Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 6, 2023

Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:18-cv-05841
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
6
Fee PetitionClass ActionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation, Judge Freeman approved $1.4 million in fees and costs and $5,000 service awards for each class representative.

Who this affects

The order affected the settlement class, settlement class counsel, and class representatives Steve Rojas and Andrea Rojas. It awarded counsel fees and costs, approved service awards for the two representatives, and retained jurisdiction over related allocation disputes.

What happened

In Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation, the court reviewed plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and service awards after a class-action settlement. No settlement-class member objected to the fee request or settlement.

The court found the requested fees and costs reasonable. It awarded $1,012,469.87 in attorneys’ fees and $387,530.13 in costs, totaling $1,400,000. The court also approved a $5,000 service award for each class representative, Steve Rojas and Andrea Rojas.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered the order on April 6, 2023, and retained continuing jurisdiction over disputes concerning the allocation of the awarded fees and costs.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation · No. 5:18-cv-05841
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Apr. 6, 2023

Background

Plaintiffs Steve R. Rojas and Andrea N. Rojas sought attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation costs, and service awards in connection with a class-action settlement with Bosch Solar Energy Corporation. The court stated that notice of the fee motion was provided to settlement-class members and that no member objected to the settlement or the fee motion.

Attorneys’ Fees

The court evaluated the requested fees using the lodestar method, which generally calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hours worked by reasonable hourly rates. Settlement class counsel reported a lodestar of $4,488,145.25 based on 5,458.75 hours of work. The court found that amount reasonable and concluded that the requested $1,012,499.87 fee was reasonable under the lodestar analysis and a percentage comparison to the settlement’s estimated constructive value of $7 million to $15 million.

The court also considered the litigation’s complexity, counsel’s work and risk, the settlement’s quality, and the absence of objections. The court noted that counsel’s motion incorrectly stated that the requested attorneys’ fees and costs totaled $1,400,000. The actual sum was $1,400,030. To conform the award to the settlement agreement and correct the arithmetic error, the court reduced the attorneys’ fee award by $30, from $1,012,499.87 to $1,012,469.87.

Costs and Service Awards

The court found reasonable the requested reimbursement of $387,530.13 in out-of-pocket costs, including expenses connected to investigating claims, retaining experts, legal research, electronic discovery, and filing fees. The resulting total award for attorneys’ fees and costs was $1,400,000.

The court also found Steve Rojas and Andrea Rojas eligible for service awards based on their substantial time and effort, participation in the case, and service to the settlement class. It approved a $5,000 service award for each of them, in addition to any relief they might receive under the settlement agreement.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and service awards. It awarded $1,012,469.87 in attorneys’ fees, reimbursed $387,530.13 in costs, approved $5,000 for each class representative, and reserved continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes related to allocating the awarded fees and costs. Judge Beth Labson Freeman directed immediate entry of the order under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-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.