A recent Law 360 by Abby Wargo, “United Flight Attendants’ Attys Seek $18.1M Cut of $54M Deal,” reports that counsel for a class of United Airlines flight attendants who accused the airline of issuing deficient wage statements asked a California federal judge to approve an $18.1 million fee award after an "intense battle" that led to a $54 million settlement.  Kirk D. Hanson and Jeffrey C. Jackson of Jackson Hanson LLP, who are representing the flight attendants, called the eight-year wage suit "an intense battle from beginning to end," according to their motion for attorney fees, and they should be properly compensated considering the difficulty of achieving success.  They also requested an additional $90,000 in expenses.

A federal judge in February had preliminarily approved the $53.5 million settlement, which the motion says has since accrued interest and now totals $54.4 million, but asked the flight attendants' attorneys to justify their request for a third of the settlement, as it exceeds the state benchmark.  The final approval hearing will be in June.

The attorneys said the settlement, which will provide each class member with an average of $3,230 even after attorney fees and costs are deducted, is an exceptional outcome for the plaintiffs, as it exceeds 80% of the highest recovery they could have received through trial.  The typical individual recovery range in a wage and hour class action is 10% to 27%, they said.  Additionally, they said other state and federal courts routinely approve attorney fees equaling one-third of settlement funds.

Also proper are the $20,000 service awards for each named plaintiff, Felicia Vidrio and Paul Bradley, the attorneys said, because they took on significant risks in representing the class and would have been on the hook for attorney fees had they lost.  Their time and effort in assisting their attorneys should be recognized, according to the motion.

Even more important than the monetary awards, the attorneys said, is that United changed the format of its wage statements for California-based flight attendants to comply with state statute.  The wage statements now show all hours worked during a pay period and the hourly pay rate, the motion says.  "This is arguably the most important win in this case because it will continue on indefinitely and allow the flight attendants to quickly and easily verify the correct payment of their wages," the attorneys said in the motion.

These outcomes would never have been possible if the plaintiffs and their attorneys had given up, the motion says, because "at every turn in this litigation United mounted a vigorous defense."  The workers and their attorneys said that by reversing summary judgment and reviving their case after trips to both the Ninth Circuit and California Supreme Court, they set precedent clarifying how state labor law applies to interstate transportation workers.

Under the terms of the settlement, the non-reversionary $54 million fund includes attorney fees, $20,000 service awards for both class representatives, and a Private Attorneys General Act settlement of $300,000, with about $35 million going to the settlement class on a pro rata basis.  Members of the class are defined as all flight attendants employed by United and based at a California airport between August 2014 and March 31, 2023. Any remaining funds will be given to a cy pres recipient, Legal Aid at Work, according to the deal.

A recent Law 360 by Gina Kim, “Joint Juice Maker Rips Class Attys’ ‘Overstated’ $8.3M Fee Bid,” reports that Premier Nutrition asked a California federal judge to cut $2.4 million from class counsel's "bloated and unreasonable" $8.3 million fee request in litigation over allegedly misleading advertising claims about its Joint Juice, citing block billing, overstaffing, lavish hotel stays and fringe expenses for "boba and coffee runs dating back to 2013."  In a 33-page opposition, Premier Nutrition's attorney Steven E. Swaney of Venable LLP accused class counsel, except for Iredale & Yoo, of presenting to the court "a bloated and unreasonable application asking this court to award $8,274,516" in combined fees, expenses and costs.

Premier argued the lodestar calculation of the two other class counsel firms, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon and Lynch Carpenter "betray a lack of 'billing judgment,'" as they propose a fee award that doesn't approximate what a paying client is willing to approve.  Their lodestar calculation is "massively overstated" since it includes time spent for other related Joint Juice class actions, Premier argued, pointing out the plaintiffs only prevailed in one of 11 related cases but are now submitting a fee bid as if they prevailed on all of them.

Excluding Eugene Iredale and Grace June of Iredale & Yoo, Premier complained that Blood Hurst and Lynch Carpenter's billing records are riddled with inefficiencies, including "top-heavy administration of work," block billing, billing in quarter-hour increments, overstaffing, nontravel work billing and other things.  Examples include Blood Hurst lawyers billing 24 or more hours per day and submitting several duplicative entries on a single day, staffing six lawyers on the trial, "two of whom sat passively in the gallery of the courtroom" and charging $575 per hour for a contract attorney, Craig Straub, doing document review, the opposition states.

