MOTION for Attorney Fees , Reimbursement of Expenses, and Plaintiff Service Awards filed by… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 157)

Summary

Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Plaintiff Service Awards, Document 157 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 caption lists a hearing date of May 12, 2022 at 1:00 p.m., by videoconference only. The table of contents lists an introduction, a background section (pre-litigation investigation, litigation before this court, mediation and settlement, and the relief obtained for the class), an argument section with headings on fees, reimbursement of expenses and service awards, and a conclusion. The signature blocks carry /s/ Rachel Geman and /s/ Christopher Cormier.

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

Record facts

Full text

MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
     
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
Shawn M. Kennedy (SBN 218472) 
skennedy@herrerakennedy.com 
Bret D. Hembd (SBN 272826) 
bhembd@herrerakennedy.com 
4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 
Newport Beach, CA 92660 
Tel: (949) 936-0900 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
Nicomedes Sy Herrera (SBN 275332) 
nherrera@herrerakennedy.com 
Laura E. Seidl (SBN 269891) 
lseidl@herrerakennedy.com 
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 
Oakland, CA 94612 
Tel: (510) 422-4700 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Rachel Geman (Pro Hac Vice) 
rgeman@lchb.com 
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor 
New York, NY 10013-1413 
Tel: (212) 355-9500 
Fax: (212) 355-9592 
Co-Lead Class Counsel 
[Additional counsel on signature page] 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &  
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Michael W. Sobol (SBN 194857) 
msobol@lchb.com 
Melissa Gardner (SBN 289096) 
mgardner@lchb.com 
Michael K. Sheen (SBN 288284) 
msheen@lchb.com 
Nicholas R. Hartmann (SBN 301049) 
nhartmann@lchb.com 
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 
Tel: (415) 956-1000 
Fax: (415) 956-1008 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
Christopher J. Cormier (Pro Hac Vice) 
ccormier@burnscharest.com 
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 
Washington, DC 20016 
Tel: (202) 577-3977 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
OAKLAND DIVISION 
IN RE PLAID INC. PRIVACY  
LITIGATION 
Master Docket No.: 4:20-cv-03056-DMR 
 
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, 
AND PLAINTIFF SERVICE AWARDS 
 
Date:  
May 12, 2022 
Time: 
1:00 p.m. 
Courtroom: Via videoconference only 
Judge: 
The Hon. Donna M. Ryu 
 
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:  
ALL ACTIONS 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 1 of 27

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page 
 
 
- i - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
I. 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 
II. 
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1 
A. 
Pre-Litigation Investigation ..................................................................................................... 2 
B. 
Litigation Before this Court ..................................................................................................... 2 
C. 
Mediation and Settlement ....................................................................................................... 3 
D. 
The Relief Obtained for the Class ............................................................................................. 4 
III. 
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 5 
A. 
Class Counsel’s Requested Fees are Reasonable and Appropriate ................................................... 5 
B. 
The Requested Reimbursement of Expenses is Reasonable and Appropriate ................................... 17 
C. 
The Requested Service Awards Are Reasonable and Appropriate ................................................. 17 
IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 18 
 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 2 of 27

 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
 
Page 
 
 
- ii - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
CASES 
Abante Rooter & Plumbing v. Pivotal Payments,  
 No. 3:16-cv-05486-JCS, 2018 WL 8949777 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018) ................................... 16 
Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. 12-270, 2014 WL 7247065 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014)..................... 14 
Beckman v. KeyBank, N.A., 293 F.R.D. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ...................................................... 17 
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) ........................................................................................... 15 
Campbell v. Facebook Inc.,  
 No. 13-05996, 2017 WL 3581179 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) .................................................. 16 
Carlotti v. Asus Comput. Int’l,  
 No. 18-CV-03369-DMR, 2020 WL 3414653 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2020) .................................. 15 
Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc.,  
 No. 16-02499, 2019 WL 2327922 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) ................................................... 17 
Craft v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ..................................... 16 
de Mira v. Heartland Emp’t Serv., LLC,  
 No. 12-4092, 2014 WL 1026282 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014) ..................................................... 13 
Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 303 F.R.D. 326 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................. 16 
Fowler v. Wells Fargo Bank,  
 No. 17-02092, 2019 WL 330910 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019) ...................................................... 17 
Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,  
 No. 8-1365, 2010 WL 1687832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) ......................................................... 6 
Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.,  
 No. 16-CV-05479-JST, 2018 WL 6619983 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) .................................... 16 
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) ............................................................................... 6, 14 
Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp.,  
 No. 11-cv-2786, 2013 WL 496358 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013) .................................................... 10 
In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,  
No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) ........................... 16, 18 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 3 of 27

 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
(continued) 
Page 
 
 
- iii - 
MEMO ISO MTN FOR PRELIM APP OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................... 5, 6, 10, 13 
In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig.,  
 No. 3:17-md-02801-JD, 2020 WL 6544472 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2020) ..................................... 15 
In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litig.,  
 MDL No. 2785, 2021 WL 5369798 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2021) ................................................... 15 
In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................ 5 
In re Intuit Data Litig.,  
 No. 15-CV-1778-EJD-SVK, 2019 WL 2166236 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2019) ............................ 16 
In re Lenovo Adware Litig., 2019 WL 1791420 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) .................................. 13 
In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................... 13 
In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., 2019 WL 3856413 (N.D. Cal Aug. 16, 2019) .......... 13 
In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ................................... 17 
In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................. 13, 18 
In re Omnivision Techs., Inc, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ................................ 6, 10, 12 
In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.,  
 No. 18-MD-2819 (NG) (LB), 2020 WL 6193857 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2020) .............................. 15 
In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 
No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2017 WL 1047834 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017) ....................................... 16 
In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) ................ 5, 10 
In re: High-tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.,  
 No. 11-2509, 2014 WL 10520478 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2014) ................................................... 18 
Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc.,  
 No. 8-1520, 2009 WL 248367 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009) ....................................................... 6, 13 
Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C.,  
 No. 1:14-CV-333, 2018 WL 6305785 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2018) .............................................. 16 
Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,  
 No. 96-3008, 1997 WL 450064 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 1997) .......................................................... 7 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 4 of 27

