From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Banh v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Dec 20, 2021
2:19-cv-5984 RGK(ASx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-5984 RGK(ASx)

12-20-2021

JIMMY BANH et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation, Defendant


[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS CLASS ACTION

HE HONORABLE R. GARY KLAUSNER U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

The Court, having considered (1) the Stipulation and Notice of Defendant's Non-Opposition to Award of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards ("Stipulation"); (2) Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards, and the Memorandum of Points and the Authorities thereto ("Motion") and attached exhibits and declarations; (3) Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion and attached exhibits and declarations; (4) Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in support of the Motion and attached exhibits and declarations; and (5) the pleadings and other papers on file in this Action, and with good cause appearing therefore, hereby ORDERS that:

1. The Stipulation contains Plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,260,794.00, and Plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $477,701.00. The Stipulation also contains Defendant's statement that it does not oppose, based on the facts and circumstances of this ease, the total amount requested by Plaintiffs, and that Defendant takes no position on Plaintiffs' requested allocation or apportionment of the total amount requested.

2. The Court finds the requested Stipulated fee award of $2,260,794.00, which represents approximately 67% of Class Counsel's lodestar, is fair and reasonable under the lodestar method based upon the following factors: (1) the results achieved; (2) the risks of litigation; (3) whether there are benefits to the class beyond the immediate generation of a cash fund; (4) the contingent nature of the representation and the opportunity cost of bringing the suit; and, (5) reactions from the class. As such, the Court finds that the requested fee award comports with the applicable law and is justified by the circumstances of this case.

3. The Court further finds that Class Counsel's lodestar, as modified by the Stipulation, was reasonable because Class Counsel's current hourly rates are reasonable for the Los Angeles area and that the total number of hours billed by Hagens Bernan and Goldenberg Schneider timekeepers, as modified by the Stipulation, were also reasonable.

4. In sum, upon consideration of the Stipulation, the Motion, Opposition, Reply, and accompanying Declarations and exhibits, and based upon all matters of record including the pleadings and papers filed in this action, the Court hereby finds that $2,260,794.00 is a reasonable and proper fee award in this case.

5. The Court also finds that the costs incurred by Class Counsel in this matter totaling $477,701.00 were reasonable in light of the needs and scope of the case.

6. Finally, the Court has determined, in its discretion, that the distribution of service awards to 18 Class Representatives totaling $120,000.00 is also reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances for this case, and shall be paid as follows: $10,000.00 service awards for Roberta Bilbrey, Jamal Samaha, George Quinlan, Sarah Gravlin, Mark Klein, Daniel Allan, Paul Gonzales, and Kristen Gratton, and $4,000.00 service awards for Jimmy Banh, Mark Peoples, Alexis Chisari, Michael Brumer. Dave Jahsman, John Bartholomew, Vimal Lawrence, Mark Klein, Adam Pryor, and Srikarthik Subbarao.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that:

1. Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees totaling $2,260,794.00 is granted.

2. Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation costs and expenses totaling $477,701.00 is granted.

3. The Class Representatives are hereby awarded $120,000.00 in total service awards, to be paid as set forth herein.

This order will be entered on this date pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finding that there is no just reason for delay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Banh v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Dec 20, 2021
2:19-cv-5984 RGK(ASx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021)
Case details for

Banh v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

Case Details

Full title:JIMMY BANH et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly…

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Dec 20, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-5984 RGK(ASx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021)