Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02284/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02284-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

FRED LOEWY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, PLAN

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

MOTOROLA, Inc. PENSION PLAN

AND THE MOTOROLA, Inc. PENSION,

PLAN,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-03-2284-PHX-FJM

ORDER

On September 16, 2005, we held a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e)(1)(C), Fed. R.

Civ. P. We had before us the parties' joint motion for approval of their stipulation of

settlement and their corrected stipulation of settlement. We also had before us plaintiff's

motion for attorneys' fees (doc. 131), and the "Joint Motion to File Stipulation and Joint

Motion for Approval of Corrections to Stipulation of Settlement and Corrected Stipulation

of Settlement and Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulation of Settlement Under

Seal" (doc. 141).

Notice was given and no objections to the settlement were filed. Nor were any

objections filed to the motion for an award of attorneys' fees. 

We are now in receipt of the "Defendants' Memorandum Regarding the Fairness of

the Settlement" (doc. 143), the plaintiff's "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Regarding Corrected Stipulation of Settlement" (doc. 144), the defendants' response

Case 2:03-cv-02284-FJM Document 150 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

indicating no objection to the plaintiff's proposed findings of fact, the plaintiff's

"Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs"

(doc. 145), and the "Declaration of Daniel L. Bonnett in Further Support of Motion for

Attorneys' Fees" (doc. 146).

Having considered all of these matters, we now find that the corrected stipulation of

settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" within the meaning of Rule 23(e)(1)(C), Fed.

R. Civ. P., and therefore approve this settlement and dismissal.

And while an award of 25% of the common fund appears to result in a

disproportionately high award of attorneys' fees, the fact remains that counsel for plaintiff

did a terrific job and no member of the class has objected. Moreover, the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated that a 25% award is the proper benchmark in cases

of this sort. Paul, Johnson, Alston, & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 273 (9th Cir. 1989).

Adjustments up or down should be accompanied by a reasonable explanation as to why the

benchmark is unreasonable under the circumstances. Id. In light of the fact that neither the

defendants nor the class members have objected to the amount of fees, and given the fact that

there is no adversariness here, we have no empirical basis upon which to state that the fee

is unreasonable within the meaning of Rule 23(h), Fed. R. Civ. P. Accordingly, IT IS

ORDERED as follows:

1. The joint motion to approve the corrected stipulation of settlement is GRANTED

and the settlement is approved.

2. The motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of 25% of the

common fund ($2,825,883.75) is GRANTED (doc. 131). 

3. The joint motion to file documents under seal is DENIED (doc. 141).

4. In all other respects, this class action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED this 7th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-02284-FJM Document 150 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2