943 F.3d 1239
9th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Mary Johnson filed a consumer-protection class action after James Bond box sets were marketed as containing “all the Bond films” but omitted Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again.
- Parties settled; Defendants agreed not to oppose fee awards up to $350,000 and a $5,000 incentive award to Johnson.
- Johnson moved for the full $350,000 in attorneys’ fees; the district court performed a lodestar calculation and awarded $184,665.
- The district court arrived at its lodestar by determining reasonable rates and hours, then reduced the requested hours across the board by 25% for six stated reasons (block billing, excessive internal conferences, unreasonable travel time, duplicative work, unsupported conclusory time entries, and puffery).
- The district court used a percentage-of-recovery comparison as a cross-check and observed the lodestar exceeded the 25% benchmark, but declined further reduction, opting to let counsel receive any excess.
- Johnson appealed, arguing the 25% cut was arbitrary because the court did not explain why it chose that specific percentage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument / Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s 25% across-the-board reduction to billed hours was arbitrary | The court failed to explain why it chose 25%, so the cut was arbitrary | The court gave six concrete bases for reducing hours and used a percentage-of-recovery cross-check to confirm reasonableness | The reduction was adequately explained and not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
| Whether the lodestar calculation and explanation were sufficient for appellate review | Johnson argued the court’s explanations were insufficient to justify the cut | The court performed an explicit lodestar calculation and listed specific billing deficiencies | The lodestar calculation and stated reasons were sufficiently specific for review |
| Whether a percentage-of-recovery cross-check was required and how it affected the award | Johnson implied the court should not have relied on a cross-check to justify its cut | The court used the percentage-of-recovery as a reasonableness cross-check to ensure fees did not dwarf class recovery | Using the cross-check was appropriate and supported the court’s discretion |
| Whether the court should have reduced the fee further because the lodestar exceeded the 25% benchmark | Johnson argued excess over benchmark showed lodestar was unreasonably high | The court noted lodestar exceeded 25% but concluded further reduction was unnecessary and preferred awarding any excess to class counsel rather than defendants | The court reasonably declined further reduction; decision was within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (requires explicit lodestar and permits percentage-of-recovery cross-check)
- Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2013) (reversal where percentage cuts were unexplained and irreconcilable with court’s conclusions)
- McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court must explain fee determinations with sufficient specificity for appellate review)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (district courts should provide concise but clear reasons for fee awards)
- In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) (articulates the 25% benchmark for percentage-of-recovery awards)
- Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (reductions exceeding 10% require a reasoned explanation)