{00211286 }

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

In Re: IGNITION COILS 

CASE NO. 12-MD-02311 

HON. SEAN F. COX 

THIS RELATES TO: 

ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 

2:13-cv-01401- SFC-RSW 

2:15-cv-11830- SFC-RSW 

ORDER 

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

Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Costs and Expenses, and an Incentive Payment to the Class 

Representative (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 

Plaintiff and its 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). 

Case 2:13-cv-01401-SFC-RSW ECF No. 118 filed 07/16/20 PageID.1968 Page 1 of 6
{00211286 } 2 

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 

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. 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 Plaintiff’s 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 $5,940,332. 

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 609 potential class members. In 

addition, a summary notice was published in Automotive News. Further, an online banner notice 

appeared over a 21-day period on www.AutoNews.com, the digital version of Automotive News, 

and an Informational Press Release was issued nationwide via PR Newswire’s “Auto Wire,” which 

Case 2:13-cv-01401-SFC-RSW ECF No. 118 filed 07/16/20 PageID.1969 Page 2 of 6
{00211286 } 3 

targets auto industry trade publications. Finally, the Notice was (and remains) posted online on the 

website dedicated to this litigation. There were no objections. 

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

litigation expenses in the amount of $27,485.69. 

7. Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff request a fee award of 30% of the 

settlement funds. The 30% 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, at *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 Plaintiff: (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 $5,940,332. The settlements in the Direct Purchaser 

Ignition Coils case confer a substantial benefit on the members of the Settlement Classes and the 

value of the settlements is immediate and readily quantifiable. 

Case 2:13-cv-01401-SFC-RSW ECF No. 118 filed 07/16/20 PageID.1970 Page 3 of 6
{00211286 } 4 

10. Direct Purchaser Plaintiff’s Counsel vigorously and effectively pursued the Direct 

Purchasers’ claims. These efforts included factual investigation, drafting complaints, reviewing 

and analyzing documents, meeting with the amnesty applicant, negotiating the terms of the 

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

preliminary and final approval motions and briefs, and working with the claims administrator to 

design and send the class notices and a Claim Form. 

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 $5,940,332 plus accrued interest, less attorneys’ fees, litigation costs and 

expenses, an incentive award to the class representative, and notice and claims administration 

costs. 

13. Direct Purchaser Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff would have been 

facing continued litigation against four Defendants. Each of the Settling Defendants agreed to 

provide cooperation to Direct Purchaser Plaintiff’s counsel in pursuing claims against any 

remaining defendant, should such cooperation become necessary. 

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. 

Case 2:13-cv-01401-SFC-RSW ECF No. 118 filed 07/16/20 PageID.1971 Page 4 of 6
{00211286 } 5 

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

composed of sophisticated direct purchasers of Ignition Coils, including parts suppliers, and 

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

of 30% is reasonable. 

18. As of April 30, 2020, Direct Purchaser Plaintiff’s Counsel had devoted 

$1,617,377.50 in professional time at their historical billing rates to pursuing this case for the 

Direct Purchasers. 

19. The Court finds that Direct Purchaser Plaintiff’s 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 multiple of 1.10 on Direct Purchaser 

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s lodestar. 

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

30% are reasonable. However, the Court finds it is appropriate to deduct litigation costs and 

expenses before applying the 30% to the remainder of the settlement funds. The Court therefore 

awards attorneys’ fees to counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff in the amount of 30% of the 

settlement funds after costs and expenses are deducted. Specifically, the Court awards a fee of 

$1,773,853.89, which is 30% of the $5,940,332 in settlement funds after deducting the litigation 

expenses set forth in Paragraph 6. 

22. The Court finds that the class representative is deserving of an incentive award in 

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

the case and hereby awards the plaintiff class representative All European Auto Supply, Inc. an 

incentive award of $25,000.00. 

Case 2:13-cv-01401-SFC-RSW ECF No. 118 filed 07/16/20 PageID.1972 Page 5 of 6
{00211286 } 6 

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

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. 

Date: July 16, 2020 s/Sean F. Cox 

 SEAN F. COX 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-01401-SFC-RSW ECF No. 118 filed 07/16/20 PageID.1973 Page 6 of 6