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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS 

Case No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW

JASON S. RATHOD, pro hac vice

NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO, pro hac vice

MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP

412 H St NE, Suite 302

Washington DC 20002

Telephone (202) 470-3520

nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

jrathod@classlawdc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Additional Attorneys on Signature Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, GABRIELA 

PERDOMO ORTIZ, VICTOR HUGO CATALAN 

MOLINA, and KEVIN CALDERON, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:17-cv-00755-CW

NOTICE OF MOTION AND 

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND 

SERVICE AWARDS; 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

Hearing Date: December 9, 2020

Time: 2:30 p.m. 

Court Room: TBD

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 19
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

1

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on December 9, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the 

Hon. Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located 

at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, Plaintiffs Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz, 

Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, and Kevin Calderon (“Plaintiffs”) will move, and do move, for an Order 

approving service awards to the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities, the Declarations of Jason Rathod (“Rathod Decl.”), Annick M. Persinger

(“Persinger Decl.”), Jesse Newmark (“Newmark Decl.”), Juan Quintanilla Vasquez (“Vasquez Decl.”), 

Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz (“Ortiz Decl.”), Victor Hugo Catalan Molina (“Molina Decl.”), and Kevin 

Calderon (“Calderon Decl.”) submitted herewith, as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval 

and supporting papers, and all other documents or argument as the Court may consider. 

Dated: September 1, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jason S. Rathod

JASON S. RATHOD, pro hac vice

NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO, pro hac vice

MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP

412 H St NE, Suite 302

Washington DC 20002

Telephone (202) 470-3520

jrathod@classlawdc.com, nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

ANNICK M. PERSINGER, SBN 272996

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP

1970 Broadway, Suite 1070

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone (510) 254-6808

apersinger@tzlegal.com

JESSE NEWMARK, SBN 247488

AIDIN CASTILLO, SBN 280262

CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA

3022 International Blvd., Suite 410 

Oakland, CA 94601

Telephone (510) 437-1863 

jnewmark@centrolegal.org, acastillo@centrolegal.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 19
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

i

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE(S)

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1

II. THE UNCONTESTED FEE, COST, AND SERVICE AWARD REQUESTS ARE FAIR, 

REASONABLE, AND APPROPRIATE. ................................................................................................... 4

A. THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ SERVICE AWARDS SHOULD BE APPROVED......... 4

B. CLASS COUNSEL’S FEE AND COST REQUEST IS REASONABLE...................................... 6

1. Legal Standard............................................................................................................................... 6

2. Benefit to the Class....................................................................................................................... 6

3. Lodestar Approach....................................................................................................................... 7

III. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................. 12

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 19
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

i

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE(S)

Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 

654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................................................. 6

Carlotti v. Asus Comput. Int'l, 

No. 18-cv-03369-DMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108917 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2020)............................... 10

Coates v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 

No. 15-cv-01913, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141982 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2016)............................................. 5

Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

2015 WL 2438274 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) ................................................................................................ 10

Guttman v. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., 

No. 14-cv-04845-HSG, 2016 WL 9107426 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) ....................................................... 11

Harris v. Marhoefer, 

24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994)................................................................................................................................... 6

Hartless v. Clorox Co., 

273 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................................................................................ 6

In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig., 

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156720 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2016)........................................................................... 5

In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., 

No. 14-md-02521-WHO, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162425 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2018)........................... 2, 5

In re Portal Software, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-03-5138 VRW, 

2007 WL 4171201 (N.D. Cal. 2007)................................................................................................................ 11

In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 

19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................................................ 10

In re Yahoo Email Litig., 

2016 WL 4474612 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016)................................................................................................ 11

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

ii

Johnson v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 

2013 WL 3213832 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2013)................................................................................................... 7

Kelly v. Wengler, 

822 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................................................ 7

Kumar v. Salov North America Corp., 

No. 14-CV-2411-YGR, 2017 WL 2902898 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2017)......................................................... 10

LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 

143 F.3d 748 (2nd Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................................................... 10

Lopez v. Youngblood, 

No. CV-F-07-0474 DLB, 2011 WL 10483569 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011).................................................... 6

Nwabueze v. AT&T, Inc., 

No. C 09-01529 SI, 2014 WL 324262 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014).................................................................. 6

Patel v. Trans Union, LLC,

No. 14-cv-00522-LB, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40282 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2018) ....................................... 5

