Case 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR Document 662 Filed 07/23/19 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:19175 1 MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP DAVID E. AZAR (SBN 218319) 2 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90025 3 Telephone: (213) 617-1200 4 [email protected] 5 TADLER LAW LLP ARIANA J. TADLER (pro hac vice) 6 HENRY J. KELSTON (pro hac vice) 7 One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, New York 10119 8 Telephone: (212) 946-9453 [email protected] 9 [email protected] 10 DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 11 ADAM J. LEVITT (pro hac vice) Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor 12 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 13 [email protected] 14 Class Counsel 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 WESTERN DIVISION 18 IN RE CONAGRA FOODS, INC. Case No. CV 11-05379-CJC (AGRx) 19 MDL No. 2291 20 CLASS ACTION 21 22 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND 23 REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS’ SERVICE AWARDS 24 25 Dated: July 23, 2019 26 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CV 11-05379-CJC (AGRx) 27 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND 28 REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS’ SERVICE AWARDS Case 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR Document 662 Filed 07/23/19 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:19176 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 3 II. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION AND THE WORK PERFORMED ...................3 4 A. History of the Litigation ....................................................................................................3 5 B. Work Performed by Class Counsel ...................................................................................4 6 7 III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................6 8 A. Class Counsel Are Entitled to Their Requested Attorneys’ Fees ......................................6 9 B. The Requested Attorneys’ Fees Are Reasonable ..............................................................8 10 1. The Number of Hours Spent Was Reasonable ......................................................... 11 11 2. The Hourly Rates Applied Are Reasonable .............................................................. 12 12 3. Factors Courts Consider in Determining Reasonableness ........................................ 15 13 a. Results Achieved .................................................................................................. 15 14 b. Duration and Complexity of Litigation ................................................................. 16 c. Risk and Contingent Nature of Litigation ............................................................. 17 15 d. Skill Required and Quality of Work ..................................................................... 18 16 e. Awards in Similar Cases ....................................................................................... 18 17 C. Class Counsel Should be Awarded Their Costs and Expenses .......................................19 18 D. The Requested Service Awards to the Settlement Class Representatives 19 Are Reasonable ...............................................................................................................20 20 IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................21 21 22 23 24 25 26 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ii CV 11-05379-CJC (AGRx) 27 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND 28 REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS’ SERVICE AWARDS Case 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR Document 662 Filed 07/23/19 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:19177 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases Page(s) 3 In re Am. Apparel S’holder Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184548 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2014) ......................................................13 4 5 In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F.Supp.2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ............................................................................................7 6 Blanchard v. Bergeron, 7 489 U.S. 87 (1989) ...................................................................................................................15 8 Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) ...................................................................................................................6 9 10 Chalmers v. Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................12 11 Cody v. SoulCycle Inc., 12 No. CV156457MWFJEMX, 2017 WL 6550682 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017) ...........17, 18, 19, 20 13 Connectivity Systems, Inc. v. National City Bank., No. 2:08-cv-1119, 2011 WL 292008 (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 26, 2011) ............................................14 14 Corson v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 15 No. CV128499JGBVBKX, 2016 WL 1375838 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2016) ........................10, 19 16 Delgado v. New Albertson’s, Inc., 17 No. SACV08806DOCRNBX, 2012 WL 12969845 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012) .................10, 19 18 Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y of U.S., 307 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................13 19 Good Morning to You Prods. Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., 20 No. CV134460GHKMRWX, 2016 WL 6156076 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2016) .............13, 15, 17 21 Harris v. Marhoefer, 22 24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................................19 23 Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................14 24 Kearney v. Hyundai Motor America, 25 No. SACV 09–1298–JST, 2013 WL 3287996 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2013) ..............................13 26 27 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF iii CV 11-05379-CJC (AGRx) 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS’ SERVICE AWARDS Case 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR Document 662 Filed 07/23/19 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:19178 1 Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. CV 18-3093-JFW(ASX), 2019 WL 2576367 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2019) .................7, 8, 19 2 Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Co., 3 No. 318CV00658AJBWVG, 2019 WL 2514720 (S.D. Cal. June 17, 2019)...........................16 4 In re Lupron Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 5 No. 01-CV-10861-RGS, 2005 WL 2006833 (D. Mass. Aug. 17, 2005) .................................12 6 Mashburn v. Nat’l. Healthcare Inc., 684 F. Supp. 679 (M.D. Ala. 1988) ...........................................................................................7 7 Mergens v. Sloan Valve Co., 8 No. CV1605255SJOSKX, 2017 WL 9486153 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2017) .............9, 17, 19, 20 9 Meyenburg v. Exxon Mobil, 10 No. 3:05-CV-15-DGW, 2006 WL 5062697 (S.D. Ill. June 5, 2006) .......................................16 11 Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989) .................................................................................................................13 12 In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litig., 13 No. CIV 11 MDL 1328 PAM, 2003 WL 29276 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2003) .................................7 14 In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 15 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) .....................................................................................................8 16 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., No. CV 11-07098-AB SHX, 2015 WL 1746484 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015), aff’d, 17 847 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................13 18 Quiroz Sandoval v. Roadlink USA Pac., Inc., No. EDCV1000973VAPDTBX, 2012 WL 13070733 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2012) .................9, 19 19 Roberti v. OSI Sys., Inc., 20 2015 WL 8329916 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2015) ...........................................................................13 21 Sanders v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 22 No. 13-CV-3136-BAS-RBB, 2017 WL 363536 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2017) .............................18 23 Sandoval v. Tharaldson Emp. Mgmt., Inc., 2010 WL 2486346 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2010) ...........................................................................8 24 Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 25 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................15 26 27 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF iv CV 11-05379-CJC (AGRx) 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS’ SERVICE AWARDS Case 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR Document 662 Filed 07/23/19 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:19179 1 In re Sketchers Toning Shoe Prods. Lib. Litig., No. 11-md-2308, 2013 WL 2010702 (W.D. Ky. May 13, 2013) ..............................................7 2 In re Vecco Instruments Inc. Sec. Litig., 3 No. 05 .......................................................................................................................................13 4 In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 5 760 F. Supp. 2d 640 (E.D. La. 2010) .......................................................................................13 6 Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................................13, 15 7 Wess v. Storey, 8 Case No. 2:08-cv-623, 2011 WL 1463609 (S.D. Ohio April 14, 2011) ..................................14 9 In re WorldCom, Inc. v. ERISA Litig., 10 No. 02-cv-4816, 2004 WL 2338151 (S.D.N.Y.