Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05493/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05493-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 

AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARD 

Roy A. Katriel (265463) 

THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM 

4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 

La Jolla, CA 92037 

Tel: (858) 242-5642 

Fax: (858) 430-3719 

E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (pro hac vice) 

KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 

210 Summit Avenue 

Montvale, NJ 07645 

Tel: (201) 391-7000 

Fax: (201) 307-1086 

E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MAJEED SEIFI, TRACEY DEAKIN, and 

RAYMOND REYNER, On Behalf of 

Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES,

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND

CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARD

Hon. Thelton E. Henderson

Courtroom: 2, 17th Floor

Hearing Date: August 17, 2015

Hearing Time: 10:00 am

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 208 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 6
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

Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 

AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARD 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, 

Incentive Award to Class Representatives, was heard by the Court on August 17, 2015, at 10:00 

a.m. The Court has reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and has heard arguments 

presented at the hearing. For the reasons cited on the record as well as those stated hereinafter, the 

Court finds and orders as follows: 

The Court, having considered the documents filed by the Parties in connection with the 

class action settlement and the arguments of counsel, hereby grants final approval of the 

Settlement and HEREBY ORDERS AND MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS: 

1. The Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference, and except as 

otherwise specified, the Court for purposes of this Final Approval Order adopts all defined terms 

set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and all claims 

raised in this action and released in the Settlement Agreement, and personal jurisdiction over 

Plaintiffs, MBUSA and all Settlement Class Members. 

3. Pursuant to this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order filed April 8, 2015, Dkt. 149, 

the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (“Notice”) was mailed by firstclass mail on May 13, 2015, to 579,578 Class Members. Notices that were initially returned 

undeliverable were re-mailed to new addresses determined after investigation. The Notices 

advised the Class Members of the pertinent terms of the proposed settlement, including, inter alia, 

the amount of attorney’s fees and litigation costs that Class Counsel would seek and the proposed 

class representative incentive awards. It further informed the Settlement Class Members of the 

manner in which to request exclusion or to object to the Settlement, the deadlines for each, and 

their right to appear in person or by counsel at the final approval hearing. A second deadline for 

exclusion and objections was provided in the remail notices to allow those who did not initially 

receive the Notice additional time to consider the Settlement. Adequate periods of time were 

provided for each of these procedures as set forth in the Settlement Agreement approved by this 

Court. 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 208 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 6
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- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 

AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARD 

4. Also in compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement 

Administrator caused an informational settlement website to be established at 

www.BalanceShaftSettlement.com on May 13, 2015. The website allows the public opportunity 

to review the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s Preliminary Order, the Notice, and to validate 

whether they have a vehicle within the class of vehicles at issue, and to download a Claim Form. 

The website also provides background and answers to common questions about the Settlement, 

deadlines, and ongoing updates to the class regarding the status of Settlement approval and 

whether the Effective Date has come to pass. 

5. The Court finds and determines that this notice procedure afforded adequate 

protections to Settlement Class Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed 

decision regarding approval of the Settlement and an award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of 

expenses and incentive awards, based on the responses of the Settlement Class Members. The 

Court finds and determines that the notice provided in this case was the best notice practicable, 

which satisfied the requirements of law and due process. 

6. As of the date of this hearing, there were 19 objections filed with the Court 

(counting as one objection, the original filed and then refiled objection of Mr. Fanciullo at Dkts. 

164 and 183), as well as 17 19 letters filed with the Court that did not comply with the objection 

requirements or assert specific substantive grounds for objection. See Dkts. 152, 153, 154, 156, 

157, 158, 159, 162, 170, 175, 177, 180, 181, 188, 190, 193, and 194, and 204. To the extent any 

of these letters could be construed as an objection to the Award of Attorneys’ Fees and 

Reimbursement of expenses, they are overruled. No Objection was made to the request for an 

incentive award to the class representatives. 

7. The Court has determined by separate Order that the terms of the Settlement are 

fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class, that the Settlement is finally approved, and 

that all terms and provisions of the Settlement are Ordered to be consummated. The Court finds 

that Plaintiffs faced significant risks in litigating this case; but that the Settlement provides a fair 

amount of relief for Settlement Class Members’ federal and state consumer protection claims 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 208 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 6
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- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 

AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARD 

given the strength of those claims. The Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement was 

reached as a result of informed and non-collusive arms’-length negotiations between experienced 

and capable counsel for the parties, and through a respected and capable mediator. 

8. Class Counsel request that the Court grant approval of the requested award of 

Counsel Fees in the sum of Two Million Four Hundred Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty 

Two Dollars ($2,411,882). This request is not opposed by Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. 

