Glenn TIBBLE, as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Plan; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, Class Counsel and Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, Appellant, v. EDISON INTERNATIONAL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: January 06, 2020
Before: BOGGS,** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jerome Joseph Schlichter, Michael A. Wolff, Attorney, Nelson G. Wolff, Attorney, Sean E. Soyars, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, St. Louis, MO, William A. White, Esquire, Hill, Farrer & Burrill, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs - Appellants Brian D. Boyle, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, Catalina Joos Vergara, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants - Appellees
Plaintiffs-Appellants Glenn Tibble et al. (“Appellants”) obtained a damages award of $13,161,491 in this class action lawsuit and were awarded an additional $5,800,000 in attorneys’ fees. Appellants subsequently filed a motion to deduct $964,212 from the class award to reimburse class counsel for expert witness fees. The district court denied the motion, causing the Appellants to file this appeal. We assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history and discuss them only as necessary to explain our decision.
We review a denial of fees for an abuse of discretion. Stetson v. Grissom, 821 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2016). We must therefore affirm the district court unless it applied the wrong legal standard, or its findings were illogical, implausible or without support from the record. United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
Here, the district court denied Appellants’ motion because they prevailed on only one of ten claims, the district court did not rely on any particular expert’s conclusions in reaching its decision on that claim, and the evidence offered in support of the motion did not show that any particular expert’s work was “crucial or indispensable” to the claim upon which Appellants prevailed. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the district court “(1) relie[d] on an improper factor, (2) omit[ted] a substantial factor, or (3) commit[ted] a clear error of judgment in weighing the correct mix of factors.” Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc., 731 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2013). The order of the district court is therefore
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.