EFTA Document EFTA01371375

Page 33 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97188, * proposed lodestar and billable hour totals based on 96.5 hours 1/81 from W. Yanchunis at $900 per hour and 32.7 hours from Ms. Ponder at $150 per hour. for a firm lodestar of $91,755. See ECF No. 96-9 Ex. 2. As discussed, the Court may apply a multiplier to the lodestar "to account for the contingent nature or risk involved in a particular case and the quality of the attorney's work." Rite Aid, 396 F.3d at 306. The multiplier "need not fall within any pre-defined range, provided that the District Court's analysis justifies the award," id., but courts "routinely find in complex class action cases that a lodestar multiplier between one and four is fair and reasonable." Saini, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66242, 2015 WL 2448846, at *16 (approving multipliers of 1.09 and 1.13); see also Boone v. City of Philadelphia, 668 F. Supp. 2d 693, 714-15 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (approving multiplier of 2.3); McCoy v. Health Net, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 448, 479 (D.N.J. 2008) (approving multiplier of 2.3). Because Plaintiffs report a total of $133,358.30 in expenses, ECF No. 86 at 2, the portion of the total $2,320,000 award attributable to attorneys' fees alone is $2,186,641.70. The lodestar multiplier for Defendants' proposed mean rate fee, obtained by dividing $2,186,641.70 by $1,917,673.40, would be approximately 1.14. This multiplier falls well within the range approved by courts in this Circuit for complex, multi-state cases such as this one. 3. The percentage cross-check supports an award in p791 the lodestar range Having determined a range of attorneys' fees under a lodestar analysis, the Court now cross-checks this analysis using the percentage-of-recovery method. See Ins. Brokerage, 579 F.3d at 280; Saini, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66242, 2015 WL 2448846, at *16 (performing percentage-of-recovery cross-check after adopting lodestar method to award attorneys' fees). The Third Circuit has identified a non-exhaustive list of factors that a district court should consider in its percentage-of-recovery analysis: (1) the size of the fund created and the number of persons benefittet (2) the presence or absence of substantial objections by members of the class to the settlement terms and/or fees requested by counsel: (3) the skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved: (4) the complexity and duration of the litigation: (5) the risk of nonpayment: (6) the amount of time devoted to the case by plaintiffs' counsel: and (7) the awards in similar cases. Rite Aid, 396 F.3d at 301 (quoting Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 195 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000)). The Court need not apply the Gunter factors in a formulaic way and may afford some factors more weight than the others. Id. at 302. The Court finds the Gunter factor to be especially relevant in this case. As discussed, the settlement agreement does not create a class fund of defined size, and the total benefit to N14 Class members r801 will depend on the number and type of claims ultimately received and approved. Additionally, as discussed, the settlement agreement provides some Class Members with nonmonetary benefits, including a warranty extension on their Class Vehicles. At the July 14, 2016 fairness hearing, Class Counsel stated that it could not give a precise value of the settlement, and that even estimating an "approximate" value would be difficult. Counsel stated, however that a value of between $10 and $30 million would be a reasonable estimate. The Third Circuit has recognized that fee percentage-of- recovery fee awards commonly range from 19 percent to 45 percent of the settlement fund. GM Truck Prods., 55 F.3d at 822. Using the rough $10430 million settlement For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0064712 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00210896 EFTA01371375