"As explained in the declaration of Premier's fee expert Steven Tasher, a 40% across-the-board percentage reduction to BHO's and Lynch Carpenter's lodestar is warranted to account for these inefficiencies," Premier said.  "The total lodestar for class counsel should be reduced to $2,406,809.  This constitutes approximately 29% of the judgment amount, which aligns with the Ninth Circuit's 25% benchmark for reasonable fees."

Premier balked at class counsel's suggestion for the court to apply a multiplier to pump their fee award if their lodestar is reduced, and also took issue with their "extravagant expenses" that it said warrants an across-the-board cut in their claimed charges.

"Class counsel also seek reimbursement from Premier for every sundry or fringe expense they encountered over this decade-long litigation, including boba and coffee runs dating back to 2013," the opposition states. "Class counsel even tries to bill Premier for hundreds of dollars in laundry expenses incurred during trial — even though they apparently traveled back home to San Diego that same day."

The opposition references defense's expert, Tasher, who reviewed the billing entries and opined the class counsel's requests costs also reveal "a 'spare no expense' approach" to the case along with double billing and "phantom charges."  "In my opinion, while the dollar value for many of these items may seem small, they reflect a big attitude of no cost being too great to throw onto the bill and eat, drink and be merry on someone else's dime," Tasher wrote.  "No paying client would tolerate class counsel's lifestyle expenses or lavishness."

Premier said that Blood Hurst and Lynch Carpenter's proposed lodestar figure was grossly inflated and warrants dramatic cuts across the board, arguing that the firms can't include time spent on class representative depositions in other related actions in their calculation.  Blood Hurst's proposed lodestar also includes nearly 1,000 hours for trial prep spent in Mullins, which Premier said should be removed since the Mullins trial never occurred.  It's inappropriate for Blood Hurst to get 100% of the fees for work common to the related cases based on the successful outcome of just one case, the opposition states.

Premier also sought a 40% cut to Blood Hurst's remaining lodestar account for several deficiencies in their billing practices, noting that  the firm's Timothy Blood and Thomas Joseph O'Reardon billed for work done in 2013 at their current hourly rate, which is significantly higher.

While Blood, partner Paula Brown and Straub billed 1,000 hours for trial prep, Blood was the only one who had an active role at trial, and O'Reardon and Straub "sat passively in the gallery," Premier alleged.  Premier also accused Straub and O'Reardon of billing extra hours after trial each day and erroneously adding entries that exceed 24 hours a day "or are obvious duplicates," totaling $62,207.50.

Premier also attacked Lynch Carpenter's fee bid of $392,392.50, arguing the billed work was entirely spent on Mullins.  The fee should be apportioned among the related cases and then cut by 40% due to excessive time and top-heavy administration work, Premier said.  That should leave Lynch Carpenter with $20,842.77.  "As an initial matter, in what can only be described as a shocking act of chutzpah, Mr. Carpenter — who has not worked on these cases since 2020 — includes in his fee petition 13.7 hours to fly to San Francisco to observe one day of trial on May 25, 2022," the opposition states.

Nor should class counsel recover fees and deposition costs for experts that weren't used in the Montera suit, Premier said.  Furthermore, several charges from the two firms weren't only lavish and extravagant, but also "purely wasteful," Tasher said.

"Each of these issues is exacerbated by the level of staffing," Tasher wrote. "Had the trial been staffed with attorneys Iredale, Jun and Blood, (the three attorneys who actually appeared on the record to try the case), the expenses would also have been much more modest.  However, given the excessive staffing (and related trial expenses) of attorneys [Todd] Carpenter, O'Reardon and Straub, the costs grew exponentially, considering the additional flights, Uber/taxi charges, meals/alcohol, and snacks brought about by these three additional timekeepers (essentially double the trial team.)"

A recent Law 360 story by Kelly Lienhard, “AT&T ‘Bait-and-Switch’ Customer Attys Want $3.5M in Fees” reports that attorneys who secured a $14 million settlement for a group of AT&T customers claiming they were charged an improper fee asked a California federal court for a $3.5 million cut of the award to cover their legal fees, as well as additional funds to cover litigation expenses.  The requested fee is 25% of the full settlement amount, which aligns with the Ninth Circuit's benchmark for attorney fees, according to the attorneys' motion, and is warranted based on the risk taken and time spent on the case.

"[The fee] is well justified under the circumstances of this case, including in light of the significant risk settlement class counsel assumed in taking this case on and vigorously litigating it for years notwithstanding the possibility that the case could ultimately be derailed on arbitration or any number of other grounds," the counsel stated.  AT&T agreed to the $14 million settlement to avoid litigation after its customers sued the telecom company over claims that the company used bait-and-switch tactics by applying an "administrative fee" to customers' accounts.

