Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05760/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05760-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS BRIGGS, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-05760 WHA

CLASS ACTION

ORDER REQUESTING

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

REGARDING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

In order to properly evaluate whether the requested attorney’s fees are “fair, reasonable,

and adequate,” class counsel are ORDERED to supplement their previously filed declarations as

follows. First, no declaration has been filed setting forth Attorney Kathryn Anderson’s

qualifications, experience, and role in this litigation (see Dkt. No. 148, which sets forth the

information counsel must provide to support a motion for attorney’s fees and costs). Based upon

the spreadsheets filed by class counsel, Attorney Anderson performed various legal tasks in this

dispute. The absence of any information about Attorney Anderson is especially troubling given

that she bills at a proposed market rate of $768 per hour, which is the same ultra-premium rate as

Attorney Visher (Visher Decl. Exh. G at 18–19). 

Second, speaking of the proposed market rate for class counsel, while counsel provided

sufficient information (as requested) regarding proposed attorney market rates based upon the

Laffey Matrix (adjusted for San Francisco cost-of-living adjustments), this order emphasizes that

Case 3:07-cv-05760-WHA Document 169 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 3
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

* Indeed, the Laffey Matrix’s somewhat mechanical approach does not appear to

consider all the factors that a court must take into account under Ninth Circuit caselaw. 

See Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975). That said, this order

acknowledges that the Laffey Matrix can be a valuable tool in cross-checking whether

proposed hourly rates are reasonable.

2

in the Ninth Circuit, the starting point for determining reasonable fees is not the Laffey Matrix,

but the “lodestar,” a calculation obtained by multiplying the number of hours reasonably

expended on litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.*

 In the Ninth Circuit, a reasonable hourly rate

is determined according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant legal community, based

upon “similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” 

Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886,

895 (1984)); Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502 (9th Cir.1997). The general rule is that the

rates of attorneys practicing in the forum district are used. Barjon, 132 F.3d at 500. “[R]ates

outside the forum may be used if local counsel was unavailable, either because they are unwilling

or unable to perform because they lack the degree of experience, expertise, or specialization

required to handle properly the case.” Ibid. Class counsel, however, failed to provide the Court

with (1) the normal rate ordinarily charged for each attorney in the relevant time period, and (2)

how the rates were comparable to prevailing rates in the community (meaning, in this district) for

like-skilled professionals (see Dkt. No. 148 at 3). Counsel must provide this information in order

for their motion to be properly considered. 

Third, class counsel failed to specify in their motion whether they seek any award from

the class fund pertaining to costs, despite the fact that an exhibit entitled “Unbilled Costs by Job”

was attached to the supporting declarations (Visher Decl. Exh. E). This exhibit is never

referenced in the motion or supporting declarations, and its significance is never explained. 

Additionally, with respect to costs, the undersigned is aware that the United States has offered to

pay $132,000 directly to class counsel as part of the settlement agreement to cover “class

administration costs” and “litigation costs.” The Court must be apprised of the total costs claimed

by class counsel to properly evaluate whether this payment is reasonable or excessive, and

whether any excess amounts should be credited as attorney’s fees under the agreement. 

Case 3:07-cv-05760-WHA Document 169 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Class counsel shall supplement their motion with the above information by NOON ON

FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 2010. Counsel is also advised to review the February 1 order setting forth the

breadth of required information to properly support a motion for attorney’s fees (Dkt. No. 148),

and ensure that all the information requested has been properly submitted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05760-WHA Document 169 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 3