Court filing
Proposed Order — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 157.2)
Summary
A proposed order, Document 157-2 filed January 28, 2022 in In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, Master Docket No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. The order is captioned as granting Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and plaintiff service awards, it would grant Class Counsel fees of $14,500,000, stated to equal 25% of the $58 million common fund, with a lodestar of $4,406,158.50 for 5,650 hours through January 25, 2022 and a multiplier of 3.29. It would grant expense reimbursement of $115,920.21 and service awards of $5,000 for each of the eleven Class Representatives, a total of $55,000. The date line above the signature block for the United States Magistrate Judge is blank.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Proposed Order — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 157.2).”
Original at storage.courtlistener.com, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, Doc. 157-2. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-plaid-privacy-cand-359040/2022-01-28-gov-uscourts-cand-359040-157-2-doc-157-2/
, SHA-256 4b9cacf58406ff8691a5aeb028b23f9483b6da375a51b402509db2a15ba7a134.Full text
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 157-2 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 5
1 HERRERA KENNEDY LLP LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
Shawn M. Kennedy (SBN 218472) BERNSTEIN, LLP
2
skennedy@herrerakennedy.com Michael W. Sobol (SBN 194857)
3 Bret D. Hembd (SBN 272826) msobol@lchb.com
bhembd@herrerakennedy.com Melissa Gardner (SBN 289096)
4 4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 mgardner@lchb.com
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Michael K. Sheen (SBN 288284)
5 Tel: (949) 936-0900 msheen@lchb.com
Fax: (855) 969-2050 Nicholas R. Hartmann (SBN 301049)
6
nhartmann@lchb.com
7 HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
Nicomedes Sy Herrera (SBN 275332) San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
8 nherrera@herrerakennedy.com Tel: (415) 956-1000
Laura E. Seidl (SBN 269891) Fax: (415) 956-1008
9 lseidl@herrerakennedy.com
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 BURNS CHAREST LLP
10
Oakland, CA 94612 Christopher J. Cormier (Pro Hac Vice)
11 Tel: (510) 422-4700 ccormier@burnscharest.com
Fax: (855) 969-2050 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
12 Washington, DC 20016
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & Tel: (202) 577-3977
13 BERNSTEIN, LLP Fax: (469) 444-5002
14 Rachel Geman (Pro Hac Vice)
rgeman@lchb.com
15 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
16 Tel: (212) 355-9500
Fax: (212) 355-9592
17
Co-Lead Class Counsel
18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
21
IN RE PLAID INC. PRIVACY Master Docket No.: 4:20-cv-03056-DMR
22 LITIGATION
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
23
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’
24 FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES,
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: AND PLAINTIFF SERVICE AWARDS
25 ALL ACTIONS
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 157-2 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 5
1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of
2 expenses, and plaintiff service awards. Having considered the motion, all exhibits and
3 attachments thereto, the record in this matter, the briefs and arguments of counsel, and the briefs
4 and arguments of objectors to the motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
5 ATTORNEYS’ FEES
6 1. The Court finds that Class Counsel are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. In re
7 Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 1994).
8 2. The Court finds that the percentage-of-recovery method of determining reasonable
9 attorneys’ fees is appropriate here, where the settlement creates a common fund. See In re
10 Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 570 (9th Cir. 2019); In re Bluetooth Headset
11 Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). Class Counsel’s fee request of
12 $14,500,000 is equal to the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark of 25% of the $58 million common fund.
13 Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989).
14 3. The Court has analyzed the reasonableness of Class Counsel’s fee request,
15 including by applying the non-exhaustive factors set forth in Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290
16 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002). First, the overall result and benefit to the Class from the Settlement
17 supports the requested fee because the amount of monetary relief provided to the Class here is
18 significant, particularly given that Class Members had no out-of-pocket damages, and the
19 settlement provides robust injunctive relief that will benefit the Class going forward. Second, this
20 case required skill and high quality work, which Class Counsel demonstrated throughout their
21 prosecution of this case. Class Counsel were appointed to lead this litigation because of their
22 qualifications, experience, and commitment to vigorously advocating on behalf of the Class.
