Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06003/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06003-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

ALL ACTIONS

 /

No. 3:12-cv-06003-CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF

INTERVENOR VINCENT HO FOR AN

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES,

EXPENSES, AND A SERVICE AWARD

Now before the Court is Intervenor Vincent Ho’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees,

reimbursement of expenses, and a service award. Following submissions by counsel for Ho and

arguments presented to the Court at the Final Approval Hearing on July 24, 2015, and good cause

appearing for the reasons stated at that hearing in open court, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion

and awards Ho’s counsel $550,149.50 in attorneys’ fees, $19,724.22 in expenses, and a service

award to Ho in the amount of $5,000. At the hearing, the Court took under advisement the request

of Ho’s counsel that, in light of the Court’s decision not to award a fees multiplier, counsel be able

to advise the Court of any additional lodestar incurred in the time since an arbitration of the fees

issue in September 2014. Having considered the matter in light of counsel’s submissions, the Court

declines to issue the requested additional lodestar and expenses of $156,785.62. In light of the facts

that Ho has not made (or needed to make) any filings in the Court for over a year or been otherwise

involved with the case in that time, and that State counsel (whose involvement in the case in that 

Case 3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document 414 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

time frame has been similarly limited) declined to seek any additional lodestar, the Court concludes 

that it would be inequitable to award Ho’s counsel the requested additional fees and expenses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-06003-CRB Document 414 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 2