 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
(continued) 
Page 
 
 
- iv - 
MEMO ISO MTN FOR PRELIM APP OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Lusby v. GameStop Inc.,  
 No. 12-3783, 2015 WL 1501095 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015) ..................................................... 13 
Mendoza v. Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd,  
 No. 15-cv-01685-BLF, 2017 WL 342059 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017) .......................................... 5 
Moreno v. Cap. Bldg. Maint. & Cleaning Servs.,  
 No. 19-CV-07087-DMR, 2021 WL 4133860 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2021) .................................. 15 
Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................ 14, 17 
Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp.,  
 No. 13-cv-04303, 2016 WL 613255 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) ................................................ 16 
Rhom v. Thumbtack, Inc.,  
 No. 16-02008, 2017 WL 4642409 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017) ................................................... 18 
Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, No. 13-3889, 2015 WL 468329 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2015) ...................... 13 
Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................ 17 
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................... 7, 17 
Steiner v. Am. Broadcasting Co., 248 F. App’x 780 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................. 16 
Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc., 667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 18 
Valentine v. NebuAd Inc.,  
 No. C 08-05113 TEH (LB), 2011 WL 13244509 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) ........................... 13 
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................. passim 
Walsh v. Kindred Healthcare,  
 No. 11-50, 2013 WL 6623224 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) ........................................................... 9 
Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................... 14 
 
STATUTES 
18 U.S.C. § 1030 .............................................................................................................................. 3 
18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. ................................................................................................................. 2 
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. ......................................................................................... 2 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 5 of 27

 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
(continued) 
Page 
 
 
- v - 
MEMO ISO MTN FOR PRELIM APP OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Cal. Penal Code § 502 ...................................................................................................................... 3 
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22948 et seq. ........................................................................................... 3 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) ........................................................................................................................ 7 
 
OTHER AUTHORITIES 
California Constitution (Article I, Section I) ................................................................................... 3 
Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2004) ......................................... 7 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 6 of 27

 
 
 
- 1 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION1 
 
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 
 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 12, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., in Oakland, California via 
videoconference only, before The Honorable Donna M. Ryu, United States Magistrate Judge for 
the Northern District of California, Class Counsel Herrera Kennedy LLP (“HK”), Lieff Cabraser 
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (“LCHB”), and Burns Charest LLP (“BC”) will, and hereby do, move 
the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) for an order awarding: (1) attorneys’ 
fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $14,500,000; (2) reimbursement of litigation expenses of 
$115,920.21; and (3) Service Awards of $5,000 for each of the eleven Class Representatives in 
the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“CAC”) (Dkt. 61), for a total of $55,000. As 
discussed in the supporting memorandum, the requested awards are fair, reasonable and justified.  
This motion is brought pursuant to the Court’s November 19, 2021 Order on Motion for 
Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement (“Preliminary Approval Order”) (Dkt. 153), 
paragraphs 22 and 108 of the Agreement, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). The motion 
is based on this Notice of Motion and the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the 
Joint Declaration of Shawn M. Kennedy, Rachel Geman, and Christopher J. Cormier in Support 
of this motion; papers filed in support of preliminary approval; papers filed in support of final 
approval; any oral argument by counsel at the hearing before this Court; any papers filed in reply; 
all other papers and records in this matter; and such other matters as the Court may consider.   
 
 
1 Capitalized terms in this notice and the supporting memorandum have the same meanings as in 
the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement” or the “Settlement”) (Dkt. 138-1).  
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 7 of 27

 
 
 
- 1 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Class Counsel negotiated a highly favorable settlement providing substantial cash relief to 
the Class through a $58 million Settlement Fund and extensive injunctive relief requiring Plaid to 
implement wide-ranging business practice changes, delete improperly-collected data, and give 
consumers more protection and control over their private login information and financial data. 
Having aggressively investigated and litigated this case on a fully contingent basis for over two 
years, Class Counsel now move the Court for an award of $14,500,000 in attorneys’ fees, which 
represents 25% of the Settlement Fund and a multiplier of 3.29 on Class Counsel’s lodestar. Class 
Counsel also respectfully move the Court to award reimbursement of $115,920.21 in litigation 
expenses, and Service Awards totaling $55,000 for the eleven Class Representatives, out of the 
Settlement Fund.  
Plaintiffs’ fee request is equal to the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark for attorneys’ fees in 
common fund cases:  25% of the fund created for the benefit of the Class. See Vizcaino v. 
Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2002). Multiple factors strongly support the 
reasonableness of the request, including the excellent results achieved at day’s end, Class 
Counsel’s vigorous pursuit of novel and untested claims, and Class Counsel’s willingness to 
shoulder substantial risks while litigating this action on a purely contingent basis. The requested 
fees also are squarely within the accepted range of comparable cases and are further justified by a 
lodestar cross-check.  
For those reasons, and as discussed in detail below, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court 
to grant their fee and expense request and approve the requested Service Awards. 
II. 
BACKGROUND 
Plaid provides a service used by a variety of mobile and web-based applications 
(“apps”)—such as apps that allow users to transfer money—to connect to their users’ financial 
accounts. Plaintiffs allege that, in connection with this process, Plaid misled and violated Class 
Members’ privacy by obtaining data from their financial accounts without authorization, and by 
obtaining their bank login information through Plaid’s user interface (known as “Plaid Link”), 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 8 of 27

 
 
 
- 2 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
which Plaintiffs allege was designed to have the look and feel of a user’s own bank account login 
screen. (See CAC ¶¶ 37–40.) 
The following is a brief summary of Class Counsel’s considerable efforts in investigating 
and litigating this action on behalf of the Class, as well as the terms of the Settlement that resulted 
from those efforts.2 
A. 
Pre-Litigation Investigation 
Beginning in January 2020, Class Counsel undertook substantial efforts to investigate 
Plaid’s actions and potential claims on behalf of the Class.  Over the course of several months, 
Class Counsel meticulously discovered and gathered information about Plaid’s historical and 
current business practices, as well as the nature of its software and the privacy violations at issue, 
including by locating and reviewing numerous videos, message board posts, web pages, 
submissions to government regulators, podcasts, marketing materials, articles, and other 
publications. (August 5, 2021 Declaration of Shawn M. Kennedy (“Kennedy Decl.”) ¶ 4 (Dkt. 
138).) In addition, Class Counsel engaged a consultant to analyze Plaid’s software and better 
understand the software templates provided to Plaid clients and the security issues involved in 
transmitting login information through Plaid Link. (Id.)  
B. 
Litigation Before this Court 
Class Counsel’s investigation culminated in the original complaint filed in this action on 
May 4, 2020, Cottle et al. v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR (the “Cottle Action”). On July 
29, 2020, the Court consolidated the Cottle Action with four related actions (collectively, the 
“Action”) and appointed Class Counsel as interim class counsel. (Dkts. 51, 57.) On August 5, 
2020, consolidated Plaintiffs filed the CAC in the Action. (Dkt. 61.) 
On September 14, 2020, Plaid moved to dismiss the CAC. (Dkt. 78.) On April 30, 2021, 
the Court granted in part Plaid’s motion, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims for 
declaratory and injunctive relief and their claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 
U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.; Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; 
 
