Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`
`Steven N. Williams (State Bar No. 175489)
`Christopher K.L. Young (State Bar No. 318371)
`Elissa A. Buchanan (State Bar No. 249996)
`Abraham Maggard (State Bar No. 339949)
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone: (415) 500-6800
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`Email:
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`
`swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
`
`cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
`
`eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
`
`amaggard@saverilawfirm.com
`
`Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Class
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: THE DIRECT
`PURCHASER CLASS ACTION
`
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`DIRECT PURCHASER’S CLASS
`COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY
`FEES, REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES
`AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`September 15, 2022
`Date:
`10:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: 11, 19th Floor
`
`
`
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 10:00 a.m. on September 15, 2022, at the United States
`
`District Court for the Northern District of California located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
`
`Francisco California 94102, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Direct Purchaser Class
`
`(the “Class”) will and hereby do move, pursuant to Rules 23(h) and 54(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, to grant Class Counsel: (1) attorneys’ fees of $66,000,000 in accordance with Ninth
`
`Circuit precedent; (2) reimbursement for incurred expenses; and to grant (3) Class Counsel’s request
`
`for service awards.
`
`Specifically, the Class requests that the Court:
`
`1.
`
`Grant Counsel’s request for a payment of $66,000,000 of the additional $165,000,000
`
`settlement fund (“Settlement Fund”) established in connection with the Class’s settlements with
`
`Defendants Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., Nippon Chemi-Con Corp. and United Chemi-Con, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Settling Defendants), now pending before the Court for final approval.
`
`2.
`
`Grant Counsel’s request for a payment of $3,636,429.21 of the additional Settlement
`
`Fund) to reimburse incurred litigation costs and expenses.
`
`3.
`
`Grant Counsel’s request for service awards for the named plaintiffs of the additional
`
`Settlement Fund. Specifically, awards of $100,000 for Plaintiff Chip-Tech Ltd. (“Chip-Tech”);
`
`$100,000 for Plaintiff eIQ Energy, Inc. (“eIQ”); $75,000 for Plaintiff Dependable Component Supply
`
`Corp. (“Dependable”); and $50,000 for Plaintiff Walker Component Group, Inc. (“Walker”).
`
`The Class’s motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Joseph R. Saveri and the exhibits thereto,
`
`the Declaration of Eugene Krzywinski, the Declaration of Barry Reed Lubman, the Declaration of
`
`Shawn Ryan, the Declaration of John Walker, the Court’s files and records in this matter, argument of
`
`counsel, and such other and further matters as the Court may consider.
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`i
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 3 of 23
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Joseph R. Saveri
`Joseph R. Saveri
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`Steven N. Williams (State Bar No. 175489)
`Christopher K.L. Young (State Bar No. 318371)
`Elissa Buchanan (State Bar No. 249996)
`Abraham A. Maggard (State Bar No.339949)
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone: (415) 500-6800
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`
`swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
`
`cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
`eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
`amaggard@saverilawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Class
`
`
`
`Dated: June 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`ii
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 4 of 23
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
`A.
`The Pending Settlements ..................................................................................................1
`B.
`The Prior Round One, Round Two, Round Three and Round Four Settlements ............. 2
`C.
`The Pending Requests for Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses .................. 3
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Attorneys’ Fees ................................................................................................................ 5
`B.
`Costs Reimbursement ...................................................................................................... 5
`THE COURT SHOULD AWARD THE CLASS’S COUNSEL $66,000,000—40 PERCENT
`OF THE FUND—AS PARTIAL PAYMENT OF THEIR FEES ACCRUED AS OF DATE .... 5
`A.
`The Percentage-of-the-Fund Method for Calculating Fees Is Appropriate Here ............. 5
`The Vizcaino Factors Warrant Granting Counsel’s Fee Request ...................................... 6
`B.
`1.
`Counsel Obtained an Exceptional Result for the Direct Purchaser Class with The
`Settlements. ......................................................................................................... 7
`Counsel Have Taken Significant Risks Prosecuting This Litigation. .................... 8
`Advancing the Litigation to this Point and Obtaining the Settlements Has
`Required Professional Skill. .................................................................................. 9
`Awards in Similar Complex Antitrust Cases Demonstrate That Class Counsel
`Seek a Reasonable Fee Award. ............................................................................. 9
`Counsel Undertook a Significant Financial and Resource Burden in Prosecuting
`the Direct Purchaser Class’s Claims .................................................................. 10
`Lodestar Cross-Check Confirms That the Fees Sought by Class Counsel Are Reasonable.
