MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 4:07-cv-05944

Multidistrict antitrust litigation (CRT MDL No. 1917). Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) moved for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and incentive awards relating to settlements with Mitsubishi Electric and Thomson (motion ECF No. 5133).
The contested settlement pool at issue was $84,750,000; DPPs requested 30% ($25,425,000) in fees and $1,053,960.26 in expenses; sought $15,000 additional incentive awards per class rep.
The court previously granted final approval of the settlements and had earlier awarded fees/expenses for other defendant settlements (First Fee Order). DPPs’ combined settlements reached ~$212.2 million, about 25% of estimated single damages.
The court evaluated fee reasonableness under Ninth Circuit precedent permitting either percentage-of-recovery or lodestar methods, using the 25% benchmark but adjusting for ‘megafund’ circumstances and other factors (risk, results, contingency, lodestar cross-check).
The court found substantial litigation risks, lengthy and burdensome prosecution on contingency, significant class benefit, and a lodestar that produced a 2.152 multiplier for this application.
Court concluded an upward departure to 30% was warranted, approved $25,425,000 fees, $1,053,960.26 expenses, and awarded each of eight class representatives an additional $5,000 (bringing each total to $30,000).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate attorneys’ fee percentage	30% of the $84,750,000 fund; upward departure justified by results, risk, contingency, effort	No detailed opposing position in opinion; court assessed reasonableness independently	Approved 30% ($25,425,000) as reasonable given factors and precedent
Lodestar cross-check / multiplier	Lodestar ~$11.8M for this application; multiplier ~2.152 supports fee	Not detailed	Lodestar cross-check affirmed reasonableness; multiplier acceptable in megafund context
Reimbursement of litigation expenses	$1,053,960.26 itemized (experts, claims admin, doc costs, etc.); these are normal client charges	Not detailed	Approved full reimbursement of $1,053,960.26 as reasonable
Incentive awards to class reps	Requested additional $15,000 each (on top of prior $25,000) for extra work	Not detailed; court must ensure awards do not undermine adequacy	Awarded $5,000 additional to each rep (total $30,000 each); rejected full $15,000 increase as excessive

In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (authorizes percentage or lodestar methods and sets 25% benchmark for common-fund fee awards)
Six Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) (discusses benchmark adjustment where hours or other factors make 25% inappropriate)
Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994) (attorneys may recover reasonable out-of-pocket litigation expenses)
In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) (25% benchmark may be of limited use in very large recoveries)
In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) (lists factors relevant to percentage-of-recovery awards and lodestar cross-check)
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (supports upward departures from benchmark for exceptional results, risk, and effort; surveys lodestar multipliers in large cases)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard for incentive awards to named plaintiffs)
Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (incentive awards discretionary; meant to compensate class reps for work and risk)
Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) (courts must scrutinize incentive awards to ensure they do not undermine adequacy of class representation)