Prison Legal News, 

608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................................................ 10

Rivas v. BG Retail, LLC, 

No. 16-cv-06458-BLF, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8712 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2020) ...................................... 11

Rosado v. Ebay Inc., 

No. 5:12-cv-04005-EJD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80760 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016).................................. 8

Schiller v. David’s Bridal, Inc., 

No. 1:10–cv–00616–AWI–SKO, 2012 WL 2117001 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2012)...................................... 11

Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Workers, 

904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................................................ 6

Smith v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 

2013 WL 163293 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013)....................................................................................................... 5

Staton v. Boeing Co., 

327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................................................. 6

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 5 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

iii

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 

896 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................................................................. 9

Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 

901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995)................................................................................................................ 4, 7

Vincent v. Hughes Air West, 

557 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1977) .............................................................................................................................. 7

Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, 

No. 06-cv-05778-JCS, 2011 WL 1230826 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011) ............................................................ 6

OTHER AUTHORITY

N.D. Cal. Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements...................................................................... 4, 6

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 6 of 19
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

1

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz, Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, and 

Kevin Calderon (“Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”), by and through Class Counsel, respectfully 

submit this memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees, Costs, and Service Awards

(“Motion”). Plaintiffs bring this Motion because the time and effort spent by Plaintiffs and Class 

Counsel resulted in a $3.2 million nationwide settlement that confers substantial monetary benefits to 

the Class, including cash payments totaling $750,000 and debt relief of approximately $1.53 million, as 

well as critical non-monetary benefits. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs seek a total of $800,000 for their Counsel for reasonable fees and 

reimbursable costs. That requested amount represents the Northern District’s standard 25% benchmark 

of the common fund. Importantly here, the common fund is not the only relief achieved for the Class 

Members in this case. The settlement also requires extensive programmatic changes that will benefit 

Defendant Libre by Nexus’ (LBN) program participants and sponsors going forward. The programmatic 

relief established by the settlement provides additional monetary benefits to the Class through capped 

total payment amounts, fee waivers, reduced fees for on-time payment, and reduced fees for consecutive 

payments. Class Counsel’s requested fee award does not take any of these substantial benefits into 

account. Additionally, Class Counsel’s requested fee amount is reasonable because it is well below Class 

Counsel’s total lodestar of $1,838,964.81 in this case, resulting in a negative multiplier of 0.435.

Class Counsel’s extensive work in this case, over a period of almost four years, led to the 

settlement that the Court preliminarily approved on July 31, 2020. From inception to now, Class 

Counsel has expended substantial time and resources by, among other things, investigating the factual 

and legal bases for this suit, meeting with Plaintiffs, researching novel legal theories to draft four class 

action complaints, briefing and arguing contested motions that implicated complex and novel areas of 

law, reviewing thousands of documents, interviewing class members and numerous third-party 

witnesses, preparing Plaintiffs and their sponsors for depositions, defending those depositions, taking a 

30(b)(6) deposition, appearing at hearings, participating in six all-day mediations with a mediator and 

several other in-person and telephonic settlement discussions, preparing and revising damage audits and 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 7 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

2

impact assessments of complex injunctive relief provisions, and negotiating, drafting, and finalizing the 

Settlement Agreement and associated paperwork. 

Counsel has undertaken the costs and time of this litigation on a pure contingency basis and 

therefore has paid out-of-pocket for expenses and has not received payment for their work to-date. 

Counsel took on these risks fully aware that LBN vigorously denied all charges and intended to fully and 

aggressively litigate this case, with appeals every step of the way. Recovery was therefore far from 

certain, and even if secured, certain to be delayed for many years. 

Plaintiffs also seek reasonable service awards for the time they spent and the risks they took in 

bringing and participating in this litigation. Plaintiffs provided critical assistance to counsel at every step 

of the way, including by participating in numerous meetings with counsel to provide factual information 

for the original and amended complaints and to prepare for and attend their depositions. Vasquez Decl. 

¶¶ 10-16; Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 10-16; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 9-14; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 10-16. Plaintiffs did so at great 

personal risk to themselves since they have been active LBN program participants and sponsors, with

pending immigration removal cases. Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 19-23; Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 19-25; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 17-

20; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 19-23. Plaintiffs also made substantial personal sacrifices, since they often had to 

take time away from work or caretaking responsibilities to meet with counsel and litigate this case on 

behalf of the entire Class. Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 27-28; Ortiz Decl. ¶ 26-27; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 24-27; Calderon 

Decl. ¶ 26. Plaintiffs seek service awards of $10,000 each, an amount consistent with reasonable and just 

service awards in this District. See In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., No. 14-md-02521-WHO, 2018 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 162425, at *40-41 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2018) (approving $10,000 service awards when “[e]ach 

Class Representative actively participated in the litigation,” and finding that such awards were “regularly 

approved in class actions in this district”).

