{00226620 } 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

Master File No. 12-md-02311 

Honorable Sean F. Cox 

IN RE: SPARK PLUGS 

: 

: 

: 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 

: 

: 

: 

: 

2:15-cv-03001-SFC-RSW 

2:15-cv-11774-SFC-RSW 

ORDER

AND NOW, upon consideration of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of 

Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Costs and Expenses, and a Service Award to the Class Representatives 

(the “Motion”), the Memorandum in support thereof, and the declarations and exhibits attached 

thereto, and following a hearing on the Motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is 

GRANTED: 

1. The Court has considered the relevant case law and authority and finds that awards 

of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses to the Direct Purchaser 

Plaintiffs and their counsel are appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). 

2. The Court engages in a two-part analysis when assessing the reasonableness of a 

petition seeking an award of attorneys’ fees. In re Cardinal Health Inc. Sec. Litig., 528 F. Supp. 

2d 752, 760 (S.D. Ohio 2007). The Court first determines the method of calculating the attorneys’ 

fees: it applies either the percentage of the fund approach or the lodestar method. Id.; Van Horn v. 

Nationwide Prop. and Cas. Inc. Co., 436 Fed. Appx. 496, 498 (6th Cir. 2011). 

3. The Court has the discretion to select the appropriate method for calculating 

attorneys’ fees “in light of the unique characteristics of class actions in general, and of the unique 

Case 2:15-cv-11774-SFC-RSW ECF No. 68, PageID.1147 Filed 09/23/22 Page 1 of 6
{00226620 } 2 

circumstances of the actual cases before them.” Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc., 9 

F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 1993). In common fund cases, the award of attorneys’ fees need only “be 

reasonable under the circumstances.” Id., 9 F.3d at 516. The Court has also analyzed and weighed 

the six factors described in Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 508 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1974). 

4. The Court will award fees to Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ counsel using the 

percentage-of-the fund approach. This method of awarding attorneys’ fees is preferred in this 

district because it eliminates disputes about the reasonableness of rates and hours, conserves 

judicial resources, and aligns the interests of class counsel and the class members. Rawlings, 9 

F.3d at 515; Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 10-cv-14360, 2015 WL 

1498888, at *15 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2015); In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., 08-MDL-01952, 

2011 WL 6209188, at *16 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2011); In re Delphi Corp. Sec. Derivative & 

ERISA Litig., 248 F.R.D. 483, 502 (E.D. Mich. 2008); Cardinal, 528 F. Supp. 2d at 762 (the Sixth 

Circuit has “explicitly approved the percentage approach in common fund cases.”); In re Skelaxin 

(Metaxalone) Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 2946459 *1 (E.D. Tenn. Jun. 30, 2014). The total amount 

of the settlement funds before the Court is $700,000.00. 

5. The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)(1) have been satisfied. Notice of the relief 

requested in the motion before the Court was mailed to 1,581 potential settlement class members. 

In addition, a summary notice was published in Automotive News and an Informational Press 

Release was issued nationwide via PR Newswire’s “Auto Wire,” which targets auto industry trade 

publications. Finally, the Notice was (and remains) posted online on 

https://www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/SparkPlugs the website dedicated to this litigation. 

There were no objections. 

Case 2:15-cv-11774-SFC-RSW ECF No. 68, PageID.1148 Filed 09/23/22 Page 2 of 6
{00226620 } 3 

6. The Court grants the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement of 

litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $19,376.06. 

7. Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs request a fee award of 33% of the 

settlement funds. The 33% fee requested is within the range of fee awards made by courts in this 

Circuit. In re Prandin Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 1396473 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 

2015) (awarding one-third of the fund); In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 

2155387, at *8 (E.D. Tenn. May 17, 2013); Skelaxin, 2014 WL 2946459, at *1; In re Packaged 

Ice Antitrust Litig., 2011 WL 6209188, at *19; Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 695 F. 

Supp. 2d 521, 528 (E.D. Ky. 2010); Bessey v. Packer and Plainwell, Inc., No. 4:06-CV-95, 2007 

WL 3173972, *4 (W.D. Mich. 2007); Delphi, 248 F.R.D. at 502-03; In re National Century 

Financial Enterprises, Inc. Investment Litig., 2009 WL 1473975 (S.D. Ohio May 27, 2009); Kogan 

v. AIMCO Fox Chase, L.P., 193 F.R.D. 496, 503 (E.D. Mich. 2000). 

