N

proposed class settlement action are fvorable to the cl ass members." Natt/tRural,
!/:f
2 221 F.R.D. at 529. :l
J>
3 In the present case, the Court approved a "Notice" tat was publ .-
t
1,,/1
4 nationally in the USA TODAY newspaper. The Notice set frh the n'ature of te
5
case, the tenns of the proposed settlement, apprised class members of their aility
6
to object to the settlement and te procedure to do so. Te Notice frther infnned
7 class members of their ability to opt-out of the class and individually pursue their
8
own claims. To date, the Court has not been notifed of one objection to the
9 Settlement and no one has opted-out of the class. The Court fnds the lack of class
IO members that have manifsted any disapproval of the Settlement frther
11 demonstrates the firess, adequacy and reasonableness of the Settlement. This
12 fctor weighs in fvor of approvi ng the Settlement.
13
14
15
16
17
18
(7)
Te rsk that class certifcation could no
maintained throughout litigation
approval of Settlement
2, 2004, this Court granted Plaintifs' otion fr class cerifcation
estlaw 1638201 (C.D. Cal. July
19 12, 2004). However, u Yer Rule 23, the C r may revisit its prior grant of
20 certifcation at any time be
21
22
Jtered or amended befre fnal judgment.").
uld be decertifed or modifed if the
23 l iti gation were to con ue. See Fed.R. Civ .. 23(d) ("In the conduct of actions to
24
ies, the court may make ap opriate orders ... ( 4) requiring that
25 the pleadings e amended to eliminate therefom al ations a to representation
26 of absent ersons, and that the action
p
roceed accordin
g
");see also Armstrong
27 v. Da s; 275 F.3d 849, 872 n. 28 (9th Cir.2001). Given the c
28 s action litigation, problems could arise which may justif dee
- 15 -
:
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

.
ch, the Cour acknowledges that some risk exists with respect to mtiffnot
t
lf1:
bei ble to maintain class action status throughout trial. ever, the Court
't
ate, no defndant sought to decerti f t class or has raised a
(rp
ance of this action as a c ss action. Moreover, this Court
oes not prevent the Cour fom granting
s within the Cour's discretion what weight, if
any, is to be
g
iven to the tors used to deterine whether fnal
approval of a settle nt should be granted. Se
In exer ing this Cour's discretion, and base the absence of any
quantif le threat or indication of decertifcation, the Cou ds that this fctor
we' 1s in fvor of approving the settlement
2. Motion fr Compensation and Fees to the Plaintif
Some courts have recognized that class representatives are entitled to some
compensation fr the rsk and inconvenience incurred on behalf of the class. Jn re
Cont'! Ill. Sec. Litig, 962 F.2d 566, 571 (7th Cir.1992). This practice is not
universally endorsed but many courts wil l grant incentives if they are reasonable.
In re Chambers Dev. Sec. Li, 912 F. Supp. 852, 863 (I 995).
The court has discretion to decide whether enhancements fees should be
awaded to class representatives and the appropriate amount of these fes. Van
Vranken v. At!. Richfeld Co., 901F.Supp.294, 299 (.D.Cal. l 995). When
detennining incentive awards, cours may consider the fl lowing: "I) the risk to
the class representative in commencin
g
suit, both fnancial and otherwise; 2) the
notoriet and personal difculties encountered by the class representative; 3) the
amount of time and effrt spent by the class representative; 4) the duration of te
litigation and; 5) the personal beneft (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the class
representative as a result of the litiga_tion." Id; see also Denney v. Jenkins &
- 16 -