The customers' counsel is asking for 25% of the settlement amount to cover their fees and almost $75,000 for litigation expenses.  According to the attorneys, over 4,674 hours were devoted to the case, with more work still ahead to secure the finalized settlement.  The work was done with no guarantee that the lawyers would see any compensation, with additional challenges that come with going up against a large, well-funded company, according to the attorneys.

The customers' counsel added that a lodestar-multiplier cross-check found that the requested $3.5 million fee represents a little less than 128% percent of the $2,754,739 in attorney fees accumulated so far in the case, which is at the lower end of the range typically awarded, the attorneys said.

A recent Law 360 story by Jack Karp, “Boies Schiller, Hausfeld Score $627M in Fees in BCBS MDL” reports that an Alabama federal judge awarded $626.6 million in attorney fees and another $40.9 million in costs to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Hausfeld LLP and other lawyers who scored a $2.67 billion class award for subscribers in multidistrict litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers. 

The fees represent 23.47% of the $2.67 billion settlement fund, which U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor said falls within the lower half of the Eleventh Circuit's "benchmark range" of 20% to 30%.  He also gave final approval to the settlement itself.

The fees amount is "fair and reasonable" given the nature of the settlement, according to the judge, who noted that "the settlement also provides historic, transformative, pro-competitive injunctive and equitable relief that will greatly benefit the members of the subscribers class."

The nation's BCBS insurers agreed in 2020 to the $2.67 billion class settlement fund and sweeping anticompetitive practice reforms to settle the long-running multidistrict suit based in Alabama federal court that was filed by dozens of subscriber groups. 

The multidistrict litigation, opened in January 2013, accused dozens of mostly nonprofit BCBS-affiliated insurers of using trademarking and other practices, including limits on non-Blue revenues to suppress competition. The MDL eventually grew to include more than 40 plaintiffs' groups nationwide.

A recent Law 360 story by Kelly Lienhard, “Judge Slashes Attys’ $4.9M Fee Bid in ICloud Storage Suit” reports that Apple will settle for $14.8 million over claims that it misled users on how iCloud services stored data after receiving final approval from a California judge, but only has to pay the class counsel standard fees despite requests from the attorneys for a higher award.

While the Northern California District Court elected to grant the full monetary amount requested by a class of iCloud subscribers, it reduced the fees awarded to Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel Law Firm PC and Azra Mehdi of the Mehdi Firm PC from $4.9 million to $3.7 million based on findings that the case was not exceptional enough to warrant giving the attorneys more than the standard payout.

"Although class counsel — who are two sole practitioners — skillfully litigated the case, it was not a sufficiently exceptional case to warrant more than the benchmark in attorney's fees," U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler wrote in the  court order.

Katriel and Mehdi had requested 33% of the settlement amount, totaling $4.9 million, based on claims that they undertook significant risks, put in a substantial amount of work and succeeded in winning excellent results for the represented consumers.  However, Apple argued that the established fee of 25%, or $3.7 million in this case, was more appropriate.

The district court agreed with the tech giant, stating that class counsel failed to show that the case was complex or novel enough to warrant departure from the typical 25% counsel award.

Katriel and Mehdi alleged that the case was "exceptionally" complex, pointing to more than four years of work including 10 depositions, seven adversarial motions and thousands of pages of complex discovery from Apple.  The lawyers added the results from their work were extraordinary, as all class members are to be paid without needing to submit a claim form.  They also pointed out that the settlement won represents more than 40% of the damages calculated by an economic expert.

The attorneys' strongest argument, according to the district court, is the $400,000 spent on working the case, which points to an increased risk.  However, Beeler said that it alone is not enough to justify departing from the typical attorney fee.

A recent Law 360 story by Bonnie Eslinger, “Alsup Cuts 33% Apple Bag-Check Deal Atty Fee Ask to 30%” reports that U.S. District Judge William Alsup said the lawyers who represented workers in a...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Dave Simpson, “Attys Seek $66M Fee in $160M Capacitor Maker Antitrust Deal" reports that attorneys for a class of direct purchasers of capacitors asked a California federal...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Dorothy Atkins, “Apple’s $100M Deal Gets OK, $27M Atty Fee Bid Hits Bump” reports that a California federal judge said she'll approve Apple's $100 million deal...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Ganesh Setty, “Lawyers Want $3.6M Award in Insurance Software Breach Suit” reports that one-third of an $11 million settlement to resolve a data-breach class action...

Read Full Post