Opinion
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Counterclaimant,
v. JASMIN GERLACH, Counterdefendant. No. C-05-0585-CW United States District Court, N.D. California. January 19, 2007ORDER GRANTING CLASS COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS AND EXPENSES
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
WHEREAS, the Court having considered the Joint Stipulation of Settlement ("Settlement Agreement"), and having preliminarily approved the same on October 6, 2006;
WHEREAS, the Court having entered an Order directing that notice be given to the Classes, and notice having been individually mailed to the Classes, and the Court having conducted a Fairness Hearing concerning the proposed settlement;
WHEREAS, the Court having entered final approval of this class action settlement;
WHEREAS, the Court having reviewed Class Counsel's Notice of Motion and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Court having reviewed the entire record of this action, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. To the extent defined in the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Order Granting Final Approval and incorporated herein by reference, the terms in this Order shall have the meanings set forth therein.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, the Defendants, and the Classes.
3. Notice of the requested award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses was directed to Class members in a reasonable manner through first-class mailing to their most recent know addresses, and complies with Rule 23(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
4. Class members and any party from who payment is sought have been given the opportunity to object in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h)(2);
5. The amount of the reasonable attorneys' fees awarded to Class Counsel should be based on the percentage of the common fund approach. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 900 n.16 (1984). An attorneys' fees award of $3,200,000 is hereby ordered based on this Circuit's benchmark of 25 percent. See e.g., Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1989); Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990); Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002). This award is based on attorneys' fees awards issued in similar cases, the fact that the common fund of $12,800,000 was created for the Class through the efforts of Class Counsel, and the fact that Class Counsel have litigated this case despite having received no compensation for their efforts to date and despite having no guarantees that they would be paid for their time or efforts;
6. The requested award of attorneys' fees is reasonable and justified; and
7. The $136,982.43 in litigation costs and expenses incurred by Class Counsel through December 12, 2006 have been adequately documented and were reasonably incurred for the benefit of the Class. The Court approves reimbursement of additional costs incurred between December 12, 2006, and the date the settlement is finally administered, in the amount of up to $41,517.57. The Court finds that reimbursement of costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed $178,500 is reasonable and justified;
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS:
Class Counsel are hereby awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,200,000 and reimbursement of costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed $178,500.
IT IS SO ORDERED.