Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01821/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01821-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO R. BRACAMONTE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ESKANOS & ADLER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-01821 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

On December 5, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s November 29, 2005 Order Re: Motion for Approval and Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

Plaintiffs’ motion is premised on two alleged errors in the Court’s decision. First, plaintiffs contend that the

Court erred when it stated that a significant portion ofthe settlement funds were unclaimed by class members.

Although plaintiffs are technically correctthat class members were notrequired to “claim” their settlements, the

fact remains that a significant portion of the settlement funds were ultimately not distributed to class members.

Thus, the Court’s point – that plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the importance of this litigation are undercut by

the fact that significant settlement funds were not ultimately distributed to class members – remains valid.

Second, plaintiffs suggest that the Court erred by reducing the fee award because “[t]he reduction of

$7,058.66 in the [order] had been contemplated in the parties’ compromise of attorneys’ fees and costs at

$85,000.” Motion at 3. However, as the Court specifically noted in the November 29, 2005 order, plaintiffs’

motion for attorneys’ fees did not provide any explanationwhatsoever for how the partiesreached the $85,000

amount. See Order at 2:10-11. The Order also noted that plaintiffs did not explain what deductions were

made to reach that amount, and that the only documentation before the Court in support ofthe fee request was

plaintiffs’ original fee application. Id. at 2:15-18. The Court has an obligation under Rule 23 to ensure that the
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

fees and costs awarded to class counsel are reasonable. See Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 963 (9th

Cir. 2003). The Court has on several occasions informed plaintiffs that the Court would not approve a fee

award unless counsel provided documentation in support of the amount sought. Instead of submitting a new

fee application or in any way explaining how the parties reached the $85,000 amount, plaintiffs simply relied

on the initialfee application. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the initial fee application and made appropriate

deductions to arrive at a fee the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Plaintiffs

have provided no basis for the Court to reconsider the November 29, 2005 order.

Finally, plaintiffs request that if the Court declines to reconsider the November 29, 2005 order, it

should alternatively distribute the amount offees excluded fromthe fee award ($7,058.66) as a cy pres award

to the LegalAid Society ofSan Mateo County. Although the Court finds this request well-intentioned, plaintiffs

have provided no authority forsuch a cy pres distribution. Moreover, the Court is not aware of any authority

allowing for a cy pres distribution of funds that do not flow from a common fund and were not originally

designated as damages, but solely as attorneys’ fees. Cf. Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 954 (9th Cir.

2003) (discussing case law on cy pres distributions and noting that such distributions are in lieu of damages

payments to class members).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. [Docket No. 140].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge