Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00559/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00559-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

859437.1 CASE NO. 12-CV-0559-RS

[PROPOSED] ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES, LITIGATION COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP. 

DIGITAL DOWNLOADS LITIGATION

CASE NO. CV 12-0559-RS

[PROPOSED] ORDER AS MODIFIED BY 

THE COURT GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, 

LITIGATION COSTS, AND INCENTIVE 

AWARDS

Case 3:12-cv-00559-RS Document 116 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 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

859437.1 2 CASE NO. 12-CV-0559-RS

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, LITIGATION COSTS, 

AND INCENTIVE AWARDS

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs Kathy Sledge Lightfoot, Ronee Blakley, and Gary 

Wright’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Costs, and Incentive 

Awards, the pleadings and other papers on file in this action, and the statements of counsel and the 

parties, hereby finds that Plaintiffs’ motion should be GRANTED.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. For purposes of this Order, except as otherwise set forth herein, the Court adopts 

and incorporates the definitions contained in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (Dkt. 

No. 96-1, Ex. A) (“Settlement Agreement”).

2. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ requested fee award of $2,875,000 is fair and 

reasonable in light of the results obtained by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case; the risks and complex 

issues involved, and the skill and high-quality work required to overcome them; the burdens borne 

by counsel in pursuing this litigation on a pure contingency basis; and the range of awards made in 

similar cases. The Court finds that the requested fee award, which represents the Ninth Circuit’s 

benchmark of 25% of the Fund created by the Settlement Agreement, comports with the 

applicable law and is justified by the circumstances of this case.

3. The Court has confirmed the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ fee request by 

conducting a lodestar cross-check. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s reasonable lodestar 

as of December 31, 2014, the date they filed their Supplemental Declaration in Support of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees, Litigation Costs, and Incentive Awards was $1,995,780.50 

based on their historical hourly rates, and $2,063,274.00 based on their current hourly rates. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ requested fee award represents a multiplier of 1.44 based on counsel’s 

historical hourly rates and 1.39 based on their current hourly rates. This multiplier is within the 

range of multipliers awarded in similar complex class action cases and is well-justified here, given 

the novelty and difficulty of this litigation, counsel’s skillful handling of the difficult factual and 

legal issues presented, the significant contingent risks in this case, and the quality of the result 

achieved.

4. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel incurred a total of $97,429.54 in litigation 

costs and expenses in prosecuting this litigation as of December 31, 2014. The Court finds that 

Case 3:12-cv-00559-RS Document 116 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 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

859437.1 3 CASE NO. 12-CV-0559-RS

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, LITIGATION COSTS, 

AND INCENTIVE AWARDS

these costs and expenses were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of prosecuting this case 

and were necessary given the complex nature and nationwide scope of the case. Accordingly, the 

Court approves a payment to Plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of their total costs and expenses 

incurred to reimburse them for such costs and expenses.

5. Finally, the Court approves an incentive award of $10,000 each to current class 

representatives Kathy Sledge Lightfoot, Ronee Blakley, and Gary Wright, and to former class 

representatives Debra Sledge, Joan Sledge, and Kim Sledge Allen. In Radcliffe v. Experion 

Information Solutions, 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013), the Ninth Circuit instructed that making 

incentive awards, while permissible when not conditioned on class representatives’ support for the 

settlement, “should not become routine practice.” They must be “scrutinize[d]” carefully, so that 

they “do not undermine the adequacy of the class representatives.” 715 F. 3d at 1160. Plaintiffs’ 

application for incentive awards was carefully considered in light of these principles, and deemed 

reasonable and justified given: (1) the risks—reputational, financial, and otherwise—faced by the 

class representatives in bringing this lawsuit; and (2) the work performed and the active 

participation in the litigation and settlement processes by the class representatives on behalf of 

members of the class. 

6. The attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards set forth in this Order shall be paid 

by Defendant Warner Music Group Corp. in accordance with the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 12, 2015

Honorable Richard Seeborg

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00559-RS Document 116 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 3