Plaintiffs submit that their requested fees, costs, and service awards are especially appropriate 

because Plaintiffs and their Counsel achieved outstanding relief as to the three primary allegations in

their complaint. Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 29-30; Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 28-29; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 29-30; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 

28-29.

First, Plaintiffs alleged that LBN made numerous misrepresentations and failed to translate 

documents in marketing and executing contracts. With the settlement, LBN has agreed to: (1) translate 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 8 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

3

and post its documents on its website in written and audio formats; (2) use clear and concise contract 

terms in its revised contract (attached to the Agreement); (3) implement policies to ensure meaningful 

review of contracts by participants and their sponsors; (4) not threaten any contact with ICE or 

immigration detention; and (5) modify the criminal prosecution language of its contract. 

Second, to address allegations of burdensome GPS monitoring, Plaintiffs prioritized and LBN 

has agreed to implement sweeping changes to its monitoring practices in place at the time this suit 

commenced, including: (1) the transition of all participants to ankle monitors that are substantially 

smaller and do not require anyone to tether themselves to an electrical outlet; (2) not requiring ankle 

monitors for participants with bonds under $7,500 (unless required by a bond or surety company); (3) a 

full transition away from ankle monitors by December 31, 2021, to less intrusive forms of monitoring 

(indeed, LBN has already completed this transition and now uses cellular telephone monitoring for all 

participants); (4) the prompt removal and end of all GPS monitoring upon termination of the 

participant’s immigration proceedings; and (5) the prompt removal of GPS monitors for pregnancy or 

medical necessity.

Third, to address allegations of burdensome financial terms, Plaintiffs prioritized and LBN has 

agreed to certain significant changes, including: (1) a total payment cap (implemented following 

preliminary approval) to limit total monthly payments to the face amount of the immigration bond for all 

participants (previously there was no cap on monthly payments), even if they have previously missed or 

made late payments; (2) an on-time and in-full payment discount to limit the maximum monthly 

payment to $415 (less than the $420 amount charged by LBN at the time this lawsuit was filed, and 

substantially less than the $475 amount now charged to many participants); (3) a consecutive payment 

discount to further reduce the monthly payment amount, up to 20%; (4) annual fee waivers of at least 

$150,000; and (5) a representation that it presently does not intend to engage in debt collection activities 

for past due monthly recurring Program Payments through external providers as to any debts owed as 

of September 1, 2019.

In sum, and as explained below, in light of the significant work performed by Class Counsel and 

the substantial time, effort, and personal sacrifice of the named Plaintiffs, the fee, cost, and service 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 9 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

4

awards sought in this Motion are reasonable. For all of the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs 

respectfully request that the Court grant these awards.

II. THE UNCONTESTED FEE, COST, AND SERVICE AWARD REQUESTS ARE 

FAIR, REASONABLE, AND APPROPRIATE.

A. THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ SERVICE AWARDS SHOULD BE 

APPROVED.

This Court should approve a $10,000 Service Award to each Plaintiff in just, fair, and reasonable

recognition of their contributions on behalf of the Class. In deciding whether to approve such an award, 

a court should consider: “(1) the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and 

otherwise; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulty encountered by the class representative; (3) the 

amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; (4) the duration of the litigation and; (5) the 

personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation.” Van 

Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995); see also N.D. Cal. Procedural 

Guidance for Class Action Settlement (“N.D. Cal. Guidance”) ¶ 7. Further, as a matter of public policy, 

representative service awards are necessary to encourage consumers and victims to formally challenge 

unfair business practices and civil rights violations.

Plaintiffs took on uniquely significant risks and difficulties in this case, because of their status as 

asylum seekers in immigration removal proceedings, bringing claims against the company that had 

secured their conditional release from immigration detention. Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 2-7; Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; 

Molina Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 2-6. The risks of publicity and notoriety, and potential 

retaliation, were therefore of particular concern, especially given the current political environment. 

