Stephen Stetson v. West Publishing Corporation, 714 F. App'x 681

Class counsel sought attorney fees and costs after a common-fund class settlement; the district court awarded fees using the lodestar method and denied certain expert costs.
On prior appeal this Court affirmed the district court’s discretion to use lodestar but remanded for clearer explanation of lodestar factors.
On remand class counsel submitted updated briefing seeking delay compensation (either updated 2016 hourly rates or a prime-rate enhancement) and asserted entitlement to a risk multiplier.
The district court recalculated fees but relied on 2013 rates (and a 2015 Real Rate Report not in the record) and did not address delay compensation methods.
The district court denied a risk multiplier based on its (erroneous) hourly-rate finding and denied $29,000 in expert costs for lack of sufficient documentation tying amounts to specific experts.
This appeal challenges the remand award; the Ninth Circuit affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for further proceedings on fees but affirms denial of the expert costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate fee method	Lodestar is permissible; court should follow remand instructions and update lodestar	Lodestar remains appropriate; prior methodology acceptable	Court: District court may again use lodestar; using lodestar was not error
Delay compensation for contingent-fee delay	Update hourly rates to 2016 or apply prime-rate enhancement to compensate delay	Use earlier rates (2013) — no additional delay compensation needed	Court: District court erred by failing to apply delay compensation or update rates; vacated and remanded to correct this
Risk multiplier (enhancement for risk)	Case merits a risk multiplier or at least reconsideration using updated rates	Hourly rates already reflect risk, so no multiplier needed	Court: Denial based solely on flawed hourly-rate finding is unsupportable; remand to reconsider with updated rates and explain basis fully
Expert costs ($29,000)	Experts were heavily consulted re damages and settlement; costs are justified	Records insufficiently allocate fees to each expert; amount unsupported	Court: Affirmed denial as appellants failed to justify amounts or tie time entries to specific experts

Stetson v. Grissom, 821 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court may apply lodestar or percentage-of-fund; remand required clearer lodestar findings)
Fischel v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 307 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) (attorneys in common-fund cases must be compensated for delay)
Stanger v. China Elec. Motor, Inc., 812 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court must adequately explain decision on risk multipliers)
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (lodestar adjustments via multipliers permitted only in rare and exceptional cases; Kerr factors guide reasonableness)
Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (rare and exceptional standard for departing from lodestar)
Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2014) (denial of costs reviewed for abuse of discretion)