Evangeline Red v. Kraft Foods Inc., 680 F. App'x 597

Plaintiffs Evangeline Red and Rachel Whitt sued Kraft under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and other theories, sought class certification (denied three times), and obtained only a narrow stipulated injunction against certain packaging phrases; no liability finding or product reformulation resulted.
Plaintiffs sought approximately $3.3 million in attorneys’ fees under the CLRA and California’s private attorney general statute; the district court awarded $101,702.38 initially.
Plaintiffs renewed a fee motion seeking about $1.9 million; the district court awarded an additional $11,368.25 after reductions.
The district court applied blended hourly rates ($550 partners/senior associates; $352 junior associates; $211.66 clerks/paralegals) and substantially cut the requested hours and totals as excessive relative to the limited success achieved.
The court also applied a negative multiplier (0.75) to address excessive billing practices and denied duplicative requests raised in the renewed motion.
Plaintiffs appealed the fee awards; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding no clear error in factual findings and no abuse of discretion in the fee reductions or rate choices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fee award was excessive given limited success	Red/Whitt argued fees were reasonable for work performed and necessary to obtain injunction and settlement	Kraft argued plaintiffs achieved very limited success; fees should be drastically reduced	Court affirmed large reduction to $101,702.38 as reasonable given limited success
Appropriate hourly rates (blended rates)	Plaintiffs argued rates used should be market-based but challenged some aspects	Kraft supported blended market-rate averages	Court approved blended rates ($550/$352/$211.66) as reasonable in Central District of CA
Whether renewed fee motion duplicated earlier requests/was excessive	Plaintiffs sought additional fees (~$1.9M) largely overlapping prior submissions	Kraft argued renewed motion duplicated considered requests and was excessive	Court affirmed denial of duplicative items and awarded $11,368.25 after reductions
Use of multiplier to penalize billing practices	Plaintiffs opposed negative multiplier for billing practices	Kraft supported multiplier to address egregious billing	Court affirmed use of a 0.75 negative multiplier to reflect excessive billing practices

Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892 (9th Cir.) (appellate jurisdiction for fee appeals)
Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for fee awards)
Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 224 P.3d 41 (Cal.) (reducing fees appropriate where success is limited)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (fees limited to reasonable relation to results obtained)
Syers Props. III, Inc. v. Rankin, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 456 (Ct. App.) (market rate need not mirror billed rate)
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir.) (prohibiting relitigation of issues already decided)
Van Gerwen v. Guar. Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.) (reducing excessive fee requests)
Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.) (court may adjust lodestar for billing practices)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (U.S.) (trial court may use overall sense of suit; rough justice standard for fee calculations)
Masalosalo by Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955 (9th Cir.) (sufficiency of district court explanation for fee cuts)