2 These items are discussed in more detail in Plaintiffs’ accompanying Motion for Final Approval. 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 9 of 27

 
 
 
- 3 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030; and Computer Data and Access Fraud Act, 
Cal. Penal Code § 502, and sustaining Plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy/intrusion into private affairs 
and unjust enrichment claims for a nationwide class, as well as their claims for deceit, violations 
of California Constitution (Article I, Section I), and violations of California’s Anti-Phishing Act 
of 2005 (“CAPA”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22948 et seq. for a California class. (Dkt. 125.)  
Plaintiffs sought and received significant discovery from Plaid both before and during 
settlement discussions. Plaintiffs then sought and received confirmatory discovery after reaching 
agreement on settlement terms with Plaid. Class Counsel served—and Plaid responded to—57 
document requests, 21 interrogatories, and 51 requests for admissions. (Kennedy Decl. ¶ 7.) 
Plaintiffs also commenced third-party discovery, having subpoenaed and started discussions with 
certain banks. (Id.) Discovery issues were highly contested and resulted in numerous telephonic 
and written meet-and-confers over the course of the Action. (Id. ¶¶ 5–9.) 
In response to formal and informal discovery requests, Plaid provided information, 
internal documents, and data concerning the nature and function of Plaid’s software and business 
practices during the class period, Plaid’s finances, and the size and scope of the putative class, 
among other things. (Id. ¶ 6.) This allowed Class Counsel to negotiate a fully-informed settlement 
maximizing the financial recovery available to the Class and providing important injunctive relief 
designed to remediate the practices underlying the alleged misconduct going forward, while 
avoiding litigation risks that were brought to light since the case began. 
C. 
Mediation and Settlement 
Between February and July 2021, the Parties engaged in lengthy and contentious arm’s-
length negotiations to resolve the claims in the Action. (Kennedy Decl. ¶ 10.) On February 16, 
2021, the Parties engaged in a full-day mediation session with the Hon. Jay Gandhi (ret.). (Id.)  
Prior to the mediation, the Parties prepared detailed mediation briefs outlining their positions on 
the strengths and weaknesses of the case and participated in a technology tutorial session with 
Judge Gandhi. (Id.) The Parties went into the mediation with substantially different positions 
relating to appropriate settlement terms and did not resolve the Action at the initial mediation. (Id. 
¶ 11.) For the next several months, while the Parties continued to litigate, they continued to 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 10 of 27

 
 
 
- 4 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
engage in the mediation process with Judge Gandhi, who helped bridge the gap between the 
Parties’ positions. (Id. ¶ 12.) These negotiations included another mediation session on April 13, 
2021. (Id. ¶ 13.) 
On June 7, 2021, Judge Gandhi made a mediator’s proposal for a class-wide settlement of 
$58 million subject to the Parties’ negotiation of, and agreement to, appropriate injunctive relief. 
Judge Gandhi’s recommendation was accepted by all Parties in a double-blind process on June 
11, 2021. (Id. ¶ 14.) Over the next six weeks, the Parties negotiated the terms of a long-form 
settlement agreement, including various types of significant injunctive relief. (Id.) These 
negotiations resulted in the Agreement, which was executed on July 30, 2021. (Id. ¶ 14 & 
Agreement.) 
D. 
The Relief Obtained for the Class 
The Settlement provides two independently valuable sources of relief to the Class: 
First, the Settlement creates a non-reversionary $58 million cash fund. Class Members 
will receive a claims-made pro rata payment after the deduction of settlement-related costs, 
including the expenses of the settlement administrator and the costs of notice to the Class, Service 
Awards, attorneys’ fee award and expense reimbursements, and any other costs approved by the 
Court. (Agreement ¶¶ 71–78.) 
Second, the Agreement includes robust injunctive relief addressing the complained-of 
conduct. Plaid has agreed to implement meaningful business practice changes designed to 
remediate alleged privacy violations, improve user control, and safeguard consumer privacy, 
including by:  (1) deleting certain transaction data from its systems; (2) informing Class Members 
of their ability to manage the connections made between their financial accounts and chosen 
applications using Plaid and to delete their data stored in Plaid’s systems; (3) continuing to 
include certain disclosures and features in Plaid Link; (4) minimizing the data Plaid stores; 
(5) enhancing disclosures in Plaid’s End User Privacy Policy about the categories of data Plaid 
collects, how Plaid uses data, and privacy controls Plaid has made available to users; and 
(6) continuing to host a dedicated webpage with detailed information about Plaid’s security 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 11 of 27

 
 
 
- 5 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
practices.3 (Agreement ¶¶ 53–70.) 
III. 
ARGUMENT 
Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees for Class Counsel in the amount of 25% of the Settlement 
Fund, reimbursement of Class Counsel’s litigation expenses, and Service Awards of $5,000 for 
each of the eleven Class Representatives. As discussed below, Plaintiffs’ fee request is reasonable 
under any applicable standard, especially given the outstanding relief obtained for the Class. 
Similarly, Class Counsel’s expenses were necessary to litigate this action, and the Service Awards 
properly compensate the Class Representatives for their role in reaching this Settlement. 
A. 
Class Counsel’s Requested Fees are Reasonable and Appropriate 
In common fund cases such as this one, the guiding principle is “the equitable notion that 
those who benefit from the creation of the fund should share the wealth with the lawyers whose 
skill and effort helped create it.” In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 
1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court has discretion to award attorneys’ fees either as a 
percentage of the common fund or based upon Class Counsel’s lodestar. In re Hyundai & Kia 
Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 570 (9th Cir. 2019). In the Ninth Circuit, the benchmark for a 
reasonable fee award as a percentage of the common fund is 25%. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. 
Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). Courts may also cross-check a fee award by using 
both methods. See Mendoza v. Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd, No. 15-cv-01685-BLF, 2017 WL 
342059, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017). 
Here, Class Counsel seek fees equal to the benchmark, or 25% of the $58,000,000 
Settlement Fund, without accounting for the independent value of the Settlement’s substantial 
injunctive relief. This request is reasonable, particularly in light of Ninth Circuit law regarding 
attorneys’ fees in class cases that is designed to ensure that counsel have proper incentives to take 
on difficult cases and pursue class members’ best interests. See Washington Pub. Power Supply, 
19 F.3d at 1299. Class Counsel respectfully submit that, in light of the excellent results reached 
 
