T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CI TY O F RO SEV I LLE EM PLO Y EES’ R E T I R E M E N T S Y S T E M , on be ha l f of i t se l f a nd al l others si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed; et a l., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l ees, v. O R L O F F F A M T R U A D 12/ 31/ 01 M A RSH A LL J . O RLO FF & A N N S. O RLO FF TTEES, O b

je c to r- A p p e lla n t, v. M I C R O N T E C H N O L O G Y , I N C .; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 35455 D . C. N o . 1 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 0 8 5 - W FD ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I da ho W i l l i a m F . D ow ne s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED JU N 07 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H on orabl e D ol l y M . G ee , D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** * C our tf orC e ntr a l C a l i f

orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

2 S ubm i tt e d J une 4, 2012 ** S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: S IL V E R M A N and M U R G U IA , C i rc ui tJudg es , and G E E , D i stri ctJudg e. *** I n 2002, the D e pa r tm e ntof J us t i c e ( “ D O J ” ) l aunc he d apr i c e - f i xi ng i nv es t i gat i on i nt o m anufacturer s of D ynam i c R ando m A cc es s M em ory ( “ D R A M ”) , ac om m on type of

m e m ory f

ound i n pe r s ona l c om put e r s . I n e xc ha nge f or i m m u n i ty fro m cri m i n al p ro secu t i o n , D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees M i cro n T ech n o l o g y, In c. (“ M i cro n ”) co o p erat ed w i th th e D O J’ s i n v est i g at i o n . S u b seq u en t l y, P l ai n t i ffsA pp el l ee s broug hta s ec uri t i es -f raud cl as s- ac t i on sui tagai nstM i cr on , al l egi ng that the pr i c e - f

i xi ng s c he m e a r t i f

i c i a l l y i nf

l a t e d M i c r on s t oc k. T he pa r t i e s r e a c he d a s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t in A p r il 2 0 1 0 , w ith M ic r o n a g r e e in g to p a y $ 4 2 m illio n , in c a s h, i nt o ac om m on f

und. L e a d C ouns e l f

orP l a i nt i f

f s r e que s t e d tw e nty - f

i ve perc entof the com m on fund as att orney’ s f ee s. O bj ec t or-A pp el l ant s T he O rl off F a m ily T ru s t, e t a l. ( “O r lo f f ” ) o b je c te d to L e a d C o u n s e l’s f e e r e q u e s t. O n A p r il 2 8 , 2 0 1 1 , th e d istrict co u rt ap p ro v ed th e s ettl em en t an d o v er ru led O rlo ff’s3

obj e c t i ons . O r l of

f appe a l s tha tde c i s i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he C our tr e vi e w s a n a w a r d of a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s m a de i n ac l a s s - a c t i on s ui tf or ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I

n r e F PI / A gr e te c h Se c . L i t i

g. , 10 5 F . 3d 46 9, 47 2 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). F ac tual det erm i nat i on s und er l yi ng an aw ar d o f att orney’ s f ee s are re vi ew ed f o rc le a re rr o r . Fe r land v . C onr ad Cr e di t C or p. , 24 4 F . 3d 11 45 , 11 47 -48 (9th C i r. 2001) . I n e va l ua t i ng af e e a w a r d ba s e d on ape r c e nt a ge of ac om m on f

und, “ T he qu es t i on i s notw hether the di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave app l i ed som e other pe r c e nt a ge , butw he the ri n a rr i vi ng a ti t s pe r c e nt a ge i tc ons i de r e d a l l the ci rc um st ance s of the ca se and reac hed a rea sonabl e per ce nt age. ” V i zc ai no v. Mi c r os of t C or p. , 29 0 F . 3d 10 43 , 10 48 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). O rl off a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o con si der the benefi tP l ai nt i ff s re ce i ved from the D O J’ s i nv es t i gat i on of M i cr on ; w e di sa gree . T he di stri ctcourt e x p r e s s ly a d d r e s s e d , a n d r e je c te d , O r lo f

f’s s u g g e s tio n th a t L e a d C o u n s e l s h o u ld r e c e i ve al ow e rf

e e be c aus e of

gove rnm e nta s s i s t a nc e , s t a t i ng “ nothi ng i n the r e c or d s ugge s t s tha tthe D O J ’ s pr i c e - f i xi ng i nve s t i ga t i on w oul d ha ve e nabl e d the P la in tif f s to r id e th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c o a tta ils to v ic to ry .” T h is f in d in g o f f a c t is e n title d to d e f

e r e n c e f r o m th is C o u r t, u n le s s it is c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s , w h ic h it is n o t.4

A s the di stri ctcourtre peat edl y not ed, P l ai nt i ff s’ att em pt s t o sec ure a s s is ta n c e f

r o m th e D O J w e r e r e b u f f e d . Se e I

n r e Mi c r on T

e c h. , I nc . Se c . L i t i

g. , 2 6 4 F . R . D . 7 , 1 0 (D . D . C . 2 0 1 0 ) (d en yi n g , o n l aw en fo rcem en tp ri v i l eg e g ro u n d s, P l ai n t i ffs’ m o t i o n t o co m p el th e D O J’ s co m p l i an ce w i th su b p o en as du ces te c um ). C on se qu ent l y, P l ai nt i ff

