Ginzkey v. National Securities Corporation

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 4

5 JAMES GINZKEY, RICHARD Case No. C18-1773RSM 6 FITZGERALD, CHARLES CERF, BARRY DONNER, and on behalf of the class members ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 7 described below, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 8 EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS Plaintiffs, 9 10 v.

11 NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, 12

13 Defendant.

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ 15 16 Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards, Dkt. #127. The Court heard oral argument on this 17 Motion at the November 3, 2022, Fairness Hearing. For the reasons stated below, the Court 18 GRANTS this Motion. 19 Plaintiffs seek a total of 40% of the cash fund in attorneys’ fees ($1,860,000), 20 $86,612.69 in expenses, and $10,000 for each of the four class representatives, all to come out 21 22 of the cash fund awarded in this case. Plaintiffs request that American Legal Claim Services 23 fees for settlement notice and distribution be paid from the cash proceeds in the amount of 24 $13,370.41. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) provides that “[i]n a certified class action, the 26 27 court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or 28 by the parties’ agreement.” Because Washington law governs the claims in this case, it also governs the award of fees. Vizcaino v. Microsoft, 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002). Under 1 2 Washington law, the percentage-of-recovery approach is generally used to calculate fees in 3 common fund cases. Bowles v. Dep’t of Ret. Sys., 121 Wn.2d 52, 72 (1993). 4 The Ninth Circuit typically weighs five factors in determining what constitutes a 5 reasonable award under the percentage-of-recovery method: (1) the results achieved; (2) the 6 risk of litigation; (3) the skill required and the quality of work; (4) the contingent nature of the 7 8 fee and the financial burden; and (5) awards made in similar cases. See Vizcaino at 1048-50. 9 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that, considering these factors, the record, and the 10 arguments at the fairness hearing, the requested fee award of forty percent of the Settlement 11 Fund is reasonable. This was a hard-fought case with no guarantee of success. The result is a 12 13 good one for these investors considering the outcomes of similar cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys 14 took this case on a contingent basis and fronted the expenses. The Court is also persuaded by 15 the lack of objections from the class, which consists of relatively sophisticated investors. 16 Having considered the briefing from the parties and the remainder of the record, the 17 Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, 18 19 Expenses, and Service Awards, Dkt. #127, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ counsel are to be paid 20 40% of the cash fund in attorneys’ fees ($1,860,000), $86,612.69 in expenses, and are to 21 provide $10,000 for each of the four class representatives, all to come out of the cash fund 22 awarded in this case. 23 DATED this 3rd day of November 2022. 24 25 A 26 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein 27 U.S. District Court Judge