3 See also Preliminary Approval Order at 6-8, 20 (describing “the robust injunctive relief that will 
benefit the class, including Plaid’s deletion of Class Members’ data where the connected 
application did not request the data and for users for whom Plaid no longer has valid means to 
authenticate with the financial institution”). 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 12 of 27

 
 
 
- 6 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
by Class Counsel in the Settlement, their successful work in prosecuting novel and untested 
claims on a pure contingency basis in this action, and the significant risks undertaken in the 
process, application of the benchmark percentage is eminently reasonable. 
Class Counsel’s fee request also is well supported by a lodestar cross-check because it 
represents a lodestar multiplier of 3.29 at Class Counsel’s customary hourly rates, which is well 
within the range for such multipliers established by the Ninth Circuit. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 
1051 & n.6. 
1. 
The Request Is Warranted Under the Percentage-of-the-Fund Method 
The Ninth Circuit’s benchmark fee in a common fund case is 25% of the fund created.  
Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1047. A court should depart from the benchmark only if there are “special 
circumstances” justifying the departure. Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942 (citations omitted). In fact, 
courts in the Ninth Circuit often award fees that exceed the 25% benchmark. See, e.g., Vizcaino, 
290 F.3d at 1050 (affirming 28% award); In re Omnivision Techs., Inc, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 
1047 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“[I]n most common fund cases, the award exceeds that [25%] 
benchmark.”); Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 8-1365, 2010 WL 1687832, at *18 
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) (granting 30% award); Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc., No. 8-1520, 
2009 WL 248367, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009) (same). As a result, as this Court noted, Class 
Counsel’s request for 25% of the Settlement Fund is “presumptively reasonable.” (Preliminary 
Approval Order at 28.) 
Courts in the Ninth Circuit consider a number of factors in determining whether there is 
any basis to deviate from the benchmark, including:  (a) the results achieved; (b) the risks of 
contingency representation; (c) the complexities of the case and skill and effort required of 
counsel; and (d) awards in similar cases. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048–50. These factors 
confirm that there is no basis for a downward departure from the benchmark.  
a. 
Class Counsel Achieved an Outstanding Result 
The “most critical factor” in the Court’s analysis is the strength of the result achieved by 
Class Counsel in the Settlement. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983); 
Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1046; see also Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 13 of 27

 
 
 
- 7 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Litigation, § 21.71, p. 336 (4th ed. 2004) (the “fundamental focus is the result actually achieved 
for class members”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) committee note). The sizeable monetary relief 
provided to the Class in the Settlement Fund alone is sufficient to show the strength of the result 
achieved in the Settlement. But when the Court further considers the wide-ranging injunctive 
relief to which Plaid is bound under the Agreement, the conclusion is clear:  the Settlement is an 
outstanding result for the Class that amply supports the reasonableness of the requested fees. 
Monetary Relief:  The Settlement requires Plaid to pay $58,000,000 into a non-
reversionary Settlement Fund. As this Court noted, based upon the estimated size of the Class and 
the anticipated claims rate, Class Members stand to receive approximately $10 to $39 per person. 
(Preliminary Approval Order at 20.) The Settlement Fund not only is objectively large for a 
privacy class action where the Class Members had no out-of-pocket damages, but it also 
“compares favorably with other settlements that have been approved in privacy cases in this 
district.” (Id. at 21 (collecting cases).)  
Injunctive Relief:  The Settlement also provides robust injunctive relief that will benefit 
the Class going forward. Where, as here, a settlement achieves significant benefits that are not 
accounted for in the dollar value of the common settlement fund, the court “should consider the 
value of [such] relief obtained as a ‘relevant circumstance’ in determining what percentage of the 
common fund class counsel should receive as attorneys’ fees.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 
938, 974 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1049 (affirming enhanced fee award 
where “the court found that counsel’s performance generated benefits beyond the cash settlement 
fund”); Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, No. 96-3008, 1997 WL 450064, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 
18, 1997), aff’d, 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) (granting fee award of one-third of common fund 
where settlement provided additional non-monetary relief).  
The following injunctive relief provisions highlight the great value the Settlement 
provides to the Class:  
• Deletion of Data. One of the primary wrongful acts alleged was Plaid’s collection of 
highly detailed consumer banking data as a matter of course when it connected to a 
consumer’s account, regardless of whether the consumer’s app needed or requested that 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 14 of 27

 
 
 
- 8 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
data. (See CAC ¶¶ 48–58.) The Settlement provides direct remediation for those wrongs 
by requiring Plaid to delete data it collected when an app did not request that data. 
(Agreement ¶ 63.) It also requires Plaid to delete data for users that Plaid has no means to 
authenticate with the bank. (Id.) 
• Data Minimization. Similarly, the Settlement requires Plaid to minimize the data it 
collects and stores from consumers’ financial accounts moving forward:  Plaid will collect 
and store only the data that an app specifically requests from Plaid or that is necessary for 
Plaid to offer its services, unless the user expressly consents to the retrieval of additional 
data fields. (Agreement ¶¶ 60–62.) 
• Enhanced Disclosures. Another of the primary wrongful acts complained of in this action 
was Plaid’s allegedly deceptive collection of consumers’ private bank login information 
through the use of screens in its interface that mimicked bank login websites, as well as 
through allegedly insufficient or misleading disclosures. (See CAC ¶¶ 32–47.) The 
Settlement directly addresses those issues by requiring Plaid, among other things, to 
explicitly state that users’ credentials are being “provided to Plaid,” to refrain from using 
banks’ color schemes on its login screens, and to include express and conspicuous 
disclosures about Plaid’s role in the account connection process. (Agreement ¶ 56.) 
• Privacy Policy. Similarly, the Settlement requires Plaid to enhance disclosures in its 
privacy policy to provide more detailed information about Plaid’s data collection, storage, 
use, sharing, and deletion practices. (Agreement ¶ 53.) 
• End-User Controls. The Settlement also requires Plaid to provide consumers with 
enhanced controls over the privacy of their banking data and login information. Plaid has 
agreed to provide prominent references to its Plaid Portal, through which consumers, 
including Class Members, can view and manage the connections that have been made 
between apps and their financial accounts using Plaid. Importantly, Class Members can 
also delete their financial data stored in Plaid’s systems. (Agreement ¶¶ 58–59.) 
Class members and other consumers across the country will substantially benefit from this 
injunctive relief, especially given the ubiquity of Plaid’s software in the fintech universe.  
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 15 of 27

