April 22, 2019

April 19, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Ninth Circuit Rejects Percentage Method To Determine Attorneys’ Fees In Class Action Settlement

In Collado v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Nos. 11-57013, 11-57023, 11-57030 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2013), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s attorneys’ fees award in a class action settlement alleging malfunctioning Toyota Prius headlights.  The Ninth Circuit held that the district court incorrectly applied federal law instead of state law to determine the amount of recoverable attorneys’ fees.  The district court should have used California’s lodestar method (reasonable hours times reasonable rates) and not the federal percentage of recovery method (25% benchmark).

In this case, the plaintiffs’ attorneys asked the federal district court to award them attorneys’ fees in a class action settlement using California’s lodestar method.  They claimed to have worked 6,881 hours on the lawsuit.  They requested an award of $4.7 million based on hours worked, times rate, times a requested multiplier of 1.5.  The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ request and instead applied the percentage method.  The district court noted the class recovery at $3.83 million and determined 20% of this as an appropriate fee award (slightly below the 25% benchmark because the case was not complex).  The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for $4.7 million in attorneys’ fees and instead awarded only $766,000.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court incorrectly applied the percentage method instead of the lodestar method.  The plaintiffs sought fees under California’s private attorney general statute, which awards fees to plaintiffs’ lawyers whose class action results in the significant enforcement of “an important right affecting the public interest.”  Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 (2013).  Under this law, plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees are calculated using the lodestar method.  The Ninth Circuit held that because it had jurisdiction based on diversity, state law applied to both the right to recover attorneys’ fees and the method for determining the amount of those fees.

Copyright © 2019, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Shannon Z. Petersen, Business Trial Legal Specialist, Sheppard Mullin
Partner

Shannon Z. Petersen is a partner in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm’s Del Mar office and is co-chair of the firm’s consumer class action defense team and the firm’s TCPA class action defense team.

Areas of Practice

Dr. Petersen has substantial trial experience as a business litigator, including consumer class action defense. He has successfully represented clients in claims involving the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Acting (FCRA), the Truth in Lending...

619-338-6656
James Hill, Legal Specialist, Sheppard Mullin, Los Angeles
Associate

James Hill is an associate in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm's Los Angeles office. 

213-617-4209