` ........................................................................................................................................ 11
`The Court Should Grant Attorneys’ Fees Based on Work Counsel Has Performed on the
`Case as a Whole. ............................................................................................................. 12
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CLASS COUNSEL $3,636,429.21 FOR THEIR COSTS
`ADVANCED FROM JANUARY 1, 2020, TO PRESENT ........................................................ 12
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SERVICE AWARDS TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS IN
`LIGHT OF THEIR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LITIGATION. .............. 13
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`iii
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 5 of 23
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., No. 06-MD-1775 JG VVP, 2012 WL
`3138596 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2012) ...................................................................................... 4, 12
`
`In re Am. Apparel, Inc. S’holder Litig., Case No. CV 10-06352 MMM, 2014 WL 10212865
`(C.D. Cal. Jul. 28, 2014) .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068 (N.D.
`Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Sols. Corp., 297 F.R.D. 431 (E.D. Cal. 2013) ............................................. 9
`
`Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................... 6
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ......................................... 5
`
`Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Cameron v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2022), ECF No.
`491 ......................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ....................................... 15
`
`Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 380 F.Supp.3d 998 (E.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................ 6, 7
`
`In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2011) .............................. 9
`
`Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................. 14
`
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig., 522 F. Supp. 3d 617 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ........................... 14
`
`Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y of U.S., 307 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................... 5
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................. 6
`
`Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 13
`
`In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., Case No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2015 WL 5158730
`(N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015) ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ................................... 13
`
`Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Kent, 909 F.3d 272 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ....................................... 5
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`iv
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`In re Korean Air Lines Co. Antitrust Litig., No. CV 07-05107 SJO, 2013 WL 7985367
`(C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2013) ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`Lemus v. H & R Enters. LLC, No. C 09-3179 SI, 2012 WL 3638550 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22,
`2012) ..................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Lenovo Adware Litig., No. 15-MD-02624-HSG, 2019 WL 1791420 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
`24, 2019) ................................................................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., No. 14-md-02521-WHO, 2019 WL 4620695 (N.D. Cal.
`Sep. 20, 2018) .......................................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-02420-YGR, 2018 WL 3064391
`(N.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) .................................................................................................... 6, 9
`
`Lobatz v. U.S. W. Cellular of Cal., Inc., 222 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................ 12
`
`Marshall v. Northrop Grumman Corp., Case No. 16-CV-6794 AB, 2020 WL 5668935
`(C.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2020) .................................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Mauss v. NuVasive, Inc., Case No. 13cv2005 JM (JLB), 2018 WL 6421623 (S.D. Cal.
`Dec. 6, 2018) ......................................................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010).......................................... 2
`
`Mills v. Elec. Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375 (1970) ............................................................................. 5
`
`Morris v. Lifescan, Inc., 54 Fed.Appx. 663 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................. 7
`
`In re Nat’l Collegiate Athl. Ass’n Athl. Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., 768 F. App’x
`651 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Norcia v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC, No. 14-cv-00582-JD, 2021 WL 3053018 (N.D.
`Cal. July 20, 2021) ................................................................................................................. 14
`
`In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................. 7
`
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................... 14, 15
`
`In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., Case No. 3:15-md-002670-DMS-MDD,
`2022 WL 228823 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2022) ............................................................................. 8
`
`Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir.1989) .......................................... 9
`
`Perez v. Rash Curtis & Assocs., No. 16-cv-03396-YGR, 2020 WL 1904533 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
`17, 2020) .................................................................................................................................. 5
`
`In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 135 F. Supp. 679 (W.D. Ohio 2015) ............................... 15
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`v
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 5
`
`In re Quantum Health Resources, Inc. Sec. Litig., 962 F. Supp. 1254 (C.D. Cal. 1997) ..................... 5
`
`In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005) .......................................................... 11
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................................... 13
`
`In re Se. Milk Antitrust Litig., No. 2:07-CV 208, 2013 WL 2155387 (E.D. Tenn. May 17,
`2013) ..................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`In re Skelaxim (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litig., No. 2:12-cv-83, 2014 WL 2946459 (E.D.