23 Class Counsel’s substantial work on behalf of the Class involved, among other things: (1)
24 discovering the alleged misconduct; (2) investigating Plaid’s business practices and the Class’s
25 potential claims; (3) conducting legal research regarding and opposing Plaid’s motion to dismiss;
26 (4) opposing Plaid’s repeated attempts to stay discovery; (5) engaging in formal discovery with
27 Plaid, including a months-long meet and confer process that was necessary to push for relevant
28 documents and information; (6) seeking and obtaining valuable informal discovery from Plaid;
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
-1- MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 157-2 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 5
1 (7) negotiating a favorable settlement following nearly half a year of multiple mediation sessions
2 and protracted, arms-length negotiations; and (8) fulfilling Class Counsel’s various
3 responsibilities under the Settlement, including to seek preliminary and final approval of the
4 Settlement, to oversee Notice administration, and to respond to Class Member inquiries. Class
5 Counsel brought not only decades of experience in complex class action litigation, but also
6 extensive subject matter knowledge that allowed them to successfully address the privacy
7 breaches at issue, litigate novel and untested legal issues, and navigate and protect the critical
8 privacy interests at issue in this case. Third, this case entailed significant risks, including risks
9 related to certifying a class and prevailing on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Unlike many class
10 actions, moreover, this case did not result from the public revelation of a data breach, government
11 investigation, or similar event, but was instead the product of Class Counsel’s own independent
12 investigation into Plaid’s technology and business practices, resulting in their assertion of novel
13 claims. Fourth, Class Counsel handled this case on a purely contingent basis and agreed to
14 advance all necessary expenses, to the exclusion of other fee-generating work, knowing that they
15 would receive a fee and be reimbursed their expenses only if they obtained meaningful relief on a
16 class-wide basis. Fifth, a review of fee awards in other common fund cases underscores the
17 reasonableness of the fees requested. See, e.g., Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1047; In re Mego
18 Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended (June 19, 2000); In re
19 Lenovo Adware Litig., No. 15-md-2624, 2019 WL 1791420, *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019); In re
20 LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573, 590–91 (N.D. Cal. 2015); Lusby v. GameStop Inc.,
21 No. 12-3783, 2015 WL 1501095, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015); de Mira v. Heartland Emp’t
22 Serv., LLC, No. 12-4092, 2014 WL 1026282, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014); Valentine v.
23 NebuAd Inc., No. C 08-05113 TEH (LB), 2011 WL 13244509, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011);
24 Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc., No. 08-1520, 2009 WL 248367, at *7–8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2,
25 2009).
26 4. A lodestar cross-check further confirms that the requested fee is reasonable. See
27 Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050. The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours
28 reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Paul,
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
-2- MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 157-2 Filed 01/28/22 Page 4 of 5
1 Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989). Class Counsel’s billing
2 summaries comply with this Court’s guidelines for class action attorneys’ fee requests and
3 contain sufficient detail for the Court to conduct a lodestar-based assessment. These summaries
4 show that Class Counsel’s lodestar for work on this case through January 25, 2022 is
5 $4,406,158.50, representing 5,650 hours of attorney and law firm staff time. The Court also finds
6 that the time Class Counsel dedicated to prosecuting this action is reasonable, and that Class
7 Counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable, in line with those prevailing in this District for similar
8 services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.
9 5. The Court finds that Class Counsel’s fee request results in an acceptable multiplier
10 of Class Counsel’s lodestar. The benchmark 25% fee requested by Class Counsel reflects a
11 multiplier of 3.29 of Class Counsel’s lodestar, which “falls within the Ninth Circuit’s
12 presumptively acceptable range” of multipliers routinely approved in the Ninth Circuit and
13 elsewhere. Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 303 F.R.D. 326, 334 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing
14 Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051 & n.6). Thus, application of the lodestar multiplier cross-check
15 supports the reasonableness of Class Counsel’s requested fee.
16 6. For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that the requested fee award
17 is reasonable, and GRANTS attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $14,500,000.
18 LITIGATION EXPENSES
19 7. Class Counsel are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket costs
20 advanced for the Class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h); 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3); Paul, Johnson, 886
21 F.2d at 271. The Court finds that the expenses incurred in this litigation were reasonable and
22 necessary to the effective representation of the Class.
23 8. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement of
24 litigation expenses in the amount of $115,920.21.
25 SERVICE AWARDS
26 9. Service awards are “intended to compensate class representatives for work done on
27 behalf of the class [and] make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the
28 action.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2009). “The Ninth Circuit has
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
-3- MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 157-2 Filed 01/28/22 Page 5 of 5
1 repeatedly held that $5,000 is a reasonable amount for an incentive award.” Congdon v. Uber
2 Techs., Inc., No. 16-02499, 2019 WL 2327922, at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) (collecting cases).
3 10. The Court finds that the requested services awards for each of the eleven Class
4 Representatives are reasonable and appropriate. First, Class Representatives expended substantial
5 time and effort in assisting Class Counsel with the prosecution of the Class’s claims, including by
6 describing the details of their use of various fintech apps and interaction with the Plaid Link
7 interface; by searching for, reviewing and providing documents and information relevant to the
8 case; by preserving relevant documentation and evidence for discovery; and by staying abreast of
9 events in the litigation and providing their opinions on the proposed settlement. Second, without
10 Class Representatives’ willingness to take on the burdens associated with filing and prosecuting
11 this action, no recovery would have been possible. Because of their efforts, Plaid has committed
12 to pay a total of $58,000,000 and agreed to substantial injunctive relief. Third, the Court finds that
13 the amount requested for service awards compares favorably to the size of the settlement fund.
14 11. The Court therefore concludes that the requested service awards are reasonable
15 and GRANTS the requested awards of $5,000 for each of the eleven Class Representatives, for a
16 total of $55,000.
17
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20 Dated: _________________, 2022 ____________________________________
Hon. Donna M. Ryu
21 United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
-4- MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.359040.157.2.pdf
- Size
- 207,924 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4b9cacf58406ff8691a5aeb028b23f9483b6da375a51b402509db2a15ba7a134
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com