Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2022

Bush v. Vaco Technology Services, LLC

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:17-cv-05605
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Fee PetitionClass Action
In one sentence

In Bush v. VACO, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part Class Counsel’s fee request, awarding $420,000 instead of $500,000.

Who this affects

Class Counsel, whose requested attorneys’ fee award was reduced from $500,000 to $420,000.

What happened

In Christiana Bush v. VACO LLC, et al., Class Counsel requested $500,000 in attorneys’ fees, equal to 33% of the settlement amount, after the parties reached a class-action settlement.

The court found that the hours worked and hourly rates were reasonable, but concluded that a 33% fee was not justified because the case did not involve novel issues or exceptional circumstances. The court also noted that most of the work concerned repeated motions challenging the proposed class definitions.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part the request and awarded Class Counsel $420,000 in attorneys’ fees, equal to 28% of the settlement amount.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bush v. Vaco Technology Services, LLC · No. 5:17-cv-05605
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Apr. 26, 2022

Background

This order addressed only Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees connected with final approval of a class-action settlement. The request also sought costs, an enhancement award, and settlement-administrator expenses, but the court stated that a separate order would address those matters.

Class Counsel requested $500,000, representing 33% of the total settlement amount. The request was supported by a lodestar cross-check—a comparison to the reasonable value of the attorneys’ time—showing 418.25 hours worth $292,221.25 and a multiplier of 1.71. The court found that the hours worked were reasonable and that the requested hourly rates were consistent with fee awards in the district for attorneys with comparable experience and quality.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark for attorneys’ fees in this type of case is 25%, although higher awards may be approved for exceptional results. The court found that there were no novel issues or exceptional circumstances in this case. It also noted that most of the hours were spent on four motions to dismiss the class allegations. In the first three orders, the court had found the proposed class definitions too broad and unsupported by the factual allegations. After the fourth attempt, the case proceeded on class definitions aligned with the plaintiff’s job roles, and the case settled a few months later.

The court concluded that a 33% award was not warranted. It nevertheless found that Class Counsel deserved enhanced fees because of the good result for the classes and the risk and contingent nature of the fee arrangement. The court determined that 28% of the settlement amount was reasonable. The revised lodestar multiplier was 1.44, with a full award for the hours worked at Class Counsel’s requested rates.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part the request for attorneys’ fees. Class Counsel were awarded $420,000 in attorneys’ fees. The order did not decide the separate requests for costs, an enhancement award, or settlement-administration expenses.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.