Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03329/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03329-48/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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 

SAMUEL KELLER, et al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC 

ASSOCIATION; ELECTRONIC ARTS 

INC.; and COLLEGIATE LICENSING 

COMPANY,

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 09-1967 CW 

 

EDWARD O’BANNON, et al. 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC 

ASSOCIATION; ELECTRONIC ARTS 

INC.; and COLLEGIATE LICENSING 

COMPANY,

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 09-3329 CW 

ORDER REGARDING 

MOTIONS FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

 On August 19, 2015, this Court granted final approval of the 

class action settlements in the above captioned cases.1 In its 

final approval orders, the Court allocated thirty percent of the 

Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA) settlement fund for attorneys’ fees, 

reserving the division of those funds among the attorneys. Class 

Counsel have filed five separate motions for attorneys’ fees and 

costs and incentive awards. Among those motions are motions by 

 1 On September 16, 2015, Objector Nathan Harris filed a 

notice of appeal of the settlement in Keller and Objector Darrin 

Duncan filed a notice of appeal of the partial settlement in 

O’Bannon. 

Case 4:09-cv-03329-CW Document 445 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 2 

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 

current and former counsel in Hart v. Electronic Arts, D.N.J. Case 

No. 09-5990. (Docket Nos. 1193, 1207). The Court notes certain 

deficiencies in the declarations filed in support of the motions 

filed by current and former counsel in Hart and directs counsel to 

file further declarations in support of their motions. 

I. Docket No. 1193, Motion by Timothy McIlwain 

 Timothy McIlwain was counsel for Hart at various times 

leading up to the settlement of the case. He has filed a motion 

for fees for himself, various attorneys, law clerks and paralegals 

who he claims to have supervised, as well as attorneys at the 

Lanier Law Firm, who were associated as co-counsel for Hart from 

August through September 2013. Mr. McIlwain attaches a 

spreadsheet he “prepared detailing most but not nearly all of the 

time” he spent on the case. McIlwain Declaration, Docket No. 

1193-10 at ¶ 15. However, as to the other individuals, the 

attachments to Mr. McIlwain’s declaration simply list the 

individual’s name, the hourly rate claimed and the total number of 

hours claimed. The Ninth Circuit has held that, when seeking 

fees, “plaintiff’s counsel can meet his burden--although just 

barely--by simply listing his hours and identifying the general 

subject matter of his time expenditures.” Fischer v. SJB-P.D. 

Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted) (finding no abuse of discretion when 

district court granted fee request supported by “a summary of the 

time spent on a broad category of tasks such as pleadings and 

pretrial motions (16.5 hours), settlement (4.2 hours), and court 

appearances (1.5 hours)”). Mr. McIlwain fails to submit even the 

Case 4:09-cv-03329-CW Document 445 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 3 

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 

general subject matter for the time he claims for the individuals 

he supervised or for co-counsel from the Lanier Law Firm. 

 Moreover, Mr. McIlwain declares that he is a “solo lawyer” 

and states that he is claiming time for individuals he “employed 

and was associated with for the purpose of investigating and 

prosecuting the Hart case.” McIlwain Dec. at ¶ 1, 19. However, 

of the ten individuals whose work Mr. McIlwain claims he 

supervised, only one, paralegal Katie Saluzzi, is listed as an 

employee. Id. at 20. Mr. McIlwain provides no evidence that he 

paid the amounts he claims on behalf of the other individuals to 

them, or that he has been authorized to seek fees on their behalf 

and will pay any fees ordered over to them in full. 

 Accordingly, within one week of the date of this order, Mr. 

McIlwain is directed to file declarations by each of the 

individuals for whom he claims fees. The declarations shall 

itemize the hours claimed by the tasks completed. In addition, 

each declaration shall state the hourly rate or rates the 

individual actually charged Mr. McIlwain for the work he or she 

performed, and the number of hours for which the individual was 

actually paid by Mr. McIlwain. If Ms. Saluzzi declares that she 

was an employee of Mr. McIlwain when she worked the hours claimed, 

she need not provide information about her hourly rate or salary. 

 In addition, within one week of the date of this order, Mr. 

McIlwain shall file a supplemental declaration from Eugene Egdorff 

to support the fees claimed on behalf of attorneys from the Lanier 

Law Firm. That declaration shall itemize the hours claimed by 

each individual by the tasks completed. In addition, the Court 

notes that the evidence submitted does not support a finding that 

Case 4:09-cv-03329-CW Document 445 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 4 

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 

the hourly rates claimed by the attorneys from the Lanier Law Firm 

are reasonable. Mr. Egdorff may also provide additional 

information regarding the reasonableness of the rates claimed. 

II. Docket No. 1207, Motion by Current Counsel for Hart 

 Current counsel for Hart Plaintiffs, the McKenna Law Firm and 

Lum, Drasco & Positan LLC have also filed a motion for fees. Like 

the declarations filed in support of Mr. McIlwain’s motion for 

fees, the declarations filed in support of Hart Plaintiffs’ 

current counsel’s fee motion simply state the total number of 

hours and hourly rate claimed. The Court finds that these records 

are insufficient to support a claim of fees. Accordingly, within 

one week of the date of this order, current counsel for Hart shall 

submit supplemental declarations itemizing the hours claimed by 

each individual by the tasks completed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: November 3, 2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-03329-CW Document 445 Filed 11/03/15 Page 4 of 4