in August 00, and for which they will not be paid unless and until the Settlement and this request for fees is given final approval by the Court. Class Counsel had to forego other work in order to maintain this case. (Esensten Decl. ; Arias Decl..) Notwithstanding these risks and burdens, Class Counsel, through their diligence and persistence, obtained an excellent result for the class after years of thorough investigation, litigation, mediation, and finally, a negotiated settlement in the face of uncertainty. At the outset of this litigation, Class Counsel was facing a defendant adamant that no defect in the side airbag system of Class Vehicles existed. Nevertheless, Class Counsel skillfully presented a detailed and wellsupported class certification motion that received commendation from the Court at the January, 0 status conference, Class Counsel also convinced AHM to proceed to mediation. After two all-day mediations and a year of negotiating, Class Counsel was finally able to secure a settlement that provides full relief to Settlement Class Members in that it includes 00% retrospective and prospective relief. :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)

31 Case :0-cv-0-JZ-OP Document 0- Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Hensley, U.S. at ; see also Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Cal. th, (00) ( The results obtained factor can properly be used to enhance a lodestar calculation where an exceptional effort produced an exceptional benefit. ). All the more impressive is the fact that Class Counsel was able to secure the favorable settlement in an efficient and timely manner without wasting judicial resources. Indeed, Class Counsel did not waste judicial resources with senseless discovery disputes. In fact, Class Counsel and AHM s counsel were able to work together in not only obtaining discovery from each other but also obtaining discovery from third party airbag suppliers. The Court has commended Class Counsel on a number of occasions on the skill and experience they displayed litigating this case. Despite the fact that Class Counsel s requested fee award is substantially less than their actual lodestar, Class Counsel will nevertheless be required to incur substantial additional time for which Class Counsel does not seek compensation. When determining an appropriate compensation for attorneys fees and an appropriate multiplier, a court should consider the future services that plaintiff s counsel will be required to expend following filing of an application for attorneys fees. See Hanlon, 0 F.d at 0; see also Fleury v. Richemont N. Am., Inc., 00 WL 00, at * (N.D. Cal. Apr., 00) (awarding a 0% multiplier where class counsel would be required to expend future services). Accordingly, applying the above standards to the facts, Class Counsel s request for $,. in attorneys fees well within the range of reasonable attorneys fee awards. :0-cv-0-JZ (OPx)