 
 
 
- 9 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
If the value of these benefits were considered, it would “reduce[] the overall percentage of 
fees” that Class Counsel is requesting. Walsh v. Kindred Healthcare, No. 11-50, 2013 WL 
6623224, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) (approving fee request of 30% of the common fund; 
finding that the request was effectively reduced by the “substantial injunctive relief” obtained 
through the settlement). Class Counsel respectfully submit that the Settlement’s monetary and 
injunctive relief both provide strong support for their fee request.  
b. 
This Action Entailed Significant Risk 
As this Court concluded in preliminarily approving the Settlement, there is “significant 
risk to individual and class recovery if the case were to proceed further in litigation,” including 
risks related to certifying a class of tens of millions of consumers who used different apps and 
different financial institutions, where there were differences in those actors’ practices and 
disclosures over time. (Preliminary Approval Order at 18–19.) There also was significant risk that 
Plaid would prevail on the merits at any stage of litigation, perhaps most notably in relation to 
Plaintiffs’ claim for violations of the “relatively untested” CAPA statute, which is the sole 
remaining claim with statutory damages. (Id. at 19.) Class Counsel pursued claims under CAPA 
in the absence of clear guidance on issues such as whether the statute applies to business activities 
like Plaid’s and whether Class Members were “adversely affected” by Plaid’s practices within the 
meaning of the statute.  
This action entailed additional risk for Class Counsel because, unlike many class actions, 
this case did not result from the public revelation of a data breach, government investigation, or 
similar event.  In those latter scenarios, class counsel typically bear a lower risk because they do 
not carry the burden of investigating all the facts, and because public pressure from news of the 
event frequently provides additional incentive for the defendant to settle a parallel class action. In 
this case, however, Class Counsel detected and investigated Plaid’s actions themselves, including 
retaining a consultant to assist with understanding various aspects of Plaid’s technology. (See 
Joint Declaration of Shawn M. Kennedy, Rachel Geman, and Christopher J. Cormier In Support 
of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Plaintiff Service 
Awards, filed concurrently herewith (“Joint Decl.”) ¶¶ 6–8.) Class Counsel then came up with 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 16 of 27

 
 
 
- 10 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
novel claims based on the fruits of their investigation, all of which led to the filing of the Action 
and, ultimately, the favorable Settlement. In short, this was an exceptionally risky action for Class 
Counsel to pursue, further underscoring the reasonableness of the fee request. See Bluetooth, 654 
F.3d at 942 (the “complexity and novelty of the issues presented” may enhance the 
reasonableness of the fee request). Class Counsel also submit that in cases like this where alleged 
wrongdoing that may have otherwise remained hidden is uncovered and remedied by counsel’s 
independent investigation, the Court should not hesitate to appropriately award counsel for 
providing an important public service. 
c. 
Compensation was 100% Contingent on the Outcome 
The public is served by rewarding attorneys who assume representation of their interests 
on a contingent basis with an enhanced fee to compensate them for the risk that they might be 
paid nothing for their work. See Washington Pub. Power Supply, 19 F.3d at 1299 (“Contingent 
fees that may far exceed the market value of the services if rendered on a non-contingent basis are 
accepted in the legal profession as a legitimate way of assuring competent representation for 
plaintiffs who could not afford to pay on an hourly basis regardless whether they win or lose.”); 
Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051. Class Counsel prosecuted this case on a purely contingent basis and 
agreed to advance all necessary expenses, to the exclusion of other fee-generating work, knowing 
that they would receive a fee and be reimbursed their expenses only if they obtained meaningful 
relief on a class-wide basis. (Joint Decl. ¶ 49.) In so doing, Class Counsel faced a well-funded 
corporate defendant who hired preeminent, experienced law firms to mount a vigorous defense. 
This factor likewise supports Class Counsel’s fee request. See Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp., No. 
11-cv-2786, 2013 WL 496358, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013) (finding higher fee award justified 
where “[t]his case was conducted on an entirely contingent fee basis against a well-represented 
Defendant”). 
d. 
The Skill and Quality of Work Support the Requested Fees 
The effort and skill displayed by Class Counsel and the complexity of the issues involved 
are additional factors used in determining a proper fee. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048; Omnivision, 
559 F. Supp. 2d at 1046–47. Class Counsel here consisted of a team of three law firms led by 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 17 of 27

 
 
 
- 11 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
highly skilled attorneys who were appointed to lead this litigation because of their qualifications, 
experience, and commitment to the prosecution of this case. (See Dkts. 57 & 153.) Class 
Counsel’s vigorous advocacy on behalf of the Class involved, among other things:  
(1) discovering the alleged misconduct; (2) investigating Plaid’s business practices and the 
Class’s potential claims; (3) conducting legal research regarding and opposing Plaid’s motion to 
dismiss; (4) opposing Plaid’s repeated attempts to stay discovery; (5) engaging in formal 
discovery with Plaid, including a months-long meet and confer process that was necessary to push 
for relevant documents and information; (5) seeking and obtaining valuable informal discovery 
from Plaid; (6) negotiating a favorable settlement following nearly half a year of multiple 
mediation sessions and protracted, arms-length negotiations; and (7) fulfilling Class Counsel’s 
various responsibilities under the Settlement, including to seek preliminary and final approval of 
the Settlement, to oversee Notice administration, and to respond to Class Member inquiries. (Joint 
Decl. ¶¶ 6–33, 36–50.)   
Class Counsel initially demonstrated the skill and quality of their work in the investigation 
of this case and preparation of the original complaint. Over the course of several months, they 
analyzed voluminous, wide-ranging materials and gathered a detailed factual record of Plaid’s 
historic and current business practices, software, and disclosures. (Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4; Joint Decl. 
¶¶ 6–8.) Class Counsel brought to the task not only decades of experience in complex class action 
litigation, but also extensive subject matter knowledge that allowed them to uncover the privacy 
breaches at issue. (Dkts. 51-1, 51-2, 51-3.) That investigation resulted in an 82-page complaint 
replete with detailed allegations and quotations drawn from a host of sources. (Dkt. 1.)  
The skill and quality of Class Counsel’s work was further borne out over the course of 
litigating this action. This was no cookie-cutter case. As discussed above, Class Counsel were 
required to litigate novel and untested legal issues. Through a contentious discovery process, they 
did a deep dive into the nature and function of Plaid’s software and business practices, Plaid’s 
finances, and issues related to the size and scope of the Class. (Kennedy Decl. ¶ 6; Joint Decl. 
¶¶ 14–24.) Plaintiffs served and Plaid responded to 57 document requests, 21 interrogatories, and 
51 requests for admission. (Kennedy Decl. ¶ 7.) In response, Plaid produced over 12,000 pages of 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 18 of 27