Gilchrist, 2005 Westl aw 388562 at *31 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.18, 2005) (In gra!ing
.
II.{'
2 compensatory awards to the representative plaintif in PSLR class actions;
"
courts
3 consider the circumstances, including the personal risks incurred by the ,..a-
i: i\1
4
becoming a lead plaintif, the time and efort expended by that plainti f in
5 prosecuting the litigation, any other burdens sustained by that plaintif in lending
6 himsef or herself to prosecutig the claim, and the ultimate recovery.").
7
According to P1aintiff s declaration, he has been actively involved in ever
8 aspec!of this litigation, fom reviewing and obtainiHg documents and JegaJ
9 treaIises befre fling to a!tempting to locate other victims as possible class
10 representaties and/or witnesses, and responding to discover, preparing fr,
11 tr8veling to and atte-ding their deposition and two mediations and maintaining
12 contact with u!uI|Scounsel to moni!or the litigation. In doing so, Plaintif
13 maintains that he has provided signifcant labor and spent time that would
14 otherwise been dedicated to other activities in -efort to ensure that tle claims of
15 the Class were efecti vely prosecuted. During the course of litigation, the Plaintif
16 reviewed, among other things, various draft complants, amended complaints,
17 motion papers, interrogatories and document requests uHu responses. For these
18 I083OuS,laintif maintains that the amounts requested are reasonable.
19
20 Plaintif declares that he is a fll time employee of the Rverside County
21 Sheriffs Department and !hat he has |nVC8L0uover 125 hours of time in
22 Q8IIICI8lIB_in this i ti gati oH, I0uuu_testifing at his 3-u8yu !ad
23 attending two fll-day mediations. 8uIH8 requests 25,000,A

l ii8
24 fr 125 hours, of whi ch 50 were pre- and 75 were post-litigation.
25 It is within this Court's discretion to ward incentive fes to named class
26 representatives in a class action suit. Van Vranken v. Alt. Richfeld Co., 90 l
27 F.Supp. 294, 299 (N.D.Cal.1995) (holding that a

incentive award of $50,000
28 proper where the named plaintif helped litigation that lasted fr many years,
- 17 -

testifed as a key witness at trial and personally beneftted little from the ;-
tl.J'
2 l iigat ion).

+'
3 Here, several fctors support Plaintiffs request fr an incntive awd.
`+`
4 Litigation of this class action has lasted fr almost two years befre the case
5 settled. Moreover, Plaintif assisted Class Counsel throughout this lengthy and
6 risky
.
case. Plaintiff is entitled to such compensation fr hii eforts during this
7 litigation.
8
9 3. Plaintiffs Counsel's Application fr An Award Of Attoreys'
10 Fees And Reimbursement of Expenses
11 The quality of representation is measured by Hthe quality of the result
12 achieved, the difculties fced, the speed and efciency of the recover, the
13 standing, experience and expertise of the counsel, the ski11 and profssionalism
14 with |.-counsel prosecuted the .+-and the perfrmance and quality of
15 opposing counsel." In re Ikon Ofce Solutions, Inc. Sec. Litig., 194 F.R.D. 166,
16 194 (E.D. Pa. 2000). Here, Plaintiffs counsel brought a case ariculating a theor
17 of class recovery that had never been brought befre, to counsel's knowledge.
18 Counsel had laid the groundwork fr this case through their success on the merits
19 of the FCRA ciaims i n earlier individual cases. By layi ng the proper fundation
20 fr this class case, counsel was able to achieve a relatively rapid and effcient
21 resolution of the Class' claims. Counsel have a wide range of experience in
22 consuer class action litigation, as evidenced by the infmmtion set fr in their
23 respective Declarations, cited supra. Counsel have also been cerifed to represent
24 consumer class actions many imes, by others, which is testament to their skill,
25 experti

e and reputation.
26 While the litigation does not appear to be of lengthy duration, the parties
27 having reached a settlement within 2 years after the case was filed, many hours of
28 effrt were expended in achievi ng victories in individual FCRA litigation that laid
- 18 -


1 the groundwork fr this cass action. Hence, the result cannot be measurel)y
L,(;
2 refrence to the duration of this case only but must also take into account the
: ::
3 many months of litigation involved in individual cases such as those cited fn
(,
4 counsels declarations, supra. This case involves potentialJy quite complicated
5 issues of l iability and damages which if pursued would involve a long and
6 protracted litigation between the parties as to class certifcation and as to the
7 merits of Plaintifs c1aims.
8 While counsel spent many hours on a case that was concluded within two
9 years after it was fed, those hours were essential to the result obtained The
1 o
briefng on the class certifcation was thorough and critical, and the settlement
11 negotiations, in particular, were adversarial and protracted requiring two lengthy
12 confrences with Mediator-Judge Sarokin and the exchange and revi sions of
13 numerous draft settlement documents.
14 As set frth in the attached Declarations of counsel at Exhibits I though 3,
15 the number of hours devoted to this case by the three law frms serving as Class
'Sf
16 Counsel total atrey hours and 244.83 legal-assistant hours. (These fgures
17 do not incl ude all the hours devoted by counsel in other cases that lead to
1 8 decisions that were instrumental in achi eving the settlement in this case.) A1l
19 things considered te number of