`Tenn. June 30, 2014) ............................................................................................................. 15
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................... 14
`
`Thornberry v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 676 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1982), remanded on other
`grounds, 461 U.S. 952(1983) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Transpac. Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., No. 3:07-cv-05634-CBR, 2019 WL
`6327363 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`Trosper v. Stryker Corp., No. 13-CV-00607-LHK, 2015 WL 5915360 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9,
`2015) ..................................................................................................................................... 13
`
`United States v. Matsuo Elec. Co. Ltd., 4:17-cr-00073-JD (N.D. Cal. filed on Feb. 8, 2017) ............ 8
`
`In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., No. 04-1616-JWL, 2016 WL 4060156 (D. Kan., July 29,
`2016) ................................................................................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ...................................... 6, 12
`
`Vincent v. Hughes Air W., Inc., 557 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1977) ......................................................... 13
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................. 6, 10, 11, 12
`
`In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................... 5
`
`Wolf v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05345-VC, 2018 WL 5619801 (N.D.
`Cal. Sep. 14, 2018) ................................................................................................................. 14
`
`Statutes
`
`Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 .......................................................................... 8, 10
`
`Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1 ............................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`vi
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Class (the “Class”) submit this motion for attorneys’ fees and
`
`reimbursement of litigation expenses, seeking an award in the amounts of (1) $66,000,000 for fees
`
`accrued as of January 1, 2020; (2) $3,636,429.21 to fully reimburse incurred litigation costs and
`
`expenses incurred since January 1, 2020 (the “Motion”) and (3) service awards for the named plaintiffs
`
`of the additional Settlement Fund in the amount of $100,000 for Plaintiff Chip-Tech Ltd.;$100,000 for
`
`Plaintiff eIQ Energy, Inc.; $75,000 for Plaintiff Dependable Component Supply Corp.; and $50,000 for
`
`Plaintiff Walker Component Group, Inc.
`
`Pursuant to the Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, the background history and
`
`facts are set forth in the Class’s motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with the Settling
`Defendants, MDL ECF No. 1713, (“Final Approval Motion”) and will not be repeated here, except to
`
`summarize where relevant to this motion past settlements and their related awards of attorneys’ fees
`
`reimbursement of expenses, and service awards. Having presided over the litigation from its inception,
`
`including two jury trials, the first of which commenced on March 2, 2020, before being suspended due
`
`to the commencement of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the second of which commenced on November
`
`29, 2021 and concluded when Class Counsel settled with the remaining Defendants on the final day of
`
`trial, right before the case was to be handed to the jury, the Court is aware of the substantial work
`
`performed on behalf of the Class by Counsel to date.
`A.
`
`The Pending Settlements
`
`The settlements with the Settling Defendants (the “Settlements”) provide for cash payments
`
`totaling $165,000,000. Adding the $439,550,000 in settlements from the First, Second and Third
`
`Round Settlements, Class Counsel has recovered a total of $604,550,000 for the Class, which
`
`represents a recovery of 141.4% of the Class’s single damages as calculated by the Class’s expert.
`
`Declaration of Joseph R. Saveri (“Saveri Decl.”), ¶ 13.
`
`This case began in 2014. Since then, Class Counsel—all of whom work on a contingency basis—
`
`have devoted substantial time which has not been compensated and have advanced costs on behalf of
`
`the Class. The Settlements, if finally approved, provide Class Counsel the opportunity to be
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`1
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`compensated for their hard and successful work for the benefit of the Class, and to receive
`
`reimbursement for costs incurred in the litigation. On a cumulative basis, the total amount of attorneys’
`
`fees—the requested $66,000,000 added to the fee awards for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth
`
`Round Settlements—amounts to 31.01% of the common fund which Class Counsel has recovered for the
`
`benefit of the Class in this case.
`
`The Motion is being publicly filed at-least thirty-five days before the deadline for objecting to the
`
`Settlements, as required by the Court’s order granting preliminary approval of the present settlements,
`
`MDL ECF No. 1707, is consistent with the requirements set forth in the Northern District of
`
`California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, and satisfies the requirements of In re
`
`Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 995 n.2 (9th Cir. 2010). Saveri Decl., ¶ 3.
`B.
