DOVEL & LUNER, LLP

Simon Franzini, Cal. Bar #287631* 

simon@dovel.com 

Gregory S. Dovel, Cal. Bar #135387* 

greg@dovel.com 

Jonas Jacobson, Cal. Bar #269912* 

jonas@dovel.com 

201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 

Santa Monica, California 90401 

Tel: (310) 656-7066 

Fax: (310) 656-7069 

(additional counsel listed on signature page) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and on 

behalf of a class of others similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

VISALUS, INC., 

a Nevada corporation, 

 Defendant.

No. 3:15-cv-01857-SI

Statement Regarding Time Records 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 398 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 5
Statement Regarding 

Time Records 1 

In accordance with the Court’s previous order of September 11, 2020 (Dkt. 391), Plaintiff 

hereby submits time and expense records for counsel. (See Declarations of Eve-Lynn Rapp; Greg 

Dovel, Scott Kocher, and Stefan Coleman, which have been concurrently filed.) To protect 

privileged information, redacted versions of these records are being filed publicly. Unredacted 

versions will be submitted for in camera review.1 Altogether, along with costs, counsel’s lodestar 

is $3,801,747.94. This includes $3,443,397.75 in fees and $358,350.19 in costs. Plaintiff makes 

the following statement regarding these records: 

1. As the Court can see, the hours expended on this case were reasonable. The case 

was leanly staffed by the relevant firms at all times, minimizing the possibility that any work was 

duplicated. Tasks also were designated to individuals of appropriate levels of seniority, 

minimizing any billing inflation. Further, Class Counsel largely divided the work in this case 

according to their expertise: Edelson PC primarily focused on the pre-trial litigation pleadings, 

discovery, class certification and other pre-trial matters. When it came time to present the class 

case to a jury, high-stakes trial experts Dovel & Luner, LLP took the helm and steered the Class 

to a record-setting verdict. Here, as in other cases, Class Counsel worked smart and hard to 

achieve a beneficial result for the certified class. See Aranda v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., No. 

12-cv-4069, 2017 WL 1369741, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2017), aff’d sub nom. Birchmeier v. 

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 896 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Similarly, only two firms served as 

class counsel, and the expertise of each firm [Edelson’s expertise in TCPA cases and [trial 

counsel’s] expertise in conducting class action trials] appeared to complement the other’s.”). 

1 Plaintiff’s counsel has conferred with counsel for Defendant about submitting certain of 

their records for in camera, and Defendant’s counsel has indicated they do not object. 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 398 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 5
Statement Regarding 

Time Records 2 

2. As explained in the concurrently filed declarations, the hourly rates charged by 

counsel are reasonable for lawyers in the communities within which counsel work. Plaintiff 

submits that these rates, which may be higher than the prevailing rates within this District, 

should be used here. This was a complex class action, requiring specialized experience and skill, 

as well as significant resources, that culminated in a trial. A paying client acting rationally would 

have looked to counsel like Edelson PC and Dovel & Luner, LLP to handle this matter, 

particularly given the reputations of these firms, regardless of location. Thus, counsel’s home 

rates should be used in the lodestar calculation. See Gates v. Deukmajian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1405-

06 (9th Cir. 1992) (approving use of San Francisco rates in case tried in Sacramento); Azar v. 

Blount, Int’l, No. 3:16-cv-0483-SI, 2019 WL 7372658, at *12 (D. Or. Dec. 31, 2019) (using New 

York and California rates to conduct lodestar crosscheck). Moreover, although the case is five 

years old, the lodestar is calculated at Counsel’s currents rates.2

 The Ninth Circuit had held that 

this is appropriate to account for inflation, the time value of money, and other work that was 

foregone in order to focus on the instant litigation. See Gates, 987 F.2d at 1406-07. 

3. Counsel’s lodestar will undoubtedly grow in the coming weeks and months. Just 

yesterday Defendant moved for a new trial (Dkt. 395) and have renewed settlement efforts, with 

a mediation scheduled for October 5. And any settlement or post-trial proceedings will require a 

serious investment of time and resources, whether it be shepherding class members through the 

claims process, defending the verdict on appeal, or fighting for the class’s rights in any 

bankruptcy proceedings. 

2 The rates reflected for those individuals who are no longer working at Edelson PC, are 

those existing at the time of their departure from the firm. 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 398 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 5
Statement Regarding 

Time Records 3 

4. In any event, as explained in the fee petition (Dkt. 388), a cross-check is 

unnecessary here. Percentage-based awards are the norm in TCPA class actions, and in each of 

the recent TCPA class actions that went to trial, the fee award was based on a percentage of the 

jury verdict. A cross-check is especially unnecessary here given the general agreement that 

Defendant lacks the funds to pay out the entire judgment (or anything remotely close to it), and 

may enter bankruptcy unless the parties reach a resolution of the case soon. If ViSalus enters 

bankruptcy or if the Parties are able to settle the case,

3

 the Class’s recovery will undoubtedly be 

reduced, changing any cross-check calculation. 

Date: September 25, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Eve-Lynn J. Rapp 

DOVEL & LUNER, LLP

Simon Franzini, Cal. Bar #287631* 

simon@dovel.com 

Gregory S. Dovel, Cal. Bar #135387* 

greg@dovel.com 

Jonas Jacobson, Cal. Bar #269912* 

jonas@dovel.com 

201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 

Santa Monica, California 90401 

Tel: (310) 656-7066 

Fax: (310) 656-7069 

 

EDELSON PC 

Rafey S. Balabanian, ILB #6285687* 

rbalabanian@edelson.com 

Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, ILB #6300632* 

erapp@edelson.com 

J. Aaron Lawson, Cal. Bar SBN #319306* 

3 In the event the case settles, Class Counsel will of course provide class members with 

additional notice and the opportunity to opt out or object to any fee award requested. 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 398 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 5
Statement Regarding 

Time Records 4 

alawson@edelson.com 

Lily E. Hough, Cal Bar SBN #315277* 

lhough@edelson.com 

123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 

San Francisco, California 94107 

Tel: (415) 212-9300 

Fax: (415) 373-9435 

FORUM LAW GROUP 

Scott F. Kocher, OSB #015088 

Stephen J. Voorhees, OSB #150595 

811 S.W. Naito Parkway, Suite 420 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Tel/Fax: (503) 445-2120 

* admitted pro hac vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Wakefield and the 

Certified Class

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 398 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 5