Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02666/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02666-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSEMARY COHORST, CHARMAINE

GRIFFITH, and DEIDRE QUENELL on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv2666 JM(BGS)

ORDER DENYING GRABER’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES;

GRANTING KREIDLER’S MOTION

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

vs.

BRE PROPERTIES, INC.; L1 HOLDING,

INC; LEVEL ONE, LLC; and REAL PAGE,

INC.,

Defendants.

Counsel for Objectors Yanique Dias and Gilliane Graber (“Graber”) move for an award of

attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $145,000. Counsel for Objector Susan Kreidler (“Kreidler”)

moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $1,067,826.30. Plaintiffs oppose

both motions. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the matters presented are appropriate for decision

without oral argument. Forthe reasons set forth below, the court denies Graber’s motion for attorney’s

fees and grants Kreidler’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $69,641. 

BACKGROUND

The court incorporates the Report and Recommendation of Special Master (Ct. Dkt. 70) and

the Order Adopting Report and Recommendation (“Order”) as if fully set forth herein. (Ct. Dkt. 88). 

The Order established a common attorney’s fees award in the amount of $1.54 million (“Fee Award”). 

The Objectors each claim that their efforts provided a benefit to the class and therefore they are

- 1 - 10cv2666

Case 3:10-cv-02666-JM-BGS Document 122 Filed 06/05/12 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

entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs.

In the Order, the court required Plaintiffs to provide direct mail notice to those potential class

members for whom Level One or BRE possessed physical mail addresses. In the end, 9,583 packets

containing the Notice of Settlement and Proof of Claim were mailed to this group. In response to the

mailed notice, 462 claims were received and about 345 of those claims were valid. The total number

of class members is about 1,668 (1,323 claims were received in response to the earlier notice provided

to class members). 

On April 13, 2012, final judgment was entered in this case. (Ct. Dkt. 109). The only

remaining issue in this case concerns Objectors’ motions for attorney’s fees.

DISCUSSION

It is well-established that Objectors are entitled to attorney’s fees only in the event they show

either they (1) conferred some benefit on the class or (2) substantially improved the settlement under

consideration. See Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace, Inc., 9 F.3d 849, 855 (10 Cir. 1993); City of th

Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 560 F.2d 1093, 1098 (2d Cir. 1977). 

In determining the amount of fees awarded to objectors’ counsel who obtained a benefit to the

class, the court considers the relationship between the fee award and the degree of success and, in its

discretion, may reduce or increase the fee award. See McGinnis v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of

California, 51 F.3d 805, 810 (9 Cir. 1994). Attorney’s fees and costs are awarded to objectors whose th

efforts “substantially benefit the class members.” In re Prudential Ins. Cl. Of Am. Sales Practices

Litig., 273 F.Supp2d 563, 565 ( D.N.J. 2003); Rodriguez v. West Publg. Corp., 565 F.3d 948 (9 Cir. th

2009). The substantial benefit must “increase the fund or otherwise substantially benefit the class

members.” Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1052 (9 Cir. 2002). th

Graber’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

The threshold issue is whether Graber obtained any substantial benefit to the class. Graber

contends that she objected to “the contents of the notice, the defects in the dedicated website, the

inadequate notice procedure, and the failure to disseminate mail notice to 32,000 known addresses.” 

(Motion at p.2:11-12). The court concludes that Graber did not obtain a substantial benefit for the

class and therefore denies her attorney’s fees from the Fee Award.

- 2 - 10cv2666

Case 3:10-cv-02666-JM-BGS Document 122 Filed 06/05/12 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

The overwhelming thrust of Graber’s objections focused on the contents of the notice, defects

in the website and inadequate notice procedures. (Ct. Dkt. 72). These arguments provided no benefit

to the class. In the Order, the court concluded that notice of settlement provided to class members

must be the “best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all

members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B); Eisen v. Carlisle

& Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 165 (1974). The court therefore concluded that individuals for whom

Defendants possessed addresses were reasonably entitled to mail notice, especially where the parties

represented in open court that such notice would cost less than $2 per class member (ultimately mail

service was provided to 9,583 potential class members). 

Graber also argues that benefit to the class was provided because “Objectors challenged Class

Counsel’s decision to not mail notices to the 32,000 class members for whom Level One possessed

mailing addresses.” (Motion at p.4:21-22). Notably, Graber does not provide any support for this

conclusory statement. The court has reviewed the original 14-page Objections filed by Graber and

notes that less than one page is dedicated to the topic of constitutional notice and only one sentence

refers to mail notice: “With respect to Class Members no longer residing in the Rental Properties, class

counsel could, at least, have made a good faith effort to notify former residents by mailing notices to

the forwarding addresses which were provided when the residents vacated the premises.” (Ct. Dkt 72

at p.13:23-27). While Graber noted general due process notice requirements, citing Mullane v. Central

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950), she did not cite either Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B)

or Eisen, 417 U.S. 156, 173 to adequately inform the court of the nature of her argument. 