`
`The Prior Round One, Round Two, Round Three and Round Four Settlements
`
`On June 27, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the Class’s first round of settlements with
`
`the NEC Tokin, Fujitsu, Nitsuko, Okaya, and ROHM defendants totaling $32.6 million (the “First
`
`Round Settlements”). ECF No. 1713. On June 28, 2018, the Court granted final approval of the Class’s
`
`second round of settlements with the Hitachi Chemical and Soshin defendants totaling $66.9 million
`
`(the “Second Round Settlements”). MDL ECF No. 249. On February 21, 2020, the Court entered an
`
`order granting final approval of the Class’s third round of settlements with the Nichicon and Rubycon
`
`defendants totaling $108 million plus up to an additional $12 million in contingent payments based on
`
`Rubycon’s financial results through fiscal year 2019. MDL ECF No. 587 at 11. These settlements
`
`demonstrate that Class Counsel and the named class representatives have diligently and successfully
`
`represented the Class. On June 27, 2017, the Court awarded $8,150,000 (25% of the settlement fund) as
`
`partial payment of their fees accrued as of September 30, 2016, in connection with the First Round
`
`Settlements. ECF No. 1714, at 3. The Court also approved $3 million for partial reimbursement of
`
`Counsel’s costs and expenses. Id. at 9-10.
`
`For the Second Round Settlements, the Court granted $16,725,000 in attorneys’ fees (25% of the
`
`settlement fund) as partial payment of their fees accrued as of December 31, 2017. MDL ECF No. 332
`
`at 3. The Court also approved $6,690,000 in expenses (10% of the settlement fund). Id. at 10.
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`2
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`For the Third Round Settlements, The Court granted $27,000,000 in attorneys’ fees (25% of the of the
`
`settlement fund) as partial payment of their fees accrued as of December 31, 2018. Id. The Court also
`
`approved $1,997,809.74 in expenses (approximately 1.85% of the settlement fund).1 Id. On May 7, 2020,
`the Court granted the Class’s Supplemental Motion for Reimbursement of Expenses and awarded
`
`$1,002,190.62 for unreimbursed expenses incurred by Class Counsel. MDL ECF No. 1295.
`
`For the Fourth Round Settlements, Special Master Monica Ip conducted an audit of Class
`
`Counsel’s request for fees and costs as documented in MDL ECF No. 1366 and issued a Report and
`
`Recommendation (MDL ECF No. 1397) that was approved and adopted in full by the Court. MDL ECF
`
`No. 1423. The Court granted $69,615,000 in attorney fees (approximately 30% of the settlement fund).
`
`Id. The Court further granted $9,548,764.41 for unreimbursed expenses incurred by Class Counsel. Id.
`C.
`
`The Pending Requests for Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses
`
`Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees from the pending settlements in the amount of
`
`$66,000,000 is consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s permitted fee awards calculated using the
`
`“percentage-of-the-fund” approach. See In re Nat’l Collegiate Athl. Ass’n Athl. Grant-In-Aid Cap
`
`Antitrust Litig., 768 F. App’x 651, 653 (9th Cir. 2019). Counsel have taken a significant risk, invested
`
`substantial amounts of their time and money on a contingent basis, and forgone other work
`
`opportunities to dedicate their professional efforts to this case.2
`Lead Class Counsel submits declarations for its time and expenses, and expenses incurred by the
`
`Litigation Fund3 (Saveri Decl., Exs. 1-3) together with declarations from Class Counsel that have
`worked under Lead Counsel’s direction in this case. Saveri Decl., Exs. 4-17. Attached to each of these
`
`
`1 Special Master Monica Ip conducted an audit of Class Counsel’s request for fees and costs as
`documented in MDL ECF Nos. 498, 594, and issued a Report and Recommendation (MDL ECF No.
`1019) that was approved and adopted in full by the Court. MDL ECF No. 1036. The Court granted the
`Class’s motion for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses after adopting and approving in full
`the findings and recommendations as set forth in Special Master Monica Ip’s Report and
`Recommendation. MDL ECF No. 1021.
`2 Indeed, Counsel overcame significant challenges in litigating this case. This case was tried twice, the
`first trial was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic after the Class had nearly completed presenting
`its case-in-chief. Counsel is unaware of any other case that was so interrupted.
`3 JSLF established a litigation fund to finance the joint prosecution of this case against the Defendants.
`The Litigation Fund has been used to pay necessary costs and expenses including expert and consulting
`fees, the costs of document hosting, certification of translations and trial expenses
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`3
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`declarations from Class Counsel are documents that summarize the time their respective firms have
`
`billed from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2022, as reported by timekeeper. Ex. 1; Ex. A to each Counsel’s
`
`declaration. Class Counsel have also attached a summary of the expenses they incurred in this case
`
`during the same period. Ex. 2; Ex. B to each Counsel’s declaration. Lead Class Counsel has reviewed
`
`each of Class Counsel’s daily time records. Duplicative, unnecessary, or unauthorized work has been
`
`removed and will not be compensated. See id., ¶ 40.
