Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2982 Filed 03/06/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UN IT ED S TATES D ISTRIC T C OURT
`
`NORTH ERN D ISTR ICT OF CA LIF OR NIA
`
`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
`
`ORDER RE DPP ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
`COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT 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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2982 Filed 03/06/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`This long-running antitrust litigation is now fully resolved for all class members who did not opt
`
`out of prior settlements. The final issue before the Court is Direct Purchaser Class Counsel’s
`
`application for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards (“Motion”) (MDL
`
`ECF No. 17141) made in connection with the Class’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlements with
`
`Defendants Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., Nippon Chemi-Con Corp. and United Chemi-Con, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Settling Defendants”).
`
`These settlements total $165,000,000 in cash (the “Settlement Fund”). They follow earlier
`
`rounds of settlements with 17 other defendant corporate families totaling $439,550,000, and result in a
`
`final settlement fund of $604,550,000. The Court entered orders granting final approval of the prior
`
`four rounds of settlements on June 27, 2017, June 28, 2018, May 16, 2019, and November 6, 2020.
`
`ECF No. 17132; MDL ECF Nos. 249, 597, 1422.
`
`Class counsel for the Direct Purchaser Class (the “Class”) have requested attorneys’ fees in the
`
`amount of $66,000,000. Class counsel also request reimbursement of $3,636,429.21 in costs and
`
`expenses, and “service awards” for the named plaintiffs.
`
`The Court appointed Special Master Monica Ip to review the costs requests. Special Master Ip
`
`has provided the same auditing review of prior costs requests. She recommends an award of costs in
`
`the amount of $2,459,577.54. See MDL ECF No. 1730 at 7. Class counsel do not object to this figure,
`
`and costs are awarded in that amount.
`
`For attorneys’ fees, the Court has used a proposed order lodged by class counsel and modified
`
`pursuant to the Court’s practices and conclusions. The Court set out the governing standards and
`
`discussion in a prior fees order, ECF No. 2196, which apply fully here and are incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`The proposed $66,000,000 in attorneys’ fees amounts to 40% of the Settlement Fund created by
`
`the present round of settlements, and a cumulative 31.01% of the total settlements reached for the
`
`benefit of the Class. These amounts are well within the range of reasonable fees awards, especially in
`
`
`1 “MDL ECF No. __” citations are to Case No. 3:17-md-02801-JD.
`2 “ECF No. ____” citations are to Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD.
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`1
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2982 Filed 03/06/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`light of the complexity of these antitrust cases, and the degree of work and skill required to obtain
`
`highly beneficial results for the class. See, e.g., In re Lenovo Adware Litig., No. 15-md-02624, 2019
`
`WL 1791420, at *7-9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) (30% of $8,300,000 recovery); In re Lithium Ion
`
`Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-02420-YGR, 2018 WL 3064391, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2018)
`
`(30% of $139,000,000 recovery); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. M 07-1827 SI, 2013
`
`WL 149692, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) (30% of $68,000,000 recovery); Meijer, Inc. v. Abbott
`
`Labs, No. C-07-05985 CW, 2011 WL 13392313, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011) (33 1/3% of
`
`$52,000,000 recovery); see also, e.g., In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., No. 1:10 MD 2196,
`
`2015 WL 1639269, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015) (30% of $147,800,000 recovery); In re Checking
`
`Account Overdraft Litig., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1366 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (30% of $410,000,000
`
`recovery); In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., No. MDL 1261, 2004 WL 1221350, at *19 (E.D. Pa. June
`
`2, 2004) (30% of $202,572,489 recovery); In re Ikon Office Sols., 194 F.R.D. 166, 170 (E.D. Pa. 2000)
`
`(30% of net $116,000,000 recovery).
`
`The Vizcaino factors weigh decidedly in favor of the fees request for the same reasons stated in
`
`the prior award order. See ECF. No. 2196 at 5-10; Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048
`
`(9th Cir. 2002). No class member or other person has objected to the proposed fees award.
`
`A lodestar cross-check supports the requested fees. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050; Lobatz v.
`
`U.S. W. Cellular of Cal., Inc., 222 F.3d 1142, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 2000). Class counsel’s cumulative
`
`lodestar as of the filing of their motion for fees, is $103,802,430.30. Class counsel’s cumulative fee
`
`awards to date including the present request is $187,490,000. Using a lodestar cross-check, the fees
`
`sought here in addition to the attorneys’ fees previously awarded by the Court for prior settlements
`
`result in a lodestar multiplier of 1.81. This multiplier is amply justified by the demands and duration of
`
`the litigation, and is well within acceptable parameters. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051 (multiplier of
`
`3.65 held “within the range of multipliers applied in common fund cases”); Van Vranken v. Atlantic
`
`Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 298 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“Multipliers in the 3-4 range are common in
`
`lodestar awards for lengthy and complex class action litigation.”) (citations omitted); see also In re
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`2
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2982 Filed 03/06/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., No. 14-md-02521-WHO, 2018 WL 4620695, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20,
`
`2018) (approving 1.37 multiplier).
`
`Consequently, the Court concludes that the $66,000,000 fee request is fair and reasonable. Fees
`
`in that amount are awarded to class counsel.
`
`For the “service awards,” the Court has expressed substantial doubt about outsized awards to
`
`named plaintiffs in light of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2)(D) and fundamental fairness in not
`
`giving such plaintiffs many multiples of the amounts a typical class members will recover. See, e.g.,
`
`Myles v. AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC, No. 12-cv-05761-JD, 2014 WL 6065602, at *6 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Nov. 12, 2014); Arnold v. DMG Mori USA, Inc., No. 18-cv-02373-JD, 2022 WL 18027883, at *6
`
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2022). Those concerns apply here with respect to the proposal of awarding
`
`$100,000 to plaintiffs Chip-Tech Ltd. and eIQ Energy, Inc.; $75,000 to plaintiff Dependable
`
`Component Supply Corp.; and $50,000 to plaintiff Walker Component Group, Inc. These will be the
`
`first and only service awards granted in this litigation, and class counsel has documented the work the
`
`named plaintiffs invested in the case. See Krzyowinski Decl., ¶¶ 7-9; Lubman Decl., ¶¶ 5-16; Ryan
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 7-9; Walker Decl., ¶¶ 6-8. Class counsel say that Chip-Tech and eIQ took particularly
`
`significant actions to protect the interests of the class by testifying twice at trial, among other measures.
`
`Even so, the proposed awards are excessive. The Court grants service awards in these amounts:
`
`$50,000 each to Chip Tech and eIQ; $25,000 to Dependable Component; and $15,000 to Walker
`
`Component.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HON. JAMES DONATO
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`Master File No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`3
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`