Jason Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding Ag
825 F.3d 536
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Dr. Jason Yamada sued Nobel Biocare in a nationwide class action alleging defective NobelDirect dental implants after many implant failures; the complaint included warranty and California UCL claims.
- The district court certified a class, but later decertified most claims after intervening authorities (including Mazza and American Honda) limited classwide application of California law and causation proofs; only the UCL claim remained and was settled.
- The settlement expanded Nobel’s warranty (lifetime warranty, simplified claims process) and provided monetary recovery for past failures; class counsel sought $4.16M in fees (lodestar $2.77M with a 1.5 multiplier).
- The district court found class counsel’s public time entries inadequate, ordered in camera submission of unredacted timesheets, reviewed them ex parte over Nobel’s objection, and denied Nobel access to the records; it reduced the lodestar for vague or improper entries and awarded fees (over $2.3M).
- Nobel appealed, arguing (1) due process violation from ex parte, in camera reliance on timesheets, (2) inadequate lodestar discount, (3) flawed cross-check valuation, and (4) improper multiplier based solely on contingency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants waived objection to in camera, ex parte review of unredacted timesheets | Yamada: defendants raised the access issue after briefing but district court considered positions; no waiver | Nobel: objection was timely and preserved at hearings and in written filings | No waiver; issue was properly presented and preserved |
| Whether using ex parte, in camera timesheets without giving defendant access violated due process | Yamada: court needed in camera review for efficiency and to protect privilege; district court made findings | Nobel: had right to inspect and challenge timesheets relied upon for fee award | Due process violated; fee order vacated and remanded for redacted disclosure and adversarial process |
| Appropriateness of lodestar reduction for limited success | Yamada: district court properly reduced lodestar 20% for limited success on only UCL claim and explained reasoning | Nobel: reduction inadequate given limited recovery and decertified claims | Reduction was supported; district court did not err on lodestar discount |
| Whether cross-check valuation was flawed (overstated monetary value via high failure-rate estimate) and whether cross-check is required | Yamada: cross-check discretionary and court may use estimates for non-monetary benefits | Nobel: court overstated settlement value and must guard against unreasonable cross-checks | Court may have overstated valuation but cross-check is discretionary; no reversible error on that ground now that due process ruling vacates award |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614 (9th Cir.) (opposing counsel entitled to inspect timesheets supporting fee awards)
- MGIC Indemnity Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500 (9th Cir.) (remand required where fee order relied on ex parte timesheets without opposing counsel opportunity to challenge)
- In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir.) (district court fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion and legal error)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir.) (lodestar method and optional cross-check to prevent unreasonable results)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (district courts must explain relationship between fee award and results obtained)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir.) (limits on classwide application of California law and requirement of governmental interest analysis)