Graber’s notice argument was simply inadequate to raise the legal issue that individual mailed

notice was required, not merely discretionary, under the circumstances. Graber did not cite pertinent

legal authorities to sufficiently alert the court of the mail notice requirements. In Eisen the Supreme

Court held that “[i]ndividual notice must be sent to all class members whose names and addresses may

be ascertained through reasonable effort.” Eisen, 417 U.S. at 173. Similarly, the Advisory

Committee’s Note to Rule 23 indicates that notice “shall include individual notice to the members who

can be identified through reasonable efforts.” As binding authorities require individual notice to

known addresses of class members - an argument not raised by Graber - the court finds that Graber

- 3 - 10cv2666

Case 3:10-cv-02666-JM-BGS Document 122 Filed 06/05/12 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

did not provide a substantial benefit to the class.

In sum, the court denies Graber’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees from the Fee Award. 

The court notes that any attorney-client fee agreement provides the only means for counsel to be

compensated. 

Kreidler’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Unlike Graber, the court finds that Kreidler provided a substantial benefit to the class. Kreidler

argued that Eisen and Fed.R. 23 specifically require individual notice to class members with known

addresses. (Ct. Dkt. 73at pp:5:25 - 6:4; p.8:1-22). The individually mailed notice resulted in the

inclusion of 345 additional class members. While the amount of settlement was not increased by

Kreidler’s activities, the inclusion of the additional class members is a substantial benefit to those class

members and furthers the inclusive goals of class actions. See Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462

U.S. 345, 349 (1983).

Kreidler also argues that she benefitted the class by obtaining (1) the equal treatment of

California residents; (2) a continuance of the final approval hearing until after the claims filing

deadline to permit the court to consider a fully developed record at the time of the hearing; (3) the

elimination of a possible reversion to Defendants; and (4) a reduction in class counsel’s fee. (Motion

at pp.4:1-6:16). The overall benefit to the class of these asserted benefits, while positive, is not

substantial and would not, standing alone, support an award of attorney’s fees. The only other issue

concerns the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Kreidler, as the party seeking the award, “bears the burden of documenting the appropriate

hours expended in the litigation and must provide support for those hours worked.” Gates v.

Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9 Cir. 1992). Counsel for Kreidler, Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP

th

(“KBL”), seek to be compensated for 713.4 hours of attorney work at an average hourly rate of

$641.92 for a lodestar amount of $458,294.25. (Kiesel Decl.). KBL also seek a multiplier of 2.33 for

a total of $1,067,826.30. Id. The court concludes that KBL fails to demonstrate the reasonableness

of this approach. First, KBL fails to provide the court with any evidentiary detail concerning the

reasonableness of the hours claimed. The Kiesel declaration appears to seek compensation for the

substantial time dedicated by KBL to investigate and prosecute the Luminita Roman case filed in the

- 4 - 10cv2666

Case 3:10-cv-02666-JM-BGS Document 122 Filed 06/05/12 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

Central District of California. Without some evidence supporting the claimed hours, the court is

unable to reasonably pursue the lodestar approach. Second, Kiesel fails to support its hourly rate. 

Kiesel makes no showing that the hourly rates for its partners ($700 to $890), senior associates ($625),

and junior associates ($325 to $375) is representative in the community for reasonably comparable

skill, experience, and reputation . See Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9 Cir. 1 th

1987). As the court is unable to reliably ascertain the lodestar amount, the court declines to award

Kiesel attorney’s fees or costs under the lodestar approach.

The court finds, however, that a percentage of the award to the 345 new class members is

appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances. The value of the settlement to the 345 newly

joined class members is $497,437. (Reply at p.3:1-3). Applying the percentage of the attorney’s fees

award to the value of the settlement (28%) yields attorney’s fees in the amount of $139,282. Of this

amount the court concludes that class counsel and KBL should share equally in this award as both

provided substantial benefit to these class members. Accordingly, the court awards KBL reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $69,641. This amount is to be paid from the Fee Award

previously awarded as attorney’s fees.

In sum, the court denies Graber’s motion for attorney’s fees, grants Kreidler’s motion for

attorney’s fees, and awards Kreidler attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $69,641.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 5, 2012

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

The court notes that partners of class counsel maintain approved rates of $550-695, 1

substantially less than those of KBL.

- 5 - 10cv2666

Case 3:10-cv-02666-JM-BGS Document 122 Filed 06/05/12 Page 5 of 5