Vasquez Decl. ¶ 22; Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 20; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 2-6. As Plaintiffs detail in 

their declarations, they came forward to represent the Class despite reasonable fears of immigrationrelated retaliation, potentially leading to their re-detention or even deportation. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 23; 

Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 2-6. Plaintiffs also faced significant personal 

trauma in depositions and client meetings, when they had to describe in detail the conditions of their 

detention and release, and face questions about their personal lives, families, and immigration status. 

Vasquez Decl. ¶ 25; Ortiz Decl. ¶ 25; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 2-6. Moreover, Plaintiffs 

bravely undertook these risks despite being refugees who have already suffered from extreme violence 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 10 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

5

and other trauma in their countries of origin. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 26; Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 2-

5; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 2-6.

Plaintiffs also devoted substantial time and effort to this litigation, staying actively involved for 

the almost four years since this case was investigated and filed. Specifically, Plaintiffs extensively 

prepared for and were deposed in highly sensitive and contentious all-day depositions, along with their 

partner sponsors. Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 14, 17; Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 2-

6. Plaintiffs also met in person with Counsel numerous other times, had dozens of phone conversations

with Class Counsel, and extensively searched and opened up their personal records (including cell 

phones) for responsive documents. Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 9-17; Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; 

Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 2-6. Finally, Plaintiffs agreed to a general release of all known and unknown claims, 

significantly broader than the release by the other Settlement Class Members. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 29; Ortiz 

Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Molina Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 2-6.

These personal risks and sacrifices, substantial time invested into the matter, and critical 

contributions to the outstanding results for the Class, along with their broader release of claims against 

Defendant, all support approval of $10,000 service awards to each of the four Class Representatives. 

Service awards of $10,000 are well within the range of reasonableness in this District. See, e.g., Coates v. 

Farmers Grp., Inc., No. 15-cv-01913, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141982, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2016)

(“The request for service awards to [named] Plaintiffs . . . in the amount of $10,000 each . . . is 

reasonable given the risks these Plaintiffs assumed and the amount of time they spent in conjunction 

with prosecuting this case.”); In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156720, at 

*29 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2016) (“The service awards of $10,000 are consistent with service awards in 

other cases.”); In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., No. 14-md-02521-WHO, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162425, at 

*40-41 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2018) (approving $10,000 service awards when “[e]ach Class Representative 

actively participated in the litigation,” and finding that such awards were “regularly approved in class 

actions in this district”); Patel v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 14-cv-00522-LB, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40282, 

at *18 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2018) (awarding $10,000 service award based on counsel’s description of 

representative’s efforts “consulting with counsel, assisting in discovery, and otherwise participating in 

the litigation”); Smith v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 2013 WL 163293, *6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) (finding 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 11 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

6

a service award of $15,000 well within the range of awards in similar cases). Consistent with these cases, 

and in recognition of the time, effort, and substantial personal risk taken on behalf of the Class, 

Plaintiffs request that the Court award the requested service awards.

B. CLASS COUNSEL’S FEE AND COST REQUEST IS REASONABLE.

1. Legal Standard

Plaintiffs request the payment of attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $800,000, which 

is provided for in the Settlement Agreement separate and apart from the money made available to the 

Class for purposes of claims payment and notice and administration expenses. Under Ninth Circuit 

standards, it is appropriate for a district court to analyze an attorney’s fee request and issue an award 

either based on (1) the “lodestar” method or (2) by making an award as a percentage of the total benefit 

made available to the settlement class, including costs, fees, and injunctive relief. See, e.g., Bluetooth Headset 

Prods. Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011); Nwabueze v. AT&T, Inc., No. C 09-01529 SI, 2014 

WL 324262, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014); Lopez v. Youngblood, No. CV-F-07-0474 DLB, 2011 WL 

10483569, at *11-12 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011). Plaintiffs’ fee request here is reasonable under either of 

these approaches. 

Further, an attorney is entitled to “recover as part of the award of attorney’s fees those out-ofpocket that would normally be charged to a fee paying client.” Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 19 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). To support an award of costs, plaintiff should file an 

itemized list of their expenses by category, listing the total amount advanced for each category, allowing 

the Court to assess whether the expenses are reasonable. See Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, No. 06-cv05778-JCS, 2011 WL 1230826, at *30 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011); N.D. Cal. Guidance ¶ 6. 