ours devoted to tis case and the ones that went

20 befre in establishing the viabilit of PlaintifPs cause of action are sufcient fr
21 this fctor supports the requested fe award: Even if on. ly the hours devoted to this
22 particular case were considered, the requested fee is reasonable.
23 In tis case, Plaintif requests attoreys' fes and costs of $425,000, which
24 is based upon rates of $300.00 o $350.00 per hour plus a multiplier of
25 ap
p
roximately l.27 of counseJ's lodestar, discussed below. In summary, Plaintiffs
26 request fr an award off ees and costs calculated as a Lodestar is reasonable under
27 all 'the usual fctors.
28
- 19
`

a.
2




A Lodestar Analysis Confrs That the Fee Requested is
Reasonable
3 A reverse Lodestar analysis of reported cases indicates that fr purposes of
4 supporing an upward enhancement of hourly fes in reaching a fir award of class
5 counsel fes shows the fllowing:
6 Courts ofen compare an attoreys l oadstar with a fe request made
7 under the percentage of the fnd method as a If cross-check" on the
8 reasonableness of the requested fee. See, e.g.t Vzcaino, 290 F.3d at
9 1050; Fischel, 307 F.3d at 1007. 11[T]he loadstar calculation can be
1 o helpfl in suggesting a higher percentage when I itigation has been
11 protracted [and] may provide a usefl perspective on the
12 reasonableness of a given percentage award." Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at
13 1050. In securities Class actions

it is common fr a counsel s 'loadstar
14 fgure to be adjusted upward by some multiplier refecting a variety of
15 fctors such as the efr expended by counsel, the complexity of the
16 case, and the risks assumed by counsel. See Ravisent, 2005 W
17 906361, at* 12 (fe represented a multiplier of 3. l of the loadstar);
18 Linerboard, 2004 W 1221350, at* 16 (recognizing that fom 2001
i 9 to 2003, the average multiplier approved in common fnd cases was
20 4.35); Cullen, 197 F .R.D. at 150-51 (loadstar of$ 1
.
2 million would
21 require a multiplier of 2.01 in order to match awarded fes of
22 one-third of $7.3 million common fund); Safet Components, 166
23 F.Supp.2d at 103 (loadstar of $534,000.00 would require a multiplier
24 of 2.81 in order to match awarded fes of $1.5 million); Medical
25 X-Ray, 1998 W 661515, at *7 (fe represented a multiplier on the
26 attoreys' loadstar of 1.67); Crazy Eddie, 824 F .Supp. at 326-27 (the
27 equivalent of a 1.72 m
.
ultiplier was applied to the attoreys' loadstar).
28 Jn re Heritage Bond Litig., supra, 2005 W 1594403, *22.
- 20 -

