Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01365/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01365-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AWARD OF 

ATTORNEYS‟ FEES AND EXPENSES 

CASE NO. CV 08 1365 CW

Robert J. Nelson (State Bar No. 132797)

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)

Roger Heller (State Bar No. 215348)

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

Embarcadero Center West

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

Telephone: (415) 956-1000

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

David M. Birka-White; (State Bar No. 85721)

dbw@birka-white.com

BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES

411 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200

Danville, CA 94526

Telephone: (925) 362-9999 

Facsimile: (925) 362-9970

Class Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNESHA M. GARNER, on behalf of 

herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CV 08 1365 CW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

Case 4:08-cv-01365-CW Document 284 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 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

- 1 - ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AWARD OF 

ATTORNEYS‟ FEES AND EXPENSES

CASE NO. CV 08 1365 CW

These matters come before the Court upon Class Counsel‟s Motion for Award of 

Attorneys‟ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses, filed on March 11, 2010. Upon consideration 

of the papers and arguments presented, the Court ORDERS as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees

Class Counsel seek an award of $4,500,000 in attorneys‟ fees, or 30 percent of the 

$15,000,000 non-reversionary, common Settlement fund created pursuant to the parties‟ 

Settlement Agreement.

The Court finds that it is appropriate and fair to calculate Class Counsel‟s fee in 

this case as a percentage of the common Settlement fund that their efforts helped to create. See, 

e.g., Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 900 n.16 (1984); Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 

1047 (9th Cir. 2002); Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

In the Ninth Circuit, 25 percent is the “benchmark” for determining the appropriate 

fee award under the percentage of the fund method. See, e.g., Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938,

968 (9th Cir. 2003); Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048. That said, Ninth Circuit courts have consistently 

recognized that a case by case analysis is required, and that a higher percentage fee award may be 

justified by the circumstances of a case. See, e.g., Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048; Knight v. Red 

Door Salons, Inc., 2009 WL 248367, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009). 

A fee award of 30 percent is within the “usual range” of fee awards that Ninth 

Circuit courts award in common fund cases. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1047; see also In re Mego Fin. 

Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 457, 460 (9th Cir. 2000); In re Pacific Sec. Enterprises Litig., 47 

F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995); Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 1997 WL 450064, at * 7 (N.D. 

Cal. Jul. 18, 1997), aff’d, 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998); In re Activision Sec. Litig., 723 F.Supp. 

1373, 1375 (N.D. Cal. 1989); Knight, 2009 WL 248367, at *7; In re Heritage Bond Litig., 2005 

WL 1594403, at *19 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2005).

The factors that Courts consider in determining whether a higher percentage fee 

award is appropriate include: (1) the results achieved; (2) whether there are benefits to the class 

beyond the immediate generation of a cash fund; (3) the risks of litigation; (4) the skill required of 

Case 4:08-cv-01365-CW Document 284 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 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

- 2 - ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AWARD OF 

ATTORNEYS‟ FEES AND EXPENSES

CASE NO. CV 08 1365 CW

counsel and quality of the work performed; (5) the contingent nature of the fee and the foregoing 

by counsel of other work; and (6) the reactions of the class. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048-1050; 

Knight, 2009 WL 248367, at *5-7; Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 2005 WL 6154898, at *2-3 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2005). Applying these factors to the instant case, the Court finds that a 30 

percent attorneys‟ fee award is justified in this case. 

First, Class Counsel achieved outstanding monetary results for the Class members, 

particularly given the uncertainty regarding how damages would be measured in this case, even 

had Plaintiffs prevailed at trial. See, e.g., In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F.Supp.2d 1036, 

1046-47 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 

Second, Class Counsel achieved important benefits beyond the creation of the 

Settlement fund, as State Farm has agreed that it will not use the “projected sold” and “age of ad” 

adjustments in valuing total loss vehicles in the future in California. This certainly will benefit 

Class members and other current and future insureds for the foreseeable future. See Staton, 327 

F.3d at 974 (where class counsel achieve significant benefits that are not accounted for in the 

dollar value of the common settlement fund, the court “should consider the value of [such] relief 

as a „relevant circumstance‟ in determining what percentage of the common fund class counsel 

should receive as attorneys‟ fees”) (citing Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1049); Linney, 1997 WL 450064, 

at * 7.

Third, prosecuting this case required an extraordinary commitment of time, 

resources, and energy from Class Counsel, and the relief achieved simply would not have been 

possible but for the commitment and skill of Class Counsel. This case was wholly without 

precedent, raised numerous novel and complex issues of both law and fact, and required a 

considerable effort from Class Counsel simply to be in a position to file suit, let alone to litigate 

this case successfully. Additionally, Class Counsel displayed great skill in overcoming the 

numerous formidable challenges raised by State Farm. The skill and effort displayed by Class 

Counsel here further justifies a 30 percent fee award. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048. 

 Fourth, Class Counsel prosecuted this case on a purely contingent basis, agreeing 

to advance all necessary expenses, knowing that they would only receive a fee if there were a 

Case 4:08-cv-01365-CW Document 284 Filed 04/22/10 Page 3 of 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

- 3 - ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AWARD OF 

ATTORNEYS‟ FEES AND EXPENSES

CASE NO. CV 08 1365 CW

recovery. Courts have long recognized that the public interest is served by rewarding attorneys 

who assume representation on a contingent basis with an enhanced fee to compensate them for 

the risk that they might be paid nothing at all for their work. See In re Washington Public Power 

Supply System Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1299 (9th Cir. 1994); Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050; In re 

Omnivision, 559 F.Supp.2d at 1047. Moreover, Class Counsel had to turn down opportunities to 

work on other cases in order to devote the appropriate amount of time, resources, and energy 

necessary to handle this complex and demanding matter, further supporting the requested fee 

award here. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050; In re Heritage Bond, 2005 WL 1594389, at * 14.

Fifth, a single objection out of a sizeable class, after notice, further demonstrates 

the reasonableness and fairness of Class Counsels‟ request. See In re Heritage Bond, 2005 WL 

1594389, at *15-16. 

Finally, a lodestar-multiplier “cross-check” further supports the reasonableness of 

a 30 percent fee award here. Class Counsel effectively seek a multiplier of less than 2. This is 

well within the range of multipliers applied in common fund cases, and such a multiplier is 

justified under the circumstances of this case. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051; Kerr v. Screen 

Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69 (9th Cir. 1975).

Litigation Expenses

Class Counsel seek reimbursement of $317,903.90 for litigation expenses they 

incurred in prosecuting this case. The Court finds that such expenses were reasonable and that 

the reimbursement of such expenses is appropriate.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:08-cv-01365-CW Document 284 Filed 04/22/10 Page 4 of 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

- 4 - ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AWARD OF 

ATTORNEYS‟ FEES AND EXPENSES

CASE NO. CV 08 1365 CW

Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS Class Counsel‟s Motion for Award or 

Attorneys‟ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses, and ORDERS as follows:

Class Counsel is awarded a total of $4,500,000 in attorneys‟ fees. Class Counsel 

is further awarded a total of $317,903.90 as reimbursement for their litigation expenses. Such 

awards shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund created pursuant to the parties‟ Settlement 

Agreement. Class Counsel shall distribute such awards among the counsel assisting in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2010 Hon. Claudia Wilken

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01365-CW Document 284 Filed 04/22/10 Page 5 of 5