2. Benefit to the Class

The Court may utilize the percentage-of-recovery method to verify that an attorney’s fee request 

is reasonable. See, e.g., Nwabueze, 2014 WL 324262, at *2-3. When determining the value of the 

settlement, courts consider both the monetary and non-monetary benefits conferred under the 

settlement terms. See, e.g., Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 972-74 (9th Cir. 2003); Hartless v. Clorox Co., 

273 F.R.D. 630, 645 (S.D. Cal. 2011), aff’d, 473 F. App’x. 716 (9th Cir. 2012); Browning, 2007 WL 

4105971, at *14. In the Ninth Circuit, the benchmark for an attorney fee is 25% of the total settlement 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

7

value, including the monetary and non-monetary recovery. See Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus 

Workers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Glass, 2007 WL 221862, at *14 (“The Ninth Circuit 

has repeatedly held that 25% of the gross settlement amount is the benchmark for attorneys’ fees 

awarded under the percentage method . . . .”). However, many cases have found that between 30% and 

50% of the common fund is an appropriate range when the settlement fund is less than ten million. See 

Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 297-98 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (collecting cases); see also 

Johnson v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 2013 WL 3213832, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) (fee award of 30% of the 

settlement fund).

Here, Plaintiffs’ requested award of $800,000 represents 25% of the $3.2 million common fund, 

and thus is in line with the Ninth Circuit benchmark. In fact, the requested award is slightly less than the 

25% benchmark because Plaintiffs do not seek a separate award of costs.1 Notably, the common fund is 

not the only value to Class Members from the settlement. Class Counsel’s request does not rely on the 

substantial value of the extensive injunctive relief required by the settlement, which is likely to provide 

many millions of dollars in further relief to Class Members,2and other relief—such as the removal of 

ankle monitors—which many in the Class may consider to be priceless. It is entirely appropriate to 

award the requested fees where, as here, Class Counsel is seeking fees below the 25% benchmark.

3. Lodestar Approach

Under the lodestar approach, a “court calculates the lodestar figure by multiplying the number of 

hours reasonably expended on a case by a reasonable hourly rate.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099 

(9th Cir. 2016). “A reasonable hourly rate is ordinarily the ‘prevailing market rate [] in the relevant 

community.’” Id. (quoting Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 551 (2010)). Here, according to 

1 Plaintiff’s counsel is typically entitled to reimbursement of all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses and 

costs in prosecution of the claims and in obtaining a settlement. See Vincent v. Hughes Air West, 557 F.2d 

759, 769 (9th Cir. 1977). As required by the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action 

Settlements, the expenses incurred are itemized in Class Counsel’s declarations. Rathod Decl. ¶ 5; 

Persinger Decl. ¶ 30. Here, since the requested sum of $800,000 is inclusive of both attorney’s fees and 

costs, should the Court choose to calculate the two totals separately, it should subtract the $63,426.87 in 

costs from that number and award $736,573.13 in attorney’s fees.

2 For instance, LBN has agreed to fee waivers of at least $150,000 per year, for a total value of $750,000 

over the next five years. LBN has also agreed to cap total payments to the face amounts of participants’ 

bonds, which could save the Class an estimated $540 million in monthly payments. See Plaintiffs’ 

Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval at 9-10.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 13 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

8

the hours spent by Class Counsel litigating this complex and highly-contested matter, and their 

reasonable rates, Class Counsel’s requested fee is a significant negative lodestar multiplier. A negative 

lodestar multiplier “strongly suggests the reasonableness of the requested fee.” Rosado v. Ebay Inc., No. 

5:12-cv-04005-EJD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80760, at *26 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016).

Class Counsel’s lodestar through the date of this motion is approximately $1,838,964.81. Rathod

Decl. ¶ 3; Newmark Decl. ¶ 31; Persinger Decl. ¶ 28. 

a. The Time Class Counsel Expended Is Reasonable.

