Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 25, 2025

In re Plantronics, Inc. Securities Litigation

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:19-cv-07481
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
5
Fee PetitionSecuritiesClass Action
In one sentence

In re Plantronics Securities Litigation: Judge Tigar awarded class counsel 22% of the settlement fund plus expenses after approving the request as fair and reasonable.

Who this affects

Lead counsel, the lead plaintiffs, and members of the settlement class, because the order approved payments from the $29.5 million Settlement Fund.

What happened

In re Plantronics, Inc. Securities Litigation concerned lead counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses from a $29.5 million settlement fund. Notice of the request was sent to identifiable settlement-class members, and no one objected.

The court awarded lead counsel $6.49 million in attorneys’ fees, equal to 22% of the settlement fund, plus $593,198.12 in litigation expenses. The court found the awards fair and reasonable, citing the results achieved, the risks of continued litigation, counsel’s work and experience, the lack of objections, and a comparison of the fees with counsel’s reported work value.

Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered that 90% of the fee award and all approved expenses be paid immediately after entry of the judgment approving the settlement, with the remaining 10% paid after distribution to eligible claimants and a later accounting. The order also retained jurisdiction over matters concerning the settlement and terminated docket entry 242.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In re Plantronics, Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 4:19-cv-07481
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Aug. 25, 2025

Background

Lead counsel moved for an award of attorneys’ fees and payment of litigation expenses in connection with a class-action settlement. The court held a hearing on August 21, 2025. Notice of the fee request was mailed to settlement-class members who could be identified with reasonable effort, and a summary notice was published in The Wall Street Journal and transmitted through PR Newswire.

The court stated that it had an independent duty to determine whether the requested fees were reasonable. It considered the percentage-of-the-common-fund method, the results achieved, the risks of litigation, the skill and quality of counsel’s work, the contingent nature of the representation, awards in similar cases, the settlement class’s reaction, and a lodestar cross-check. A lodestar cross-check compares a percentage-based fee with the estimated value of the attorneys’ time.

Ruling

The court awarded lead counsel attorneys’ fees equal to 22% of the Settlement Fund, or $6,490,000, plus interest earned at the same rate as the Settlement Fund. It also awarded $593,198.12 for litigation expenses. The amounts were to be paid from the Settlement Fund.

The court found that the Settlement Fund totaled $29.5 million in cash and that numerous settlement-class members who submitted acceptable claim forms could benefit from the settlement. It also found that counsel had worked on a purely contingent basis for approximately five years without compensation, devoted more than 20,500 hours to the case, and had a lodestar value of approximately $11.785 million through July 19, 2024. The awarded fees represented a 0.55 multiplier of that lodestar, which the court found supported the reasonableness of the award. The court also noted that the fee award was below the Ninth Circuit’s 25% benchmark for percentage-of-recovery awards and that no objections were submitted.

The court ordered that 90% of the fee award, or $5,841,000, and all approved expenses be paid immediately upon entry of the judgment approving the settlement and the fee order. The remaining 10%, or $649,000, plus any interest, would be paid after distribution of the net settlement fund to eligible claimants and filing of a post-distribution accounting. The court retained exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving administration, interpretation, implementation, or enforcement of the settlement and the order. It stated that any appeal or challenge concerning the fee and expense application would not affect the finality of the judgment, and it ordered that docket entry 242 be terminated.

Judge

Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on August 25, 2025.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.