Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-05193/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-05193-7/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HAYLEY HICKCOX-HUFFMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

US AIRWAYS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.10-cv-05193-VKD 

FINAL ORDER APPROVING 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES 

AND INCENTIVE AWARD

Re: Dkt. No. 109

The Court, having considered the papers filed and oral arguments presented in support of 

the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses to Class Counsel and an 

Incentive Award for the Class Representative (the “Fee, Expense and Incentive Award Motion”), 

hereby makes the following findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law, and orders 

as follows:

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h)(3) and 52(a), the Court makes the 

following findings of fact:

1. The amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded to Class Counsel1 was neither 

discussed, negotiated, nor agreed upon by the parties as part of the Settlement, and therefore had 

no impact on the negotiation of the terms of the Settlement.

2. The negotiations that formed the basis of the Settlement were at arms-length and 

took place in two separate mediation sessions before the mediator, Jill Sperber, Esq., of Judicate 

 

1 Except where otherwise noted, all capitalized terms used in this Final Order Approving 

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Incentive Award shall have the meanings attributed to them in 

the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 104-1).

Case 5:10-cv-05193-VKD Document 117 Filed 04/11/19 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

West. 

3. The parties left the determination of Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees solely to the 

discretion of the Court. 

4. Exhibit F of the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 104-1), the summary notice of the 

proposed settlement, states “Class Counsel will request attorneys’ fees not to exceed $2,955,000 

and reimbursement of costs and expenses not to exceed $50,000 . . . using a portion of the 

$9,850,000.00 Settlement Fund.” Dkt. No. 104-1 at 94. 

5. Class Counsel’s lodestar in the amount of $949,669.00 is reasonable and justified 

based on: (a) the market competitive hourly rates charged by Class Counsel for the work that was 

performed; (b) the significant time and effort that was expended by Class Counsel (more than 

1850 hours); and (c) the duration of the case (over eight years). 

6. The attorneys’ fees requested in the amount of $2,955,000 represents a multiplier 

of 3.11, which is reasonable and justified based on: (a) the difficult and novel legal challenges 

faced by Class Counsel in this case; (b) the risks and financial burdens that Class Counsel 

undertook in litigating this case on a fully contingent basis; and (c) the significant benefits that are 

being made available to the class members under the Settlement.

7. When analyzed as a percentage of the overall Settlement Fund, the attorneys’ fees 

requested represent 30% of the total settlement value.

8. Whether analyzed on a lodestar/multiplier basis or as a percentage of the overall 

Settlement Fund, the attorneys’ fees requested by Class Counsel in the amount of $2,955,000 is 

fair and reasonable.

9. The expenses sought by Class Counsel in the amount of $45,611.21 are less than 

the $50,000.00 cap amount agreed to by Class Counsel as recited in Exhibit F of the Settlement 

Agreement.

10. The expenses for which Class Counsel seek reimbursement appear to be reasonably 

and necessarily incurred in connection with the prosecution and resolution of this action.

11. The incentive award requested on behalf of Plaintiff, the class representative, in the 

amount of $10,000.00 is fair and reasonable in light of the amount of personal time devoted to 

Case 5:10-cv-05193-VKD Document 117 Filed 04/11/19 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

fulfilling her duties as the class representative in this action.

12. The Class Notice that was disseminated pursuant to the Court-approved notice plan 

notifies class members of the maximum amounts of attorneys’ fees, expenses and incentive awards 

that will be sought.

13. The Fee, Expense and Incentive Award Motion was filed by the February 7, 2019 

deadline and posted on the Settlement Administrator’s website to allow class members to opt-out 

or file any objection to the Fee, Expense and Incentive Award Motion. 

14. No objections have been received to the attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, or 

incentive award proposed. 

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure 23(h)(3) and 52(a), the Court reaches the following 

conclusions of law:

1. In a class action, the district court must exercise its inherent authority to ensure that 

the amount and mode of payment of attorneys’ fees are fair and appropriate. Staton v. Boeing Co., 

327 F.3d 938, 964 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Zucker v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 192 F.3d 1323, 

1328 (9th Cir. 1999)).