`
`Lead Class Counsel has also reviewed all costs submitted by Class Counsel for reimbursement to
`
`ensure their compliance with the instructions set forth in the Court’s October 31, 2014, Order
`
`Appointing Interim Lead Class Counsel (ECF No. 319 at 4-5). See id. Expenses that were unauthorized
`
`or in excess of the Court’s guidelines will not be compensated. See id. Consistent with the Court’s
`
`guidance, the fees, and costs in connection with the present round of Settlements will be submitted to
`
`Special Master Ip in the first instance. MDL ECF No. 1708; Saveri Decl., ¶ 14. The Class’s request for
`
`$3,636,429.21 is a request to reimburse Class Counsel for incurred litigation costs and expenses that
`
`have not yet been reimbursed. Saveri Decl., ¶ 20.
`
`On a cumulative basis, the total amount of attorneys’ fees—the requested $66,000,000 added to
`
`the fee awards for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Round Settlements—is $187,490,000. Id., ¶¶
`
`15-18. This represents attorneys’ fees of 31.01% of the common fund which Class Counsel has recovered
`
`for the benefit of the Class in this case. See In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., No. 06-MD-
`
`1775 JG VVP, 2012 WL 3138596, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2012); see also In re Transpac. Passenger Air
`
`Transp. Antitrust Litig., No. 3:07-cv-05634-CBR, 2019 WL 6327363, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019).
`
`Including the $66,000,000 request, Class Counsels’ cumulative fee amounts to 31.01% of the total
`
`settlements reached for the benefit of the Class.
`
`The requested expenses of $3,636,429.21 added to the expenses and costs reimbursements for
`
`the First, Second Third, and Fourth Round Settlements brings the cumulative total expenses and costs
`
`to $25,875,194. Saveri Decl., ¶¶ 15-18, 45. The Class’s request for $3,636,429.21 fully reimburses Class
`
`Counsel for their expenses incurred but unreimbursed to date. Id., ¶ 22-23, and reimburses Class
`
`Counsel for Litigation Fund expenses incurred between July 24, 2020, to date.
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`4
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS COUNSELS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES,
`REIMBRSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2954 Filed 06/23/22 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A.
`
`Attorneys’ Fees
`
`The Supreme Court has explained that “‘a lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit
`
`of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a
`
`whole.’” Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Kent, 909 F.3d 272, 284 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Boeing
`
`Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980)); see also Mills v. Elec. Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 393
`
`(1970). “The rationale behind awarding a percentage of the fund to counsel in common fund cases is the
`
`same that justifies permitting contingency fee arrangements in general. . . . The underlying premise is
`
`the existence of risk—the contingent risk of non-payment.” In re Quantum Health Resources, Inc. Sec.
`
`Litig., 962 F. Supp. 1254, 1257 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (emphasis in original). In addition, attorneys’ fees are
`
`awarded as a means of ensuring the beneficiaries of a common fund share with those whose labors
`
`created the fund. See In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 1994).
`B.
`
`Costs Reimbursement
`
`Counsel may obtain reimbursement for costs from a common fund settlement. In re Am. Apparel,
`
`Inc. S’holder Litig., Case No. CV 10-06352 MMM ( JCGx), 2014 WL 10212865, at *28 (C.D. Cal. Jul.
`
`28, 2014). “‘The prevailing view is that expenses are awarded in addition to the fee percentage.’” Perez
`
`v. Rash Curtis & Assocs., No. 16-cv-03396-YGR, 2020 WL 1904533, at *21 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD THE CLASS’S COUNSEL $66,000,000—40
`PERCENT OF THE FUND—AS PARTIAL PAYMENT OF THEIR FEES ACCRUED
`AS OF DATE
`A.
`The Percentage-of-the-Fund Method for Calculating Fees Is Appropriate Here
`
`District courts in the Ninth Circuit use either the “percentage-of-the-fund” or the “lodestar” method
`
`in calculating fees in common fund settlements. Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y of U.S., 307 F.3d
`
`997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002). Using either method, the ultimate inquiry is whether the end result is
`
`reasonable. Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1258 (9th Cir. 2000).
`
`Where there is an easily quantifiable benefit to the class—namely, the cash recovery achieved
`