 
 
 
- 12 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
documents, including internal policies and procedures, agreements, correspondence, investigatory 
materials, client lists, and detailed financial information. (Id.) Plaintiffs also commenced third-
party discovery, having subpoenaed and started discussions with certain banks. (Id.) A number of 
discovery-related disputes arose over the course of the litigation. Each was highly contested, and 
over the span of several months, through dozens of written and telephonic communications, the 
parties met and conferred to narrow and reach agreement as to several disputes. (Id. ¶ 8; Joint 
Decl. ¶¶ 18–20.) At the same time, Class Counsel worked with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee 
to respond to Plaid’s discovery requests to the named Plaintiffs. In anticipation of additional 
requests, Class Counsel also engaged a forensics consultant to properly preserve and analyze the 
data on Plaintiffs’ personal mobile devices. (Kennedy Decl. ¶ 8.) As a result, Class Counsel were 
able to negotiate a fully-informed settlement that both maximizes the financial recovery available 
to the Class and includes robust injunctive relief provisions tailored to remediating the alleged 
wrongful business practices. 
Moreover, a high degree of competence was required to navigate and protect the critical 
privacy issues in this case. At stake was the privacy and protection of consumers’ personal bank 
login information, as well as consumers’ ability to protect and control the transactional banking 
information that revealed the intimate details of their spending, savings, borrowing, investing, and 
credit histories. Class Counsel’s skill and expertise were pitted against a heavily-resourced 
defendant that had powerful incentives to obtain rulings that were both favorable to its business 
practices and position in the fintech industry, and unfavorable to the privacy rights of consumers.  
Prosecuting and ultimately favorably resolving this case required the creativity, hard work 
and perseverance of Class Counsel. The end result is proof positive of Class Counsel’s efforts:  a 
$58,000,000 Settlement Fund and sweeping injunctive relief. The skill and expertise reflected in 
this outcome clearly support Class Counsel’s request for benchmark fees.  
e. 
Fee Awards in Comparable Cases Support the Requested Fees 
A review of fee awards in other common fund cases underscores the reasonableness of the 
fees requested. Indeed, Class Counsel’s requested fees are equal to or less than the fees frequently 
awarded in class actions. See, e.g. Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1047 (“in most common fund 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 19 of 27

 
 
 
- 13 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
cases, the award exceeds that [25%] benchmark.”); In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 
454, 463 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended (June 19, 2000) (affirming fee award of one third of 
common fund); In re Lenovo Adware Litig., 2019 WL 1791420, *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) 
(awarding fees of 30% of common fund in privacy class action, and finding “that the percentage 
requested is consistent with other awards in this district in comparable cases”); In re LinkedIn 
User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573, 590–91 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (awarding fees to class counsel in 
privacy class action settlement in the amount of “the Ninth Circuit’s established benchmark of 
25%” even though “the Court disagrees that this action posed a substantial risk and required 
significant time and skill to obtain a result for the class”); Lusby v. GameStop Inc., No. 12-3783, 
2015 WL 1501095, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015) (awarding fee of one-third of common fund); 
de Mira v. Heartland Emp’t Serv., LLC, No. 12-4092, 2014 WL 1026282, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 
13, 2014) (awarding fee of 28% of common fund); Valentine v. NebuAd Inc., No. C 08-05113 
TEH (LB), 2011 WL 13244509, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) (finding 30% of common fund 
award for attorneys’ fees warranted in privacy and consumer data case). Knight, 2009 WL 
248367, at *7–8 (awarding 30% of common fund).  
In light of the foregoing, Class Counsel respectfully submit that their fee request is 
reasonable and fair under the percentage-of-the-fund method.  
2. 
Class Counsel’s Fee Request Is Supported By a Lodestar Cross-Check 
“Because the benefit to the class is easily quantified in common-fund settlements,” the 
Ninth Circuit permits district courts “to award attorneys a percentage of the common fund in lieu 
of the often more time-consuming task of calculating the lodestar.” Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942. 
Thus, “the primary basis of the fee award remains the percentage method,” with the lodestar used 
“as a cross-check on the reasonableness of a percentage figure.” In re Lithium Ion Batteries 
Antitrust Litig., 2019 WL 3856413, at *7 (N.D. Cal Aug. 16, 2019) (quoting Vizcaino, 290 F.3d 
at 1050 & n.5). As “merely a cross-check on the reasonableness of a percentage figure,” Vizcaino, 
290 F.3d at 1050 n.5, “[t]he lodestar crosscheck need not entail either mathematical precision or 
bean counting.” Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, No. 13-3889, 2015 WL 468329, at *21 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 
3, 2015) (citation and internal punctuation omitted); accord Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., No. 12-270, 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 20 of 27

 
 
