Opinion
Case No. 09-04022 (JSW).
December 17, 2010
STEVEN G. ZIEFF (State Bar No. 84222), KENNETH J. SUGARMAN (State Bar No. 195059), JOHN T. MULLAN (State Bar No. 221149), RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF LOWE, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS AND EXPENSES
Complaint Filed: July 28, 2009
This matter came on for hearing on December 17, 2010, upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Costs. The Court having reviewed the motion and supporting papers, and being familiar with the record in these proceedings, and having given final approval to the class action settlement in this matter on the term set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and Release, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby finds and orders that:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, including the instant motion, the Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics Fragrance, Inc., and the Class.
2. Notice of the class action settlement, including the request for attorneys' fees and costs reimbursement was sent in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order and in compliance with Rule 23(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by mailing to class members' most recent know addresses.
3. Class members have been given the opportunity to object in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h)(2). No objections were received.
4. 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 $350,000, equivalent to 23.7 percent of the common fund, is proper based on this Circuit's benchmark of 25 percent. See e.g., Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002); Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990); Paul, Johnson, Alston Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1989). This award is based on attorneys' fees awards issued in similar cases, the Ninth Circuit's 25% benchmark, that the common fund of $1,477,000 was created for the Class through the efforts of Class Counsel, that Class Counsel has litigated this case diligently and has achieved an outstanding result for the Class, that Class Counsel has litigated the case to date without receiving any compensation, and the reasonableness and fairness of the requested award in view of the results obtained, the hours and efforts expended, and the risks undertaken by Class Counsel.
5. The litigation costs and expenses incurred by Class Counsel through November 11, 2010 have been adequately documented and were reasonably incurred for the benefit of the Class. Class Counsel have incurred and will continue to incur additional costs and expenses in connection with moving for final approval of the settlement and approval of a fees and costs award, implementing the settlement, and bringing this matter to a final resolution. Therefore, the Court finds that reimbursement of costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed $15,000 is reasonable and justified.
WHEREFORE, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS:
Class Counsel (Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff Lowe, LLP) are hereby awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $350,000 and reimbursement of costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed $15,000. The Settlement Administrator shall pay the awarded fees and costs to Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of this Order and the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and Release. Prior to such payment, Class Counsel shall certify to the Settlement Administrator the then-current amount of Counsel's costs and expenses incurred, which amount, not to exceed $15,000, shall be the amount of the costs reimbursement to be paid to Class Counsel. Counsel shall also file this certification with the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 17, 2010