Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01811/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01811-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE SONY PS3 “OTHER OS” LITIGATION Case No. 10-cv-01811-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS;

GRANTING IN PART MOTION OF 

OBJECTOR’S COUNSEL FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Dkt. Nos. 346, 348 

In conjunction with their separate Renewed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement, plaintiffs have filed their Renewed Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and 

Incentive Awards (Dkt. No. 346), seeking an award of $1,250,000.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and granting incentive rewards in the aggregate amount of $17,500.00 (or $3,500.00 for each 

named plaintiff) in this action. The Court, by separate Order entered this date, has granted the 

Renewed Motion for Final Approval, finding that the proposed class action settlement reached by 

the parties is fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court now considers herein the appropriate 

amount of fees, costs, and incentive awards in light of the outcome for the class. 

In addition, Objector Eric Michael Lindberg (by his mother, Susan Lindberg)1

 has filed a 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award (Dkt. No. 348), seeking an award of 

 1

 Eric Michael Lindberg filed a timely objection, in which his mother Susan Lindberg later 

joined. The Court deems the joinder in the objection by Susan Lindberg, and the claim filed by 

Susan Lindberg, to be a timely claim based on her purchase of the PS3 at issue as a gift for Eric. 

The Settlement Administrator is ordered to consider the claim of Susan Lindberg and disregard the 

duplicative claim by Eric Michael Lindberg. Class Counsel’s objection to Lindberg’s fee request 

on grounds of standing is overruled. 

Case 4:10-cv-01811-YGR Document 359 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $75,000.00, expenses in the amount of $1,360.15; and an 

incentive award for Lindberg. Objector Lindberg contends that this Court’s decision denying the 

prior motion for final approval of the class settlement adopted key arguments raised in the 

objection, which ultimately resulted in the new, more favorable settlement agreement submitted 

with the renewed motions for approval. 

The Court having carefully reviewed the papers submitted in support and in opposition to 

the motions, the parties’ oral arguments, and the record in this action, and for the reasons set forth 

herein, the motions are each GRANTED IN PART. Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, costs 

and incentive awards is reasonable and fair. Objector Lindberg is entitled to some amount of fees 

commensurate with the material benefit to the class arising from the objection. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Class Entitlement to Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards 

 1. Class Counsel’s Attorneys’ Fees 

Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit are for alleged violations of California consumer 

protection statutes, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the False Advertising 

Law and the Unfair Competition Law. Because the action is before the Court under its diversity 

jurisdiction and the claims alleged arise under California law, California law governs recovery of 

attorneys’ fees as well. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(“Because Washington law governed the claim, it also governs the award of fees.”). The Court 

finds that plaintiffs are “prevailing plaintiff[s]” entitled to a fee award under the CLRA because 

they obtained a net monetary recovery for the Proposed Class and succeeded in achieving a major 

goal of the litigation. Kim v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery, 149 Cal. App. 4th 170, 179 

(2007); see also Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 140, 150-51 (2006). 

The Court finds that plaintiffs have benefited the public by vindicating consumer protection 

statutes and are “successful parties” under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and as 

well as “prevailing plaintiffs” under the CLRA. See Lyons v. Chinese Hosp. Ass’n, 136 Cal. App. 

4th 1331, 1346 (2006) (“A ‘successful’ party means a ‘prevailing’ party.’”). 

The Court applies California’s lodestar method to calculate the appropriate attorneys’ fees 

to be awarded to Class Counsel. See Meister v. Regents of Univ. of California, 67 Cal. App. 4th 

Case 4:10-cv-01811-YGR Document 359 Filed 06/08/18 Page 2 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

437, 448-49 (1998) (“the California Supreme Court intended its lodestar method to apply to a 

statutory attorney’s fee award unless the statutory authorization for the award provided for another 

method of calculation”); Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc., 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 26 (2000) (“the 

primary method for establishing the amount of ‘reasonable’ attorney fees [in fee-shifting cases] is 

the lodestar method”). The Court has reviewed the declarations of class counsel Gordon M. 

Fauth, James Pizzirusso, and Kathleen Fisher as to the work conducted and their hourly rates used 

to calculate the lodestar figure herein, and finds they are all reasonable. Class Counsel’s lodestar 

of $3,327,090.50 is a far greater amount than the fee award requested ($1,250,000.00). As a 

cross-check on the reasonableness of the fees, analyzed under the percentage method, the Court 

finds that the attorneys’ fees sought by plaintiffs are 22.6% of the total monetary recovery, which 

is under the Ninth Circuit’s 25% benchmark in common fund cases. See Hanlon v. Chrysler 

Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir.1998). The Court finds that the requested fee award is 

reasonable. 

 2. Class Counsel’s Costs 

The Court also finds that the request for reimbursement of expenses in the amount of 

$120,333.46 is a reasonable amount for costs incurred by Class Counsel, pursuant to California 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. 