s w er e f orce d t o u nd ert ake w hatthe di stri ctcourtdesc ri bed as “ ex t en si v e d i sco v ery. ” F u rth erm o re, as p arto f th e P l ai n t i ffs’ ci v i l secu ri t i esf r aud c a s e , the y ne e de d t o pr ove l os s c aus a t i on and da m a ge s , i s s ue s unr e l a t e d t o a c r im in a l a n titru s t c a s e , w h ic h f o c u s e s s o le ly o n a n a g r e e m e n t to f ix p r ic e s . C om pa re C atalan o, Inc. v. T arget Sa les , Inc. , 446 U . S . 643, 647 ( 1980) ( di s c us s i ng c r im in a l p r ic e f

ix in g ) , w i th M

atr i xx I ni t i at i v e s , I

nc . v . Si r ac us ano , 131 S . C t . 1309, 13 17 (201 1) (s ett i ng forth the el em ent s of s ec uri t i es fr aud). T here fore , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n d et erm i ni ng thatP l ai nt i ff s coul d n otri de the go vernm ent ’ s c oatt ai l s t o v i ct ory. T o the contra ry , w e f i nd that the di s tr i c tc our t , w hi c h pr e s i de d ove rthi s c a s e f orf oury e a r s , ga ve c ons i de r a t i on t o O rl off’ s argum entconcerni ng the benefi tof the D O J’ s i nv es t i gat i on , bu tdeci ded tha ti tdi d notm e r i taf

e e r e duc t i on i n l i ghtof

othe rc i r c um s t a nc e s , i nc l udi ng the l ac k o f gov ernm entcoop er at i on , ext ensi ve di sc ov ery, and the di ff i cul ty P l ai nt i ff

s fa ce d p rovi ng l oss c ausa t i on and d am ages . T hi s r ea soned anal ys i s i s a l l thatw as r e q u ir e d . Se e V

i z c ai no , 290 F . 3d a t1047.Mer ck a ddr e s s e d as t a tut e - of

- l i m i t a t i ons i s s ue tha tw a s l i ke l y di s pos i t i ve 1 of the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons i s s ue i n thi s c a s e . 130 S . C t . a t1790. 5 W e a l s o r e

j e c tO r l of

f’ s c ont e nt i on the di s tr i c tc ourts houl d notha ve c ons i de r e d Me r c k

& C o. v . R e

y nolds , 1 3 0 S . C t . 1 7 8 4 (2 0 1 0 ), a ri sk -fact o r b ecau se the pa r t i e s s e tt l e d af

terthe S up re m e C ou rtre sol ved the ca se i n a m anner that be ne f i t te d P l ai nt i ff

s. F i rs t , the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thatthe part i es se tt l ed 1 be f or e the S upr e m e C our ti s s ue d Mer ck is n o t clear ly er ro n eo u s. W h il e P lain ti ff’s e vi de nc e on thi s i s s ue i s notc onc l us i ve , i ti s m or e tha n the s pe c ul a t i on of f e r e d by O r l of f , and i s s uf

f i c i e ntt o s a t i s f

y the c l e a re rr ors t a nda r d, w hi c h a f f or ds s i gni f

i c a nt d e f e r e n c e to th e f

a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S i lva v. W o o d f o rd , 279 F .3 d 8 2 5 , 8 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . S e c o n d , th a t Mer ck c a m e outi n P l a i nt i f

f s ’ f a vor d o e s n o t c h a n g e th e f

a c t th a t, a t th e tim e th e p a r tie s s e ttle d , Merck pos e d a si gn i fi ca ntri sk t o P l ai nt i ff s’ ca se , i ncl ud i ng L ea d C ou nsel ’ s s ub st ant i al i n v estm en t s i n t i m e an d m o n ey. F i nal l y, w e f

i nd m er i t l es s O rl off’ s c on t ent i on thatthe di stri ctcourt c o m m itte d r e v e r s ib le e rr o rb y n o t lo w e r in g its f e e a w a r d in r e s p o n s e to a lle g e d ly e xc e s s i ve bi l l i ng pr a c t i c e s by the l e a d pa r tne ron the c a s e , J ohn G r a nt . I n pr e s s i ng thi s argum ent , O rl off m i sapp re hend s the di ff er ence betw ee n the perce nt age- of-thef u n d a n d th e lo d e s ta rm e th o d s o f a w a r d in g a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s in c o m m o n f

u n d c a s e s .O r lo f f’s a r g u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g M r . G r a n t’s b illin g p r a c tic e s a r e r e le v a n t to 2 the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l ode s t a rc r os s c he c k. O r l of f , how e ve r , m a de no a r gum e nt c onc e rni ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l ode s t a rc r os s c he c k i n i t s ope ni ng br i e f , w a i t i ng u n t i l i t s rep l y t o q u est i o n th e m u l t i p l i er u t i l i zed b y th e d i stri ctco u rt . A cco rd i n g l y, thi s i s s ue i s w a i ve d. T

ur t le I s land R e s tor at i on N

e tw ork v . U . S. D e p’ t of C om m er ce , 67 2 F . 3d 11 60 , 11 66 n. 8 (9th C i r. 20 12 ). 6 U nde rthe pe r c e nt a ge - of - the - f und m e thod, the f

oc us i s noton the a tt orne y s ’ bi l l i ng re cords, bu ton w hether the perce nt age a w ar ded and the re sul t i ng fe e a re r e a s o n ab le u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e c a s e . See V

i z c ai no , 2 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 8 . A cc ordi ng l y, O rl off’ s c on t ent i on thatthe cl as s i s bei ng m ade t o com pensat e M r. G ra ntfor w ork thatcoul d h ave been handle d b y a n ass oci at e i s pl ai nl y i nacc urat e, as the fe e a w ar d d oes notcorr el at e t o any spec i fi c e xp endi ture of a tt orney t i m e. 2 A FFI R M ED