A recent Law 360 story, “Ford Hybrid Drivers Win $850K Atty Fees in Pump Defect Row,” reports that a California federal judge handed a victory to a group of Ford drivers that secured a recall of hybrids with allegedly defective engine coolant pumps when he awarded the group nearly $850,000 in attorneys' fees over the automaker’s staunch opposition.

Although Ford Motor Co. attempted to argue that the drivers’ proposed attorneys' fees were too high and the 10 person legal team that handled the case was too many, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar disagreed for the most part, awarding the class $843,433 of their requested $876,523 in legal fees.

Judge Tigar’s reduction in the fees came from a detailed cutting of several hours of “unreasonable” time billed for actions like drafting a first amended complaint that was essentially unchanged and preparing plaintiffs' discovery responses, but he refused to reject the 2.0 multiplier for the proposed billing.

“The court concludes that a positive multiplier of 2.0 is appropriate for the ‘merits’ work expended by counsel,” Judge Tigar said.  “As plaintiffs point out, Ford has remedied at least 33,873 defects in customers’ automobiles.”  At a proposed cost of $375 per coolant pump that needs to be replaced, the value drivers will receive through the recall is “at least” $12.7 million, the judge noted.

However, he rejected a request that the three lead plaintiffs in the suit receive incentive fee awards of $2,500 each out of hand, finding “they are not merited here even if they are legally allowable,” according to the order.

“Plaintiffs have submitted no declarations to support their requests, have provided no estimate of the time they claim to have spent on this litigation, do not contend they faced financial or reputational risk in bringing this action, and do not raise other policy considerations justifying an incentive award,” Judge Tigar said.

The drivers launched the suit in 2013, claiming the Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner vehicles were prone to shutting down unexpectedly due to a defective coolant pump.  After little more than a year of litigating the case however, Ford issued a recall of the potentially affected vehicles rendering the instant suit essentially moot.

However, the drivers claimed they were still entitled to payment of legal fees under a so-called “catalyst theory” because it was the litigation that instigated the recall.

While the automaker attempted to argue the recall was announced of its own volition, the court agreed with the drivers and in November ordered Ford to cover the fees, after Judge Tigar found the automaker couldn’t demonstrate that it was its independent work, not the lawsuit, that triggered its decision to call back the cars.

The case is Jean MacDonald et al. v. Ford Motor Co., case number 3:13-cv-02988, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.