Accordingly, as stipulated in Paragraph 109 of the Stipulation of Class Action Settlement 

and Release, defendant shall pay Class Counsel a total of $1,250,000.00 total as reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 3. Named Plaintiff Incentive Awards 

Plaintiffs’ request for incentive awards of $3,500.00 each to plaintiffs Derrick Alba, Jason 

Baker, James Girardi, Jonathan Huber, and Anthony Ventura is reasonable and appropriate. The 

Court has the discretion to award class representatives service payments for work they did on 

behalf of the class and the amount Plaintiffs request is within range of what has been approved. 

See Rodriguez v. West Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Incentive awards are 

fairly typical in class action cases.”) Based upon the record before the Court, plaintiffs are entitled 

to an incentive award for their efforts on behalf of the class. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the 

Case 4:10-cv-01811-YGR Document 359 Filed 06/08/18 Page 3 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

request and ORDERS that plaintiffs Derrick Alba, Jason Baker, James Girardi, Jonathan Huber, and 

Anthony Ventura are awarded $3,500.00 each from the settlement fund. 

B. Fees for Objector’s Counsel 

The Ninth Circuit has held that objectors who provide a material benefit to the class 

through their objections are entitled to fees as a matter of law. Rodriguez v. Disner, 688 F.3d 645, 

658-59 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Rodriguez II”). However, “objectors who do ‘not increase the fund’” or 

otherwise substantially benefit the class members’ are not entitled to fees, even if they bring 

‘about minor procedural changes in the settlement agreement.’” Id. at 658–59 (quoting Vizcaino, 

290 F.3d at 1051-52. “Nor is it error to deny fees to objectors whose work is duplicative, or who 

merely echo each others’ arguments and confer no unique benefit to the class.” Id. 

Here, Objector Lindberg argued that the original settlement was flawed in that it: included 

an unreasonable claims process that was likely to depress the claims rate; contained an overbroad 

release of claims; awarded class counsel a disproportionate amount of attorneys’ fees; and raised 

concerns regarding self-dealing and de facto reversion of settlement funds in contravention of In 

re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). (See Dkt. No. 277 at 

91-116.) While the Court had raised some of these concerns at oral argument at the time of 

preliminary approval, Objector Lindberg’s legal analysis of the Bluetooth factors aided the Court’s 

review and decision denying final approval of the original settlement without prejudice to renewal. 

(Dkt. No. 300.) The new settlement agreement vastly improved the claims rate and recovery for 

the class, eliminated unfair terms such as the release, and brought the attorneys’ fees to a 

reasonable proportion of the recovery. While all the improvements to the settlement agreement 

are not attributable entirely to the objections raised, the Court finds that Objector Lindberg’s 

contribution provided some material benefit to the class. 

Counsel for Objector Lindberg, the Law Office of Sam Miorelli, P.A., submits evidence 

that it has accumulated a lodestar of $46,546.20, with unreimbursed expenses of $1,360.25.2

 

 2

 Local counsel Framework Law Group PC submits that it incurred a lodestar of $1,755.00. 

However, as noted on the record, given local counsel’s inability to discuss even the basic facts of 

the objection at the hearing on this motion, the Court finds that fees should be discounted as 

providing little to no material benefit to the class aside from facilitating a pro hac vice appearance 

by Mr. Miorelli. 

Case 4:10-cv-01811-YGR Document 359 Filed 06/08/18 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Miorelli seeks a rate of $346 per hour for a total of 136.1 hours, as well as a 1.55 multiplier which 

he contends is warranted in light of the benefits to the class obtained. In reviewing the lodestar 

calculation, the Court finds that the hours submitted should be reduced to 60.0 hours at counsel’s 

billing rate, or $20,760.00. The number of hours spent on briefing the objection (and unauthorized 

reply) appear excessive, and the hours spent preparing the Rule 11 letters did not contribute any 

benefit to the class. The costs sought here are appropriately limited to $326.00. See Cal. Code 

Civ. Pro. § 1032. Further, the Court finds that a service award for Objector Lindberg, equal to half 

of that paid to the plaintiffs herein or $1,750.00, is sufficient. 

The Court agrees that such fees, costs, and incentive award should be paid from the 

$1,250,000.00 awarded to Class Counsel. Therefore, Class Counsel shall pay to Objector 

Lindberg a total of $22,836.00 for his attorneys’ fees, costs, and an incentive award. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Based upon the foregoing: 

(1) defendant shall pay Class Counsel a total of $1,250,000.00 total as reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs; 

(2) plaintiffs Derrick Alba, Jason Baker, James Girardi, Jonathan Huber, and Anthony 

Ventura are awarded $3,500.00 each from the settlement fund; and 

(3) Class Counsel shall pay to Objector Lindberg a total of $22,836.00 for his attorneys’ 

fees, costs, and an incentive award. 

This terminates Docket Nos. 346 and 348. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 8, 2018 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-01811-YGR Document 359 Filed 06/08/18 Page 5 of 5