In re Volkswagen & Audi Warranty Extension Litig.
| Citation | 89 F.Supp.3d 155 |
| Decision Date | 10 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 07–md–01790–WGY. |
| Parties | In re VOLKSWAGEN AND AUDI WARRANTY EXTENSION LITIGATION. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts |
Before the Court are numerous motions for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the course of a protracted multidistrict class action litigation, undertaken on behalf of a class of consumers (the “Class Plaintiffs”) who owned or leased certain Volkswagen Passat and Audi A4 vehicles. After settling their consolidated case against Volkswagen of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Audi AG (collectively, the “Defendants”), the Class Plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to their settlement agreement, and this offshoot of the underlying litigation ensued. Judge Joseph L. Tauro (“Judge Tauro”), then the presiding judge in this case, awarded $30,000,000 in fees to lead counsel for the Class Plaintiffs (“Class Counsel”), but the judgment was vacated by the First Circuit and remanded for further proceedings.
This Court's task is to determine the appropriate fees and expenses (1) for Class Counsel's work undertaken before Judge Tauro's award, (2) for Class Counsel's work undertaken after the award, and (3) for the work of other counsel representing subsets of the Class Plaintiffs (“Non–Class Counsel”) since the beginning of this litigation.
As the prior procedural history of this litigation has by now been recounted in several opinions, it will be reviewed here with a primary focus on the attorneys' fees motions pending before this Court. On August 29, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) ordered four statewide class actions pending in separate districts to be consolidated and transferred to the District of Massachusetts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In re Volkswagen & Audi Warranty Extension Litig., 452 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1355 (J.P.M.L.2006). The case was assigned to Judge Tauro, id. at 1356, who ably managed the litigation and approved its settlement on March 24, 2011. Mem., Mar. 24, 2011 (“Final Settlement Approval”), ECF No. 271.
On the same day, Judge Tauro granted the Class Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, Mot. Attys.' Fees & Costs (“Class Counsel Motion for Attorney Fees”), ECF No. 174, awarding Class Counsel $30,000,000 in fees. See In re Volkswagen & Audi Warranty Extension Litig. (“In re VW (Original Award)”), 784 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.Mass.2011). On appeal, however, the First Circuit vacated the award and remanded on July 27, 2012, so that Class Counsel's fees could be calculated in accordance with Massachusetts, not federal, law. See In re Volkswagen & Audi Warranty Extension Litig. (“In re VW (First Circuit)”), 692 F.3d 4 (1st Cir.2012). The remanded case was reassigned to this Court on October 10, 2012, pursuant to Local Rule 40.1(k)(2). Elec. Notice, Oct. 10, 2012, ECF No. 344.
In addition to Class Counsel's initial motion for attorneys' fees and costs, other fees-related motions are pending before the Court. Class Counsel has filed a motion for additional attorneys' fees and costs incurred after Judge Tauro's original award. Mot. Add'l Attys.' Fees & Costs, ECF No. 373; Class Counsel's Br. Supp. Mot. Add'l Attys.' Fees & Costs (“Class Counsel Add'l Fees Mem.”), ECF No. 374. Moreover, numerous motions for fees and costs from the beginning of this litigation have been filed by Non–Class Counsel:
In addition to these motions, Jackson Counsel has jointly filed a request, separate from their joint fees motion, for this Court to establish a formal process for allocating fee awards among Class Counsel and Non–Class Counsel. Jackson & Tucker, Sacks & Weston, & Vaughan Law Group's Req. Joint Appl. Attorneys' Fees & Establishment Process Distribution, ECF No. 356. Class Counsel has filed a brief in opposition to this request. Resp. Class Counsel Req. Jackson & Tucker, Sacks & Weston & Vaughan Law Group Joint Appl. Attys.' Fees & Est. Process Dist., ECF No. 360. Jackson Counsel have filed a reply and a number of supplemental briefs. Jackson & Tucker, Sacks & Weston, & Vaughan Law Group's Reply Class Counsel's Resp. Req. Joint Appl. Attys.' Fees & Est. Process Dist., ECF No. 364; see also, e.g., Jackson & Tucker, Sacks & Weston, & Vaughan Law Group's Supp. Req. Est. Process Dist., (“Jackson Fee Supplement Request”), ECF No. 388; Jackson & Tucker, Sacks & Weston, & Vaughan Law Group's Supp. Br. Supp. Mot. Award Attys.' Fees & Reimb. Exps. (“Jackson Fee Supplement Brief”), ECF No. 389.
Class Counsel has submitted briefing commenting on all of Non–Class Counsel's requests and their respective contributions to the resolution of this consolidated litigation. Comments Class Counsel Concerning Non–Class Counsel's Submissions Fees & Costs (“Class Counsel Comments”), ECF No. 394. Some Non–Class Counsel have disputed these comments in opposition briefing. See Resp. Thomas P. Sobran Comments Class Counsel Concerning Non–Class Counsel's Submissions Fees & Costs (“Sobran Response to Class Counsel Comments”), ECF No. 399; Jackson & Tucker, Sacks & Weston, and Vaughan Law Group's Cons. Reply to Defs.' Opp'n Mot. Award Attys.' Fees & Reimb. Exps. & Class Counsels' “Comments” Concerning Non–Class Counsels' Submissions Fees & Costs, ECF No. 407.
On February 25, 2013, the Defendants submitted an omnibus opposition to all of Class Counsel and Non–Class Counsel's pending motions for attorneys' fees. Defs.' Opp'n Pls.' Class & Non–Class Counsel's Mots. Atty. Fees &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Daniel Chapter One, Civil Action No. 10–1362 EGS
...Amendment, the civil penalty requested by the United States in this case is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense.” 89 F.Supp.3d 155Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 334, 118 S.Ct. 2028. The Court gave the defendants every opportunity to supplement their opposition. See October 6, ......
-
Smith v. City of Bos., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10291-WGY
...decision that the Officers’ attorneys cite, here the block-billing was not infrequent or relatively minor. Pls.’ Reply 13 (citing 89 F. Supp. 3d 155, 176 (D. Mass. 2015) ). A more precise description of the topic researched or discussed, or a reference as to what documents were being review......
-
K.D. v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc.
...or where most of the entries were reasonably recorded,” no such penalty is required. In re Volkswagen & Audi Warranty Extension Litig., 89 F.Supp.3d 155, 176 (D. Mass. 2015). Some of K.D.'s entries do include more than one task, but the descriptions “contain[] the necessary keys to testing ......
-
Cox v. Mass. Dep't of Corr., Civil Action No. 13-10379-FDS
...a global reduction to the lodestar hours . . . after the specific deductions." In re Volkswagen and Audi Warranty Extension Litig., 89 F. Supp. 3d 155, 176 (D. Mass. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).7Page 10 Many of plaintiff's attorneys' larger billing entries were blo......