 
- 14 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
2014 WL 7247065, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014). 
The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the 
litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. 
Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989). Class Counsel’s Joint Declaration sets out the hours 
of work and billing rates used to calculate the lodestar here, including a tabulation of the hours 
spent on various categories of activities related to this action. (Joint Decl. ¶¶ 3–4, 36–47, Exs. A–
C.)4 Class Counsel have devoted a total of approximately 5,626.5 hours to this litigation and have 
a total lodestar to date of approximately $4,394,236. (Id. ¶ 3.) These submitted hours do not, 
however, include every hour reported, even by Class Counsel. They do not include timekeepers 
from Class Counsel who billed less than 10 total hours. (Id. ¶ 48.) They also do not include time 
from other counsel representing named Plaintiffs, who made contributions to the Action, but 
collectively submitted a relatively small number of hours compared to Class Counsel. (Id.) The 
above amounts also do not include the additional time that Class Counsel will spend going 
forward in seeking approval of, and implementing, the Settlement, including responding to 
inquiries from Class Members and overseeing distribution of the Settlement Fund. (Id.) Based on 
prior experience, these responsibilities may require a significant further time commitment from 
Class Counsel. (Id.) If there are objections to the Settlement and subsequent appeals, those 
commitments and responsibilities may extend for several more years. (Id.) 
The time Class Counsel dedicated to prosecuting this action is reasonable. Class Counsel 
were able to secure a highly favorable settlement, prosecuting the claims at issue efficiently and 
effectively through a hard-fought motion to dismiss, a contentious discovery process, and months 
of settlement negotiations. There should be no real question that the hours expended here were 
necessary.  
 
4 See Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 827 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Testimony of 
an attorney as to the number of hours worked on a particular case is sufficient evidence to support 
an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records.”) (internal quotations 
omitted); see also Northern District of California Procedural Guidance for Class Action 
Settlements (“Declarations of class counsel as to the number of hours spent on various categories 
of activities related to the action by each biller, together with hourly billing rate information may 
be sufficient, provided that the declarations are adequately detailed.”). 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 21 of 27

 
 
 
- 15 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Furthermore, Class Counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable.  Class Counsel are experienced, 
highly regarded members of the bar. (Joint Declaration ¶¶ 54–59, 61–70, 72–75.) They have 
brought to this case extensive experience in consumer class actions and complex litigation, as 
well as subject matter expertise in data privacy and technology. (Id.) The Court does not need to 
determine that the exact rates requested by Class Counsel are reasonable, but only that they fall 
within “the range of reasonableness required to use the lodestar figure as a cross check.” Moreno 
v. Cap. Bldg. Maint. & Cleaning Servs., No. 19-CV-07087-DMR, 2021 WL 4133860, at *6 (N.D. 
Cal. Sep. 10, 2021) (citation omitted).  
In assessing the reasonableness of an attorney’s hourly rate, courts consider their 
qualifications, as well as whether the claimed rate is “in line with those prevailing in the 
community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and 
reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). This Court has found that similar 
hourly rates as those charged by Class Counsel were appropriate for firms practicing in the 
Northern District. See Carlotti v. Asus Comput. Int’l, No. 18-CV-03369-DMR, 2020 WL 
3414653, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2020) (finding that rates of $900 per hour, $950 per hour, and 
$1,025 per hour were reasonable in the Northern District). Courts within this District and 
elsewhere have approved Class Counsel’s customary rates at those times. See Joint Declaration ¶¶ 
60, 71, 76; In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust 
Litig., MDL No. 2785, 2021 WL 5369798, at *4–5 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2021) (granting requested 
attorney fees representing specified multiplier of hourly rates of Burns Charest and other co-lead 
counsel in class action settlement); In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 3:17-md-02801-JD, 
2020 WL 6544472, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2020) (approving HK partner’s fees at prior firm 
as part of total award of $69.6 million in fees); In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic 
Emulsion) Antitrust Litig., No. 18-MD-2819 (NG) (LB), 2020 WL 6193857, at *5–6 (E.D.N.Y. 
Oct. 6, 2020) (approving HK partner’s fees at prior firm as part of total award of $16.4 million in 
fees); In re Intuit Data Litig., No. 15-CV-1778-EJD-SVK, 2019 WL 2166236, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 
May 15, 2019) (approving fees based on LCHB rates); In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 
15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) (approving fees based 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 22 of 27

 
 
 
- 16 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
on LCHB rates); Campbell v. Facebook Inc., No. 13-05996, 2017 WL 3581179, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 
Aug. 18, 2017) (granting motion for attorneys’ fees to LCHB in privacy litigation); In re 
Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 
2017 WL 1047834, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017) (approving fees based on LCHB rates); 
Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 13-cv-04303, 2016 WL 613255, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) 
(approving LCHB rates and granting motion for attorneys’ fees).  
The final aspect of the lodestar cross-check is the risk multiplier. Here, the benchmark 
25% fee requested by Class Counsel reflects a multiplier of 3.29 of Class Counsel’s lodestar, 
which “falls within the Ninth Circuit’s presumptively acceptable range of 1.0–4.0.” Dyer v. Wells 
Fargo Bank, N.A., 303 F.R.D. 326, 334 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051 & 
n.6). Indeed, multipliers within (and even beyond) that “presumptively acceptable” range are 
routinely approved in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere. See,e.g., Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051 & n.6 
(affirming a 3.65 lodestar multiplier and citing appendix of cases showing “a range of 0.6-19.6, 
with most . . . from 1.0-4.0 and a bare majority . . . in the 1.5-3.0 range”); Hefler v. Wells Fargo 
& Co., No. 16-CV-05479-JST, 2018 WL 6619983, at *13–14 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) 
(approving fee resulting in a lodestar multiplier of 3.22); Abante Rooter & Plumbing v. Pivotal 
Payments, No. 3:16-cv-05486-JCS, 2018 WL 8949777, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018) (affirming 
2.7 lodestar multiplier as “reasonable and well within the range of average lodestars awarded in 
this circuit”); see also Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., No. 1:14-CV-333, 2018 WL 6305785, 
at *5–6 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2018) (approving 4.39 lodestar multiplier and citing approved 
multipliers ranging “from 2 to 4.5,” as well as a list of “54 cases with multipliers over 3.5”). 
In fact, courts have approved significantly higher lodestar multipliers. Steiner v. Am. 
Broadcasting Co., 248 F. App’x 780, 783 (9th Cir. 2007) (multiplier of 6.85 was “well within the 
range of multipliers that courts have allowed”); Craft v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 624 F. Supp. 2d 
1113, 1125 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (noting “ample authority” for a multiplier of 5.2 and collecting cases 
with substantially higher multipliers); Beckman v. KeyBank, N.A., 293 F.R.D. 467, 481 (S.D.N.Y. 
2013) (“Courts regularly award lodestar multipliers of up to eight times the lodestar, and in some 
cases, even higher multipliers.”) (citing Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1052–54).  
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 23 of 27