2. In calculating attorneys’ fees in class actions, the district court has discretion to use 

either a percentage or lodestar method in order to calculate the attorneys’ fees to be awarded to 

counsel. Id. (citing Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998)).

3. While the Ninth Circuit has adopted a 25% benchmark for fees based on the 

common fund, “the benchmark percentage should be adjusted, or replaced by a lodestar 

calculation, when special circumstances indicate that the percentage recovery would be either too 

small or too large in light of the hours devoted to the case or other relevant factors.” Six (6) 

Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.3d 1302, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990). 

4. In determining what qualifies as reasonable attorneys’ fees under the lodestar 

method, the Court may consider the following factors: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the 

novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services 

properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorneys due to acceptance of the case; 

Case 5:10-cv-05193-VKD Document 117 Filed 04/11/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

(5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by 

the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the 

experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the 

nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. 

Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, 

Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 71 (9th Cir. 1975)).

5. Under the lodestar method, the district court may make adjustments to the lodestar 

figure by a positive or negative multiplier based on, inter alia, the quality of representation, the 

benefit obtained for the class, the complexity and novelty of the issues presented, and the risk of 

nonpayment. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941–42 (9th Cir. 2011).

6. The district courts have applied a wide range of lodestar multipliers—generally 

ranging from 1 to 4—in making fee award determinations. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 

1043, 1051 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002).

7. The district court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees, non-taxable costs, and 

expenses that are authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h); Rodriguez 

v. Disner, 688 F.3d 645, 653 (9th Cir. 2012). 

8. The district court has discretion to grant incentive awards to class representatives. 

See Palmer v. Nigaglioni, 508 F. App’x 658, 658–59 (9th Cir. 2013); In re Mego Fin’l Corp. Sec. 

Litig. v. Nadler, 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir. 2000). 

9. The criteria that courts should consider when determining whether to grant an 

incentive award and the amount of the award include: (a) the risk to the class representative in 

commencing a class action, both financial and otherwise; (b) the notoriety and personal difficulties 

encountered by the class representative; (c) the amount of time and effort spent by the class 

representative; (d) the duration of the litigation; and (e) the personal benefit, or lack thereof, 

enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation. Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply 

Co., 306 F.R.D. 245, 266 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F.

Supp. 294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995)); see also Staton, 327 F.3d at 977. 

10. It is not uncommon for a court to award each class representative several thousand 

Case 5:10-cv-05193-VKD Document 117 Filed 04/11/19 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

dollars as an incentive award. See, e.g., In re Mego Fin’l Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d at 463 

(approving incentive awards of $5,000 to the two class representatives); Bellinghausen, 306 

F.R.D. at 268 (awarding incentive award of $15,000 to class representative). 

11. It is imperative under Rule 23(h) that class members have an adequate opportunity 

to oppose Class Counsel’s Fee, Expense and Incentive Award Application. In re: Mercury 

Interactive Corp. Securities, 618 F.3d 988, 994–95 (9th Cir. 2010).

12. Providing class members with an adequate opportunity to oppose Class Counsel’s 

Fee, Expense and Incentive Award Motion requires that, at a minimum, the deadline for filing 

objections to Class Counsel’s Fee, Expense and Incentive Award Application not predate the 

filing of Class Counsel’s Fee, Expense and Incentive Award Motion. Id.

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:

1. Attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $2,955,000 are awarded to Class Counsel for 

their services in connection with the litigation and resolution of the claims asserted in this action. 

2. Class Counsel is to be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses and non-taxable 

costs incurred in connection with the litigation and resolution of the claims asserted in this action 

in the total amount of $45,611.21.

3. The Plaintiff is awarded an incentive award in the amount of $10,000.00. 

4. The attorneys’ fees, expense reimbursement, and incentive award shall be paid 

from the Settlement Fund.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-05193-VKD Document 117 Filed 04/11/19 Page 5 of 5