8. The Court has considered the six Ramey factors in weighing a fee award to counsel 

for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs: (1) the value of the benefits rendered to the class; (2) society’s 

stake in rewarding attorneys who produce such benefits in order to maintain an incentive to others; 

(3) whether the services were undertaken on a contingent fee basis; (4) the value of the services 

on an hourly basis – the lodestar cross-check; (5) the complexity of the litigation; and (6) the 

professional skill and standing of counsel on both sides. 508 F.2d at 1194-97. 

9. The settlement funds total $700,000.00. The settlements in the Direct Purchaser 

Spark Plugs case confer a substantial benefit on the members of the Settlement Classes, and the 

value of the settlements are immediate and readily quantifiable. 

10. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Counsel vigorously and effectively pursued the direct 

purchasers’ claims. These efforts included factual investigation; drafting the initial complaint; 

Case 2:15-cv-11774-SFC-RSW ECF No. 68, PageID.1149 Filed 09/23/22 Page 3 of 6
{00226620 } 4 

working with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs to identify relevant business records; participating in 

proffer and/or cooperation meetings with Defendants’ counsel; negotiating the terms of the 

settlements and preparing the settlement documents; drafting the settlement notices, orders, and 

the preliminary and final approval motions and memoranda in support; and working with the 

claims administrator to design and disseminate the class notices and a claim form, and to create 

and maintain a settlement website. 

11. The settlement amounts constitute a “common fund.” It has long been recognized 

that attorneys who recover a common fund for others are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees 

from that fund. 

12. The results achieved provide a clear benefit to the Settlement Classes: an immediate 

and certain payment of $700,000.00 plus accrued interest, less attorneys’ fees, litigation costs and 

expenses, service awards to the class representatives, and notice and claims administration costs. 

13. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Counsel are operating on a contingency basis and bore 

a significant risk of non-payment in pursuing these claims. 

14. Antitrust actions are inherently complex. The legal and factual issues are 

complicated and highly uncertain in outcome. This case is no exception. 

15. In the absence of these settlements, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs would have been 

facing continued litigation against the Defendants. 

16. As the Court has previously found, Interim Lead and Liaison Counsel are qualified 

to litigate class action antitrust claims, and they have performed their duties skillfully. 

17. The reaction of the class members was favorable. The Settlement Classes are 

composed of sophisticated direct purchasers of Spark Plugs, including parts suppliers, and 

Case 2:15-cv-11774-SFC-RSW ECF No. 68, PageID.1150 Filed 09/23/22 Page 4 of 6
{00226620 } 5 

manufacturers of motor vehicles. The absence of objections is an indication that an attorneys’ fee 

of 33% is reasonable. 

18. From September 1, 2015 through May 31, 2022, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ 

Counsel devoted $1,346,260.25 in professional time at their historical billing rates to pursuing this 

case for the direct purchasers. 

19. The Court finds that Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Counsel performed their tasks 

diligently, efficiently, and reasonably, and that their billing rates and lodestar are appropriate. 

20. The Court conducted a lodestar “cross-check” with respect to the attorneys’ fee 

award and determined that the fee requested represents a multiplier of 0.17 on Direct Purchaser 

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s lodestar. 

21. After considering the appropriate factors, the Court finds that attorneys’ fees of 

33% are reasonable and awards a fee of $231,000.00, which is 33% of the $700,000.00 in 

settlement funds. 

22. The Court finds that each class representative is deserving of a service award for 

the time and effort it expended and the burden and inconvenience it incurred in furtherance of the 

case, and hereby awards each direct purchaser plaintiff class representative Hopkins Auto Supply, 

Inc. d/b/a Thrifty Auto Supply, Dyke, Inc., Irving Levine Automotive Distributors, Inc., and 

KMB/CT, Inc. d/b/a KMB Warehouse Distributors Inc. a service award of $7,500.00. 

23. Interim Lead Counsel are authorized to allocate among Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ 

Counsel the attorneys’ fees and reimbursed litigation costs and expenses in accordance with each 

firm’s contribution to the prosecution of the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 2:15-cv-11774-SFC-RSW ECF No. 68, PageID.1151 Filed 09/23/22 Page 5 of 6
{00226620 } 6 

Dated: September 23, 2022 s/Sean F. Cox 

 Sean F. Cox 

 U. S. District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-11774-SFC-RSW ECF No. 68, PageID.1152 Filed 09/23/22 Page 6 of 6