Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Rodriguez v. Disner

Rodriguez v. Disner

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

March 5, 20121, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California; August 10, 2012, Filed

No. 10-55309, No. 10-55342, No. 10-56730, No. 10-56700, No. 10-56703, No. 10-56724, No. 10-56737, No. 10-56803, No. 10-57037

Opinion

 [*649]  IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

These thirteen consolidated appeals brought  [**3] by class counsel2 and six groups of objectors (collectively, "Objectors")3 challenge the district court's decisions regarding attorney fee awards after the settlement of an antitrust class action against West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan, Inc. In this opinion, we address nine separate appeals, which challenge the propriety of the district court's decision to deny attorneys' fees to class counsel McGuireWoods on account of a conflict of interest and to deny fees to objectors for their efforts in securing that decision.4 Because the district court's decisions were not legally erroneous, and in light of the deference we give to such determinations, we affirm the respective fee orders with the exception of the order denying fees to the Schneider Objectors, which we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

This case is before us for the second time. See Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp. (Rodriguez I), 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009). Because the facts are laid out at length in that opinion, we describe them only briefly.

At the onset of litigation, the law firm of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket LLP (which later merged with McGuire-Woods LLC) entered into "incentive agreements" with five plaintiffs, Ryan Rodriguez, Reena Frailich, Loredana Nesci, Jennifer Brazeal, and Lisa Gintz,  [**5] in connection with a potential antitrust class action against West Publishing. Id. at 957. In these agreements, each of these clients authorized Van Etten to apply to the court for a fee award based on recovery against West Publishing, and Van Etten agreed to seek incentive compensation for each client in an amount equal to between $10,000 and $75,000, depending on the value of the settlement or verdict. Id. Specifically, the incentive agreements provided that, if the settlement amount was greater than or  [*650]  equal to $500,000, class counsel would seek a $10,000 award for each client who signed an agreement; if the settlement amount were $1.5 million or more, counsel would seek a $25,000 award; if it were $5 million or more, counsel would seek $50,000; and if it were $10 million or more, counsel would seek $75,000. Id.

Plaintiffs brought federal antitrust claims against BAR/BRI (a subsidiary of West Publishing at that time) and Kaplan, for their activities in the market for bar preparation courses. Id. at 955. The operative complaint alleged that West Publishing illegally acquired the assets of its direct competitor West Bar Review in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, unlawfully  [**6] conspired with Kaplan to prevent competition in the market for full-service bar review courses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and wrongfully monopolized the full-service bar review course market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Id. at 955-56.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

688 F.3d 645 *; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16698 **; 2012-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,006; 2012 WL 3241334

RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; REENA B. FRAILICH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRAZEAL; LISA GINTZ; LOREDANA NESCI; LORRAINE RIMSON; KARI BREWER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SANDRA DISNER, Executor of the Estate of Eliot G. Disner, as successor-in-interest to Eliot G. Disner and Disner Law Corporation, Class Counsel, Appellant.RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; REENA B. FRAILICH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRAZEAL; LISA GINTZ; LOREDANA NESCI; LORRAINE RIMSON; KARI BREWER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Appellant.RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; REENA B. FRAILICH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRAZEAL; LISA GINTZ; LOREDANA NESCI; LORRAINE RIMSON; KARI BREWER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVID FELDMAN; CAMERON GHARABIKLOU; EMILY GRANT; JEFF LANG; SARAH MCDONALD; CARA PATTON; RACHEL SCHWARTZ; GREG THOMAS, Objectors-Appellants.RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; REENA B. FRAILICH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRAZEAL; LISA GINTZ; LOREDANA NESCI; LORRAINE RIMSON; KARI BREWER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JAMES JURANEK, Unnamed Class Member; AUDREY JURANEK, Unnamed Class Member; RICHARD P. LE BLANC, III, Objectors-Appellants.RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; REENA B. FRAILICH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRAZEAL; LISA GINTZ; LOREDANA NESCI; LORRAINE RIMSON; KARI BREWER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GEORGE SCHNEIDER, Class Member; JONATHAN M. SLOMBA, Class Member; JAMES PUNTUMAPANITCH, Class Member; JUSTIN HEAD; RYAN HELFRICH, Objectors-Appellants.RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; REENA B. FRAILICH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRAZEAL; LISA GINTZ; LOREDANA NESCI; LORRAINE RIMSON; KARI BREWER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AARON LUKOFF; JOHN PRENDERGAST; DAVID ORANGE, Objectors-Appellants.RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; REENA B. FRAILICH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRAZEAL; LISA GINTZ; LOREDANA NESCI; LORRAINE RIMSON; KARI BREWER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVID ORIOL, Unamed Classmembers; JASON TINGLE; JENNIFER BROWN MCELROY; DANIEL M. SCHAFER; SARAH SIEGEL; EVANS & MULLINIX, P.A., Objectors-Appellants.RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; REENA B. FRAILICH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRAZEAL; LISA GINTZ; LOREDANA NESCI; LORRAINE RIMSON; KARI BREWER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT GAUDET, JR.; SANDEEP GOPALAN, Objectors-Appellants.

Subsequent History: Decision reached on appeal by Rodriguez v. Schneider, 480 Fed. Appx. 876, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16720 (9th Cir. Cal., 2012)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc. Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding.

Rodriguez v. W. Publ. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24155 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2010)

Disposition: AFFIRMED (Nos. 10-55309, 10-55342, 10-56700, 10-56703, 10-56730, 10-56737, 10-56803, 10-57037). VACATED AND REMANDED (No. 10-56724).

CORE TERMS

district court, objectors, conflicting interest, attorney's fees, settlement, ethical, class representative, class member, court's decision, incentive award, forfeiture, class action, equitable principle, common fund, contracting, entitlement, conferred, egregious, courts, informed consent, fee award, conflicts, equitable, abused, cases

Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Prerequisites for Class Action, Adequacy of Representation, Legal Ethics, Client Relations, Conflicts of Interest, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Class Attorneys, Fees, Attorney Fees, General Overview, Professional Conduct, Class Members, Absent Members, Special Proceedings, Appellate Review