The time that Class Counsel spent on this litigation was reasonable. Class Counsel’s extensive 

efforts to date have included:

• Pre-filing and continuous investigation throughout the litigation, including interviewing 

numerous class members and third-party witnesses;

• Meeting extensively with the Plaintiffs about the allegations for the class action 

complaint and four amended complaints, and throughout the litigation;

• Drafting and revising Plaintiffs’ class action complaint and four amended complaints;

• Drafting and filing case management conference statements and case management 

stipulations; 

• Drafting interrogatories, requests for production of documents, third party subpoenas, 

and Freedom of Information Act requests; 

• Reviewing thousands of documents yielded from the requests and third-party discovery; 

• Briefing and arguing contested motions involving complex and novel areas of law,

including the motion to dismiss, motion to compel arbitration, motion for sanctions, motion to amend, 

and motion to stay;

• Taking a 30(b)(6) deposition;

• Preparing Plaintiffs and their sponsors for depositions, and defending their depositions; 

• Reviewing and correcting deposition transcripts;

• Translating numerous documents for Plaintiffs and Class Members;

• Attending hearings, including case management conferences and the hearing on the 

motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration;

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 14 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

9

• Drafting multiple mediation statements and participating in six all-day mediations with a 

mediator;

• Participating in several other in-person and telephonic mediation sessions;

• Preparing and revising damage audits and impact assessments of complex injunctive 

relief provisions, over the course of the years of negotiations;

• Negotiating and drafting the Settlement Agreement along with corresponding 

documents, including the notice forms;

• Drafting the motion for preliminary approval and supporting documents; and

• Preparing this motion for service awards and attorney’s fees and costs, and supporting

declarations. 

See Rathod Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; Newmark Decl. ¶¶ 22-34; Persinger Decl. ¶¶ 15-22.

Before the Final Approval Hearing, Class Counsel’s efforts will also include::

• Reviewing and responding to correspondence from Class Members;

• Supervising the work of the Claim Administrator; and

• Researching and drafting a memorandum and opposing objections, if any.

See Rathod Decl. ¶ 4; Newmark Decl. ¶ 32; Persinger Decl. ¶ 29. Class Counsel kept their 

records contemporaneously and reviewed those records to ensure they were reasonable prior to 

submitting them in connection with this Motion. 

b. Class Counsel’s Rates Are Reasonable.

As attested to in Class Counsel’s declarations, Class Counsel’s rates are the prevailing rates in the 

appropriate legal markets, and are reasonable. Rathod Decl. ¶ 3; Newmark Decl. ¶¶ 3-21, 30; Persinger 

Decl. ¶¶ 2-34. “Affidavits of the plaintiff’[s] attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the 

community, and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiff’[s] 

attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge 

Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). To be conservative, Plaintiff’s Counsel calculated their lodestar 

using the LSI Laffey Matrix, which provides market rates for attorneys and staff working in the 

Washington D.C. area. “[T]he Laffey matrix rates likely fall below reasonable billing rates in the Bay 

Area based on the locality pay differential between this geographic location and the WashingtonCase 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 15 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

10

Baltimore area.” Carlotti v. Asus Comput. Int'l, No. 18-cv-03369-DMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108917, at 

*17 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2020) (citing and summarizing Brinker v. Normandin’s, Case No. 14-cv-03007-

EJD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25670, 2017 WL 713554, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017), as well as other 

relevant authorities).

Migliaccio & Rathod LLP (“M&R”) and Tycko & Zavareei LLP (“T&Z”) both regularly use and 

obtain approval for the Laffey matrix billing rates. Rathod Decl. ¶ 3; Persinger Decl. ¶ 32. The rates 

charged by Class Counsel have been deemed reasonable in connection with the approval of their fee 

applications in other recent matters. See, e.g., Carlotti, No. 18-cv-03369-DMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

108917, at *18 (approving M&R’s rates and summarizing cases from around the country that did the 

same); Kumar v. Salov North America Corp., No. 14-CV-2411-YGR, 2017 WL 2902898 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 

2017) (approving T&Z rates as “reasonable and commensurate with those charged by attorneys with 

similar experience in the market”); Rathod Decl. ¶ 3; Persinger Decl. ¶ 32. Applying the same standard, 

these hourly rates are also reasonable for Centro Legal de la Raza. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 

(1984) (fee awards “are to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant 

community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”); Trevinu v. 

Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 925 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The proper reference point in determining an appropriate fee 

award is the rates charged by private attorneys in the same legal market as prevailing counsel.”).

Courts in other cases over the past several years have also approved similar fees charged by other 

firms. See In re Optical Disk Drive Prod. Antitrust Litig., 2016 WL 7364803, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2016) 

(approving hourly rates of $205 to $950); Civil Rights Educ. and Enforcement Ctr. v. Ashford Hospitality Trust, 

Inc., No. 15–cv–00216–DMR, 2016 WL 1177950 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016) (finding that requested 

hourly rates of $900, $750, $550, $500, $430, and $360 for attorneys and $225 for paralegals were “in 

line with the market rates charged by attorneys and paralegals of similar experience, skill, and expertise 

practicing in the Northern District of California”); Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 

2438274, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) (approving hourly rates of $475 to $975); Prison Legal News, 608 

F.3d 446, 455 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding 

hourly rates between $425, $700, and $875).