It appears that utilizing the percentage-of-fund method of calculation, the requested Counsel Fee is 

well below the twenty five percent (25%) benchmark recognized in the Ninth Circuit. For cases 

using the percentage-of-the-fund method, twenty five percent (25%) of the overall figure is 

considered a “benchmark award for attorneys’ fees.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011,

1029 (9th Cir. 1998). The negotiated Counsel Fees amount here appear to be approximately ten 

percent (10%) of the value of the benefit conferred in this matter and is therefore well below the 

benchmark and is fair and reasonable. The award is also comparable to, or less than, fee awards in 

other similar automotive defect class action settlements. See, e.g., Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor 

America, 796 F. Supp.2d 1160, 1165 (C.D.Ca. 2010) (awarding $ 3.7 million for settlement of 

defective flywheel transmissions where class members received 50%-100% in cash reimbursement 

of repair based on mileage at the time of repair); Sadowska v. Volkswagen Group of Am., No. CV11-00665-BRO, Dkt. No. 127 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2013) (awarding $2.2 million in fees to counsel 

who obtained a new warranty for transmission parts for the class); Falk v. General Motors Corp.,

No. C07-0291-JCC (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2008) (approving fees of $2.372 million on a settlement 

providing for a 7 year/70,000 mile warranty for repair and replacement of defective speedometer); 

Browne v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. CV 09-06750 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (awarding $2 

million in fees for settlement authorizing partial reimbursement to class members for costs of 

replacing brake pads); Alin v. Honda Motor Co., No. 08-4825 (D.N.J. 2012) (awarding $2.515 

million in fees after counsel obtained a settlement providing for reimbursement of certain repairs 

on an air conditioning part). 

9. A lodestar cross-check independently confirms that the negotiated fee is reasonable. 

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s total lodestar amounts to $1,884,015.00, as documented in the Joint 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 208 Filed 08/18/15 Page 4 of 6
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

-4- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 

AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARD 

Declaration of Gary S. Graifman and Roy A. Katriel, Class Counsel, in Support of Approval of 

Class Settlement and Award of Attorneys’ Fees, filed on June 12, 2015 [ECF No. 165-5]. The 

attorney hourly billing rates documented in that Joint Declaration are reasonable and consistent 

with the hourly rates of similarly qualified and experienced attorneys in this district. Thus, this 

lodestar amount confirms the reasonableness of the requested fee previously calculated to be 

approximately 9.84 percent of the common Settlement benefit. Applying a modest 1.28 multiplier 

to the lodestar makes the fee award calculated by the lodestar method coincide with the fee 

amount calculated by resort to the percent-of-the-benefit approach. 

10. Class Counsel also requests reimbursement of expenses of $63,118 which are included 

in the request of the total award of Two Million Four Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars 

($2.475M) as and for Counsel Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses. This request for 

reimbursement of expenses is also not opposed by Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. The 

Court finds the expenses as reasonable and that such expenses are the type of expenses regularly 

advanced in class action litigation and therefore, the reimbursement of expenses of Sixty Three 

Thousand One Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($63,118) is approved. 

11. Accordingly, the Court hereby awards Class Counsel the requested amount of Two 

Million Four Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($2,475,000) as and for Counsel Fees and 

Reimbursement of Expenses. 

12. In addition, Class Counsel and Plaintiffs have requested an incentive award to 

Plaintiffs of $21,000, comprised of $9,000 for Plaintiff Seifi, $9,000 for Plaintiff Deakin and 

$3,000 for Plaintiff Reyner. These incentive awards have been agreed to by the parties within the 

Settlement Agreement, subject to Court approval. The incentive awards sought are justified and in 

line with incentive awards approved by this Court. See Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., No. 

13-cv-2377-JSC, 2015 WL 1289342, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015) (awarding named class 

plaintiff $15,000 incentive award “in light of the time and effort Plaintiff expended for the benefit 

of the class.”); Navarro v. Servisair, No. 08-cv-2716, MHP, 2010 WL 1729538, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 27, 2010) (“Based on this active participation, an incentive award of $10,000.00 is 

reasonable.”). 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 208 Filed 08/18/15 Page 5 of 6
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

-5- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 

AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARD 

13. The Plaintiffs each came forward to initiate actions on behalf of Class Members in 

connection with their respective Class Vehicles and cooperated in every respect with Plaintiffs’ 

Counsel. They provided documentation to counsel as evidence for their claims and the claims of 

the putative Class. In the case of Plaintiffs’ Deakin and Seifi, they provided additional documents 

when requested, answered interrogatory requests and then supplemental requests, prepared for 

their depositions with Co-Lead Counsel and travelled to the offices of Defendants’ counsel and 

answered questions during full day videotaped depositions. In addition, their respective spouses 

prepared for depositions and, in the case of Ms. Seifi, submitted to a deposition. Both Plaintiffs 

Seifi and Deakin participated in having their vehicles brought to a location selected by 

Defendant’s counsel and allowed their respective vehicles to be physically inspected. Both also 

produced the damaged Subject Sprocket parts for inspection. Finally, all Plaintiffs have been 

involved in this action, have provided insight, assistance and remained in constant conduct with 

counsel to discuss the Litigation and the eventual Settlement; all Plaintiffs reviewed and approved 

the pleadings and motions filed while they were Plaintiffs and communicated with counsel about 

settlement discussions.

14. In light of the foregoing the incentive award of $21,000 as allocated hereinabove 

among the three (3) Class Representatives, is hereby approved. 

15. The Court retains jurisdiction over the administration and effectuation of the 

Settlement. 

16. The Court enters judgment and dismissal of the entire action with prejudice, as of 

the filing date of entry of this final order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 08/17/15 _________________________________ 

 HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 208 Filed 08/18/15 Page 6 of 6