 
 
 
- 17 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Application of the lodestar multiplier cross-check thus further supports the reasonableness 
of Class Counsel’s requested fee. 
B. 
The Requested Reimbursement of Expenses is Reasonable and Appropriate  
Class Counsel also are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket costs 
advanced for the Class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h); 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3); Paul, Johnson, 886 
F.2d at 271. Class Counsel and the other law firms representing Plaintiffs in this action have 
incurred total out-of-pocket expenses of $115,920.21. (Joint Declaration, ¶¶ 77–78, Ex. D.)  
Significant costs included, inter alia, consultant fees, mediation charges, and other customary 
litigation expenses. (Id., ¶ 78, Ex. D.) Payment of these expenses was necessary to advance, and 
ultimately, to resolve this litigation. See also In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 
1362, 1367–72 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (costs related to retention of experts, photocopy costs, postage, 
telephone costs, computerized legal research fees, and filing fees are appropriate to reimburse).  
C. 
The Requested Service Awards Are Reasonable and Appropriate 
Class Counsel seek Service Awards of $5,000 for each of the eleven Plaintiffs named in 
the CAC, for a total of $55,000. “[N]amed plaintiffs, as opposed to designated class members 
who are not named plaintiffs, are eligible for reasonable incentive payments.” Staton, 327 F.3d at 
977; Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2009) (service awards “are fairly 
typical in class action cases”). Such awards are “intended to compensate class representatives for 
work done on behalf of the class [and] make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in 
bringing the action.” Id. “The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that $5,000 is a reasonable 
amount for an incentive award.” Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 16-02499, 2019 WL 2327922, 
at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) (collecting cases); Fowler v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 17-02092, 
2019 WL 330910, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019) (same).  
The requested Service Awards of $5,000 for each of eleven Class Representatives are 
reasonable and appropriate here. First, the Class Representatives have expended substantial time 
and effort in assisting Class Counsel with the prosecution of the Class’s claims, including by 
describing the details of their use of various fintech apps and interaction with the Plaid Link 
interface; by searching for, reviewing and providing documents and information relevant to the 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 24 of 27

 
 
 
- 18 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
case; by preserving relevant documentation and evidence for discovery; and by staying abreast of 
events in the litigation and providing their opinions on the proposed settlement. (See Joint Decl., 
Ex. E.)  
Second, the Class Representatives should be rewarded for their “public service of 
contributing to the enforcement of mandatory laws.” Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 333 
n.65 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation omitted). Without the Class Representatives’ 
willingness to take on the burdens associated with filing and prosecuting this action, no recovery 
would have been possible. Because the Class Representatives came forward to assert rights that 
are common to all Class members, Plaid has committed to pay a total of $58,000,000 and agreed 
to injunctive relief tailored to remediate the wrongs complained of in this lawsuit, as well as to 
enhance the privacy protections of every member of the Class as well as users of fintech apps 
generally.  
Third, the requested service awards are appropriate when compared to the recovery 
achieved. In assessing the reasonableness of a request for service awards, the Court may compare 
the request against the size of the settlement fund. See, e.g., Mego, 213 F.3d at 457 (approving 
incentive awards of $5,000 each to two class representatives in $1.725 million settlement, which 
collectively comprised 0.56% of total settlement); In re: High-tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-
2509, 2014 WL 10520478, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2014) (approving “modest” service awards 
that represented 0.4% of recovery); Anthem, 2018 WL 3960068, at *31 (0.52% of recovery); see 
also Rhom v. Thumbtack, Inc., No. 16-02008, 2017 WL 4642409, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017) 
(“A $5,000 award also equals approximately 1-2% of the total settlement fund, which is 
consistent with other court-approved enhancements.”). Here, the requested Service Awards, 
totaling $55,000, collectively represent 0.09% of the $58,000,000 Settlement Fund. Plaintiffs’ 
request is reasonable and appropriate.  
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this 
motion in its entirety, and award (1) attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel in the amount of 
$14,500,000; (2) reimbursement of litigation expenses of $115,920.21; and (3) Service Awards of 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 25 of 27

 
 
 
- 19 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
$5,000 for each of the Class Representatives, for a total of $55,000.  
 
Dated: January 28, 2022 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
 
By: /s/ Shawn Kennedy 
 
Shawn M. Kennedy 
Shawn M. Kennedy (SBN 218472) 
skennedy@herrerakennedy.com  
Bret D. Hembd (SBN 272826) 
bhembd@herrerakennedy.com  
4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 
Newport Beach, CA 92660 
Telephone: (949) 936-0900 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
Nicomedes Sy Herrera (SBN 275332) 
nherrera@herrerakennedy.com 
Laura E. Seidl (SBN 269891) 
lseidl@herrerakennedy.com 
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 
Oakland, CA 94612 
Telephone: (510) 422-4700 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
 
By: /s/ Rachel Geman            
       Rachel Geman 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Rachel Geman (Pro Hac Vice) 
rgeman@lchb.com 
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor 
New York, NY 10013-1413 
Tel: (212) 355-9500 
Fax: (212) 355-9592 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 26 of 27

 
 
 
- 20 - 
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT  
OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &  
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Michael W. Sobol (SBN 194857) 
msobol@lchb.com 
Melissa Gardner (SBN 289096) 
mgardner@lchb.com 
Michael K. Sheen (SBN 288284) 
msheen@lchb.com 
Nicholas R. Hartmann (SBN 301049) 
nhartmann@lchb.com 
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 
Tel: (415) 956-1000 
       Fax: (415) 956-1008 
 
 
 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Christopher Cormier  
 
 
Christopher J. Cormier 
 
Christopher J. Cormier (Pro Hac Vice) 
ccormier@burnscharest.com 
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20016 
Tel: (202) 577-3977 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
 
 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
Warren T. Burns (Pro Hac Vice) 
wburns@burnscharest.com 
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 
Dallas, TX 75202 
Tel: (469) 904-4550 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
 
Co-Lead Class Counsel  
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 157   Filed 01/28/22   Page 27 of 27

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.157.0.pdf

Size

435,740 bytes

SHA-256

5ff19c0c8ad2fc10e6e5ed9ae78f895cdc657ce8247a349a8e296a4f78aa84bb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.157.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com