1

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

Declaration of Eve-Lynn Rapp 

In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Attorney Fees

1. My name is Eve-Lynn Rapp. I am a Partner at Edelson PC (“Edelson” or the 

“Firm”), counsel of record for Plaintiff and Class Counsel in the above-captioned matter. I make 

the following supplemental declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of 

Attorney’s Fees and an Incentive Award (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). (Dkt. 388.) 

2. As noted in Plaintiff’s Motion, my Firm agreed to pursue Ms. Wakefield’s and the 

Class’s claims in this matter on a contingency basis and knew from the outset that they would be 

required to spend hundreds, and potentially, thousands of hours investigating and litigating their 

claims with no guarantee of success, while simultaneously foregoing other opportunities. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of Edelson’s firm resume. 

As shown in Exhibit 1, Edelson is highly experienced in consumer class action litigation, 

particularly involving the TCPA, and the Firm has secured groundbreaking decisions in both trial 

and appellate courts nationwide, including in this case. 

4. My Firm has litigated this case for five years, since its inception all the way 

through trial, which resulted in a record-breaking $925,218,000 judgment for the Class. As 

detailed in Plaintiff’s Motion, the litigation included researching, investigating, and vetting 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 399 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 6
2

Plaintiff’s and the Class’s claims, briefing various contentious motions—including a motion for 

a stay based on then impending Supreme Court cases, class certification, and a contested motion 

for effectuating notice to the Class—engaging in complex discovery, which involved reviewing 

thousands of documents and working with a technologist to evaluate nearly 3,000 spreadsheets 

reflecting the calls at issue, and preparing for and successfully pursuing judgment at trial. My 

Firm has likewise been involved in post-trial briefing—which included a motion for 

decertification and a motion challenging the statutory damages as unconstitutionally excessive—

and we will continue to pursue this matter through any appeals, which we believe are likely 

forthcoming. 

5. During the pendency of the litigation, various attorneys from my Firm—at both 

the Associate and Partner levels—worked on this matter, primarily because the litigation 

required such staffing, and due to the natural turnover and attrition that any firm faces over the 

course of a five year period. Relevant here, I myself went on two separate maternity leaves 

during the span of the litigation, which required other attorneys to step into and become 

acclimated with the case, both in preparation for and during my absences. Additionally, my Firm 

is comprised of various teams (an Investigation team, a Litigation team, and a Complex Issues 

and Appeals team, amongst others), and the expertise of members from each group was required 

depending on the varying stages of the litigation. At all times we endeavored to ensure that there 

was no unnecessary duplication of efforts. 

6. To date, the attorneys at my Firm have logged 3,735.12 hours of attorney time 

and spent $ 69,275.171 in hard costs representing Ms. Wakefield and the Class. Class Counsel 

1 Plaintiff’s Motion originally noted the Firm’s expenses as $70,705.17. After further 

review of the records, that figure included an error and the correct number is actually 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 399 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 6
3

additionally incurred $229,501.34 in costs associated with providing notice of class 

certification.2 

7. My Firm’s total lodestar of $2,056,650.75 represents the work that we have 

undertaken since the inception of this case and does not include the additional work that will be 

necessary through the remaining notice and potential claims process, as it relates to 

communications with Class Members, continued resolution efforts, and/or contending with 

Defendant’s recently filed motion for a new trial and likely appeals. 

8. My Firm’s policies require all professionals and paralegal/law clerk staff to 

contemporaneously record their time with detailed descriptions of each task performed. To track 

our time, we use a billing application known as “Freshbooks.” Our billing protocol is 

promulgated to all attorneys and staff at the Firm through our onboarding process, and 

employees must acknowledge and accept the protocol upon starting at the firm. Our billable rates 

and an outline of the hours of each attorney that worked on this matter are incorporated in the 

chart below. Here, as with every case, we kept diligent and detailed time records that accurately 

and reasonably reflect the amount of hours required to litigate and resolve this case. It is the Firm 

policy of Edelson PC that each employee is responsible for keeping track of his or her billable 

time by at least the tenth of the hour. 

9. In my opinion, the expenditure of time by the attorneys and staff that worked on 

this case was reasonable and necessary, and the hours spent equate to the number of hours that 

Class Counsel could have billed to a private client. Prior to the filing of this declaration, I 

$69,275.17, as reflected in Exhibit 3. Plaintiff’s counsel apologizes to the Court for the 

discrepancy and any confusion that it may have caused. 

2 Additional costs for notice and claims administration may be incurred should the Court 

deny Plaintiff’s request that Defendant be required to bear such costs. 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 399 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 6
4

reviewed the detailed time entries and removed any entries that were mistakenly entered in this 

case or that I deemed duplicative or unnecessary. 

10. The rates for the attorneys used to calculate the total lodestar figure correlate to 

their respective experience, and are the same rates that Edelson PC attorneys charge to their 

hourly clients. Further, for more than a decade, courts across the country, state and federal alike, 

have routinely approved my firm’s hourly rates as reasonable. See Barnes v. Arzyta, LLC, No. 

17-cv-7358, 2019 WL 277716 at *3 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (finding Edelson PC’s rates “reasonable 

given the market rate that hourly clients are willing to pay, judicial approval of their rates, and 

their level of reputation and expertise in the area”); Goodman v. Hangtime, Inc., No. 14-cv01022, Dkt. 124 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2015) (granting Edelson PC’s fee request in full, the 

reasonableness of which was demonstrated under the lodestar method); Theis v. AVG Techs. 

USA, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-10920-RGS, Dkt. 116 (D. Mass. May 5, 2014) (same).

11. As reflected in the chart on the next page, my Firm’s adjusted lodestar3 is 

$2,056,650.75: 

3 My Firm has expended more hours on this matter than the 3,735.12 hours included in the 

referenced chart. However, we’ve excluded time billed by certain attorneys and tasks deemed to 

be duplicative, excessive, or otherwise unnecessary to include here.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 399 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 399 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 6
6

mediations, trial, and other miscellaneous costs associated with litigating the case, such as 

postage/FedEx, copying, and filing and service fees. A true and accurate copy of those expenses 

are attached as Exhibit 3. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on September 25, 2020, at Niwot, Colorado. 

 /s/ Eve-Lynn Rapp 

 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 399 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 6