Wu v. Ferrovial Services Infrastructure Inc.

N.D. California

Wu v. Ferrovial Services Infrastructure Inc.

DecidedAugust 25, 2022

Docket3:20-cv-09447

StatusUnknown

This text of Wu v. Ferrovial Services Infrastructure Inc. (Wu v. Ferrovial Services Infrastructure Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wu v. Ferrovial Services Infrastructure Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHU WU, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-09447-WHO

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 9 v. ATTORNEY'S FEES, COSTS, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARDS 10 FERROVIAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 39 11 Defendants.

12 13 On August 24, 2022, this Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, 14 Costs, and a Class Representative Incentive Awards. Having carefully considered the papers, evidence, and 15 arguments presented, the Court finds and orders as follows: 16 1. The Court finds that the requested award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $50,000, or 17 one-third of the common fund created by the settlement, is reasonable for a contingency fee in a class 18 action such as this. See Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480 (2016) (affirming award of 19 attorneys’ fees in the amount of one-third of the non-reversionary common fund); Van Vranken v. Atlantic 20 Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 297 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“the cases . . . in which high percentages such as 30- 21 50 percent of the fund were awarded involved relatively smaller funds of less than $10 million”). 22 2. Plaintiffs’ counsel has also provided sufficient evidence to establish that the award is 23 reasonable in light of a lodestar cross-check, which the Court finds to be the product of reasonable billing 24 rates and hours billed to the litigation. 25 3. Additionally, evidence submitted by Plaintiffs’ Counsel demonstrates that the requested 26 costs of $10,787.41 are fair and reasonable. 27 4. The Court accordingly awards a total of $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and $10,787.41 in costs 1 5. The Court also approves incentive awards of $2,500, each, to Plaintiffs Jason Brunton and 2 || Brian Cooley. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: August 25, 2022 . 6 William H. Orrick 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHU WU, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-09447-WHO

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 9 v. ATTORNEY'S FEES, COSTS, AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARDS 10 FERROVIAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 39 11 Defendants.

12 13 On August 24, 2022, this Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, 14 Costs, and a Class Representative Incentive Awards. Having carefully considered the papers, evidence, and 15 arguments presented, the Court finds and orders as follows: 16 1. The Court finds that the requested award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $50,000, or 17 one-third of the common fund created by the settlement, is reasonable for a contingency fee in a class 18 action such as this. See Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480 (2016) (affirming award of 19 attorneys’ fees in the amount of one-third of the non-reversionary common fund); Van Vranken v. Atlantic 20 Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 297 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“the cases . . . in which high percentages such as 30- 21 50 percent of the fund were awarded involved relatively smaller funds of less than $10 million”). 22 2. Plaintiffs’ counsel has also provided sufficient evidence to establish that the award is 23 reasonable in light of a lodestar cross-check, which the Court finds to be the product of reasonable billing 24 rates and hours billed to the litigation. 25 3. Additionally, evidence submitted by Plaintiffs’ Counsel demonstrates that the requested 26 costs of $10,787.41 are fair and reasonable. 27 4. The Court accordingly awards a total of $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and $10,787.41 in costs 1 5. The Court also approves incentive awards of $2,500, each, to Plaintiffs Jason Brunton and 2 || Brian Cooley. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: August 25, 2022 . 6 William H. Orrick 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wu v. Ferrovial Services Infrastructure Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wu-v-ferrovial-services-infrastructure-inc-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack