Case 5:17-cv-00967-OLG Document 108 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ROY C. SPEGELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-cv-967-OLG Defendant. UNOPPOSED MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 23(H) FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES TO CLASS COUNSEL AND NAMED PLAINTIFF SERVICE AWARD AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Case 5:17-cv-00967-OLG Document 108 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 44 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 II. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION ...................................................................................... 2 III. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ACHIEVED THROUGH THE SETTLEMENT ......... 14 A. The Settlement Class................................................................................................ 14 B. The Settlement Benefits ........................................................................................... 15 1. Cash Settlement Fund .................................................................................. 15 2. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Service Award .......................... 15 3. Expenses for Settlement Administration ..................................................... 15 4. The Settlement Fund is Non-Reversionary. ................................................. 16 IV. CLASS COUNSEL’S ATTORNEYS’ FEE REQUEST SHOULD BE APPROVED. ..... 16 A. Legal Standard for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees ........................................................ 16 B. Class Counsel’s Request for Thirty Percent of the Settlement Fund Is Reasonable. .............................................................................................................. 18 1. Class Counsel Obtained Substantial Value to be Conferred to the Class. ... 19 2. Thirty Percent of the Settlement Fund is a Reasonable Benchmark Percentage. ................................................................................................... 19 3. Class Counsel’s Fee Request is Reasonable Under a Johnson Factors Cross-Check. ................................................................................................ 22 a. The Time and Labor Required Supports Approval of the Requested Fee. ................................................................................. 23 b. The Novelty and Difficulty of the Issues Support Approval of the Requested Fee. ....................................................................... 24 c. The Skill Required to Perform the Legal Services Properly Supports Approval of the Requested Fee......................................... 25 d. The Preclusion of Other Employment by the Attorney as a Result of Taking the Case Supports Approval of the Requested Fee. ................................................................................................... 27 e. The Requested Fee Is Within Range of the Customary Fee in Common Fund Cases, Supporting the Requested Fee. .................... 28 f. The Contingent Nature of the Requested Fee Supports Its Approval. ......................................................................................... 29 g. Time Limitations Imposed by the Client or Other Circumstances Factor Is Inapplicable. ............................................. 30 h. The Monetary Amount and the Results Obtained Supports Approval of the Requested Fee. ....................................................... 30 i Case 5:17-cv-00967-OLG Document 108 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 44 i. The Experience, Reputation, and Ability of Class Counsel Supports Approval of the Requested Fee......................................... 31 j. The Undesirability of this Case Due to the Risk of Non-Recovery Supports Approval of the Requested Fee. ............... 31 k. The Nature and Duration of the Professional Relationship with the Client Supports the Requested Fee. ........................................... 32 l. Awards in Similar Cases Supports the Requested Fee. ................... 32 V. CLASS COUNSEL’S REQUESTED EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT SHOULD BE APPROVED. ................................................................................................................ 33 VI. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE A $20,000 SERVICE AWARD FOR MR. SPEGELE. .......................................................................................................................... 34 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 35 ii Case 5:17-cv-00967-OLG Document 108 Filed 07/14/21 Page 4 of 44 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Aichele v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV1210863DMGFFMX, 2015 WL 5286028 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015) ........................... 21 Al’s Pals Pet Care v. Woodforest Nat'l Bank, NA, No. 4:17-CV-3852 2019 WL 387409 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2019) ............................................................................. 29 Arete Partners, L.P. v. Gunnerman, No. A-05-CA-921-SS, 2010 WL 11614545 (W.D. Tex. June 23, 2010) ................................. 22 Barger v. Sutton, No. CIV.ASA01CA0294-XR, 2004 WL 825998 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2004) ......................... 22 Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 17 Braud v. Transport Serv. Co., 2010 WL 3283398 (E.D. La. Aug. 17, 2010) ........................................................................... 31 Bridges v. Ridge Nat. Res., LLC, No. MO:18-CV-00134-DC, 2020 WL 7496843 (W.D. Tex. June 23, 2020) .................... passim Buettgen v. Harless, No. 3:09-CV-00791-K, 2013 WL 12303143 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2013) ................................ 29 Burford v. Cargill, Inc., No. CIV.A. 05-0283, 2012 WL 5471985 (W.D. La. Nov. 8, 2012) ......................................... 28 Bussie v. Allamerica Fin. Corp., No. Civ. A. 97-40204-NMG, 1999 WL 342042 (D. Mass. May 19, 1999) ............................. 18 Campton v. Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 4:12-2196, 2015 WL 12766537 (S.D. Tex. June 5, 2015) ................................................. 29 Castro v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., No. CV117178JMVMAH, 2017 WL 4776626 (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2017) .................................... 21 City of Omaha Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. LHC Grp., No. CIV. 6:12-1609, 2015 WL 965696 (W.D. La. Mar. 3, 2015) ............................................ 29 City of Pontiac Gen. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Dell Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00374-LY, 2020 WL 218518 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2020) ................................... 29 DeHoyos v. Allstate Corp., 240 F.R.D. 269 (W.D. Tex. 2007) ................................................................................ 16, 17, 32 DeLoach v. Phillip Morris Co., No. 1:00-cv-01235, 2003 WL 25683496 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2003) ....................................................................... 20 Del Carmen v. R.A. Rogers, Inc., No. SA16CA971FBHJB, 2018 WL 6430835 n.2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2018) ......................... 34 iii Case 5:17-cv-00967-OLG Document 108 Filed 07/14/21 Page 5 of 44 Di Giacomo v. Plains All Am. Pipeline, No. CIV.A.H-99-4137, 2001 WL 34633373 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2001) ............................ 22, 23 Duncan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. SA-14-CA-00912-FB, 2016 WL 4419472 (W.D. Tex. May 24, 2016) ............................. 20 Dyson v. Stuart Petroleum Testers, Inc., No. 1-15-CV-282 RP, 2016 WL 815355 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 29, 2016) ...................................... 29 Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., No. 3:02-CV-1152-M, 2018 WL 1942227 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2018) ........................ 20, 22, 31 Fairway Med. Ctr., L.L.C. v. McGowan Enterprises, Inc., No. CV 16-3782, 2018 WL 1479222 (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2018) ......................................... 20, 29 Frost v. Oil States Energy Servs., No. 4:15-cv-1100, 2015 WL 12780763 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2015) ......................................... 29 Gaskill v. Gordon, 160 F.3d 361 (7th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................... 21 Gokare v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 2:11-CV-2131-JTF-CGC, 2013 WL 12094887 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 22, 2013)................... 21 Hill v. Hill Bros. Constr. Co., Inc., No. 3:14-CV-213-SA-RP, 2018 WL 280537 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 3, 2018) .................................. 28 In re (Bank of America) Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ............................................................................... 20, 21 In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Prod. Liab. Litig., 274 F. Supp. 3d 485 (W.D. La. 2017)................................................................................. 20, 23 In re Catfish Antitrust Litig., 939 F. Supp. 493 (N.D. Miss. 1996) ......................................................................................... 35 In re Combustion, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 1116 (W.D. La. 1997).............................................................................. 19, 20, 32 In re Dell Inc., No. A-06-CA-726-SS, 2010 WL 2371834 (W.D. Tex. June 11, 2010) ....................... 22, 29, 30 In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 586 F. Supp. 2d 732 (S.D. Tex. 2008) ................................................................................ 23, 30 In re EZCORP, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:15-CV-00608-SS, 2019 WL 6649017 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2019)