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 16 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

11

Class Counsel’s current rates are also appropriate given the deferred and contingent nature of 

counsel’s compensation. See LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748, 764 (2nd Cir. 1998) (“[C]urrent 

rates, rather than historical rates, should be applied in order to compensate for the delay in payment . . . 

.” (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 283-84 (1989)); In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 

19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The district court has discretion to compensate delay in payment in 

one of two ways: (1) by applying the attorneys’ current rates to all hours billed during the course of 

litigation; or (2) by using the attorneys’ historical rates and adding a prime rate enhancement.”). Using 

current rates, rather than historical rates, will fairly compensate counsel for the significant risk of 

nonpayment taken on in connection with this matter.

c. The Requested Award Is Reasonable.

Class Counsel’s lodestar demonstrates that the requested award is reasonable because—in 

addition to being based on time reasonably expended and reasonable rates—the requested award 

represents a significant negative multiplier of Class Counsel’s lodestar. Dividing the requested fee award

of $800,000 by Class Counsel’s current lodestar results in a negative multiplier of about .435. A negative 

lodestar multiplier is generally recognized as reasonable. Rosado, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80760, at *26; see 

also Rivas v. BG Retail, LLC, No. 16-cv-06458-BLF, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8712, at *22-23 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 16, 2020) (negative multiplier was evidence of the reasonableness of the fee request by class counsel,

as “Class Counsel would have normally been entitled to a positive multiplier due to the contingent

nature of this case”); In re Yahoo Email Litig., 2016 WL 4474612, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016)

(finding that the lodestar multiplier of .97 “is within the range of reasonableness” and granting a request 

for $4 million in attorney’s fees); Guttman v. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., No. 14-cv-04845-HSG, 2016 WL 

9107426, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) (finding that a fee request was “especially” reasonable because 

counsel voluntarily applied a multiplier of .59); In re Portal Software, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-03-5138 VRW, 

2007 WL 4171201, at *16 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“The resulting so-called negative multiplier suggests that the 

percentage-based amount is reasonable and fair based on the time and effort expended by class 

counsel.”); Schiller v. David’s Bridal, Inc., No. 1:10–cv–00616–AWI–SKO, 2012 WL 2117001, at *23 (E.D. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 17 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

12

Cal. June 11, 2012) (“An implied negative multiplier supports the reasonableness of the percentage fee 

request.”).3 

Moreover, instead of seeking a separate cost award, Class Counsel does not seek any amount 

beyond the $800,000, which represents 25% of the common fund. Thus, after deducting the $63,426.87 

in costs incurred by Counsel incurred, Counsel’s fee award will be $736,573.13.

4

III. CONCLUSION

For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court approve their request for a 

service award of $10,000 to each of the four Class Representatives and for a fee and cost award of

$800,000 for Class Counsel.

3

Indeed, Plaintiffs submit that a positive multiplier would ordinarily be appropriate in this case based on

the novelty and complexity of the litigation, the quality of the representation, the substantial risk of 

nonpayment since the case was taken on a contingency, and the results achieved. 

4 Plaintiffs reiterate that fees and costs will continue to be incurred until the ultimate conclusion of this 

matter, further increasing the lodestar and negative multiplier.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 18 of 19
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

MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00755-CW

Dated: September 1, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jason S. Rathod

JASON S. RATHOD, pro hac vice

NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO, pro hac vice

MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP

412 H St NE, Suite 302

Washington DC 20002

Telephone (202) 470-3520

nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

jrathod@classlawdc.com

ANNICK M. PERSINGER, SBN 272996

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP

1970 Broadway, Suite 1070

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone (510) 254-6808

Facsimile (202) 973-0950

apersinger@tzlegal.com

JESSE NEWMARK, SBN 247488

AIDIN CASTILLO, SBN 280262

CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA

3022 International Blvd., Suite 410 

Oakland, CA 94601

Telephone (510) 437-1863 

jnewmark@centrolegal.org

acastillo@centrolegal.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 147 Filed 09/01/20 Page 19 of 19