!
A)'
The lodestar and expenses f4r 1asI }e@ described in counsels' ... :
2 respective Declarations are as fllows fr Consumer And Tax Law Ofce ,
3 Robert Stempler, t53,760.00, refecting over 179.2 hours of attorey time ad no
lq
4 costs (see Appendix l); fr Thomas Lyons & Associa
.
tes, P.A., $133,645.75,
5 refecting 358.63 hours of attorey time and 108.33 hours of paralegal time, and
6 costs of $1,821.66 (see Appendix 2); and, fr the Consumer Justice Center, P.A.,
7 $138)382.50, refecting 413.5 hours of attorey and 136.5 hours of paralegal time,
8 and costs of $8,823.86 (see Appendix 3). Time fr all counsel totals $325, 788.25
9 and costs total $10,645.52, fr a grand total of $336,433.77.
lO
1 1 b. Houry Rates
12 The hourly rates fr the frms of Plaintiffs counsel are well within the range
13 of what is reasonable and appropriate in this market. See Declarations of cow1sel
14 fled attached hereto. The hourly rates fr the attoreys in the frms are-the same
15 as the regular current rates charged fr their services in their standard non-class
16 maters, including both contingent and non-contingent matters. There has not
17 been any alteration or deviation fom te frms' hourly rates to account fr the
1 8 added comp
l
exity or increased risk fctor of this action The attoreys concentrate
19 their practice in the area of consumer protection litigation. The hourly rates are
20 within the range charged by attoreys with comparable experience levels fr
21 consumer class action litigation of a similar nature. The histor and biography of
22 each fr is included in the Declarations fed as Docket #52, 53, and 54.
23
24 c. Hours Expended
25 In support of this motion, the Plaintif has submitted many pages of
26 detailed, contem
p
oraneously produced time records speci fing the date of work
27 perfned, the attorey perfonning the work, the nature of the work, the amount
28 of time spent and the hourly rate charged fr the tasks. Included in the time
- 21
!
. .
'
,
;


'
..
.
records are reasonable, albeit conservative, estimates of the time expected tp"be
tl\
2 spent on the case after the date of this motion. This submission readily -..this
3 Circuit's requirement of the degree of specifcity required of a party seekn

4 atoreys' fes in similar cases. See Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th
5 Cir. 2000). Counsel's submission also meets the re
q
uirements for a statutor
6 fe-shifing award. See Wite v. GA1R, CIV-S-04-0465 DFL CMK slip op
7 (E.D.Cal. Aug. 19, 2005). The Declaations submitted herewith also set fr the
8 bass fr the division of labor among the frms and their effrts to litigate the case
)
9
in an effcient manner. There was no time fr which compensation is now
lO requested in this case that was "excessive, redundant or otherise unnecessar
y
."
11 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 46 l U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).
12 All the time submited was reasonably necessary to achieve the successfl
13 outcome fr the Plaintif and the Class.
14
15 d.
16 The Declarations of counsel fled simultaneously herewith show that costs
17 as set frth therein were incurred in the prosecution of this case. The bulk of those
18 costs were fr expert report, legal research services, travel, messenger services,
19 telephone calis and copying charges fr pleadings, documents, brief. AU of the
20 costs were advanced by Plaintiffs counsel and were necessarily incurred. Plaintif
21 should be awarded the unreimbursed costs in fll.
22
23 ///
24 Ill
25
26
27
28
- 22 -
-
:
r

- -
l III. DISPOSITION
, ..
t ,,
2 For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby (1) GRNTS .-.,-.-:' !1
.
lI WAAO 1 l/Ai,.l
3 motion fr fnal approval of class action .selee1 e
'.ds "" i , ;oo I A AlPA11 Ill# l,1
AAS (2) GRANTS Plaintiffs motion fr an award of attoreys'

fes, as per class action settlement.'i&,t.lM - , , I
6
tpJl't ' " t; At/4 t'1Vf _,, ( F J3 I 15#
7 ITISSOORDERED. . P b1t,1.'
8 DATED: ;___,
9
M
10
1 1
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28-
- 23 -
M
p .oo l
FEB-07-2006(TUE) ld:SO
: ;'
CERTff C OF EERSOA ETcJCIltC SERVlE
."
.`
1:1'
I_ _
2
3
I, Rober Stempler, cerfy tat on Febrar 7, 2006, I emaled a copy of
4 tis docuent [PROPOSED ORER AO OPION GRAIG: (A) JOlN
s MOTON FOR FIA APROVA OF CLASS ACTION SETE; AD
G () rt::mrsMOTON FOR A Aw A OF A rrORYS' FEES, AS
7 PER CLASS ACTON SETLEMN, :ddresscd a flows. i pdf frat wi
& exlress wtten perission by Ms. Fujie:
9
10
11
12
13
14
iS
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
Holly J. Fujie
BUCHTR NMR AC
1000 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1500
Los Ageles CA 900 I 7-2457
Email: HUlE@buchattcr.com
, ;""'r rn u llJlllC I !A 11 DU
COUSEL OF RCOR FOR
SEA, ROEBUCK AD CO. ad
SEAS NATIONAL.ANK