throbber
Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57144 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 58
`
`
`
`In Re Flint Water Cases
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
` No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM
`
`HON. JUDITH E. LEVY
`
`MAG. MONA K. MAJZOUB
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
`
`For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum of support, and supporting
`
`declarations and exhibits, Plaintiffs, through their counsel, move the Court pursuant
`
`to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h) and 54(d) to approve their proposal for
`
`attorneys’ fees to be awarded to Movants Co-Lead Class Counsel and Co-Liaison
`
`Counsel, as well as Settlement Subclass Counsel and the law firms that have worked
`
`with and under the supervision of Co-Lead Class Counsel, including the Plaintiffs’
`
`Executive Committee (“Plaintiffs’ Counsel”), as described in further detail in the
`
`accompanying Memorandum, and their request for reimbursement of expenses
`
`incurred by Plaintiffs’ Counsel.1
`
`
`
`
`1 The Settling Defendants (defined in the attached Memorandum) have agreed
`to take no position with respect to this motion. See Notice Regarding Pls.’ Mot. for
`Settlement Approval, Ex. A, Amended Settlement Agreement ¶ 11.2, Jan. 15, 2021,
`ECF No. 1394-2, PageID.54160.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57145 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 58
`
`Dated: March 8, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Corey M. Stern
`Corey M. Stern
`LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
`800 Third Avenue,
`11th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 605-6298 Telephone
`cstern@levylaw.com
`
`/s/ Hunter Shkolnik
`Hunter Shkolnik
`NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
`270 Munoz Rivera Avenue,
`Suite 201
`Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918
`(787) 493-5088 Telephone
`hunter@napolilaw.com
`
`Joseph M. Sellers
`Kit A. Pierson
`Emmy L. Levens
`Jessica B. Weiner
`Alison S. Deich
`COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
`TOLL PLLC
`1100 New York Ave. NW
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 408-4600 Telephone
`jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
`kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
`elevens@cohenmilstein.com
`jweiner@cohenmilstein.com
`adeich@cohenmilstein.com
`
`Vineet Bhatia
`Shawn Raymond
`SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
`
`
`
`2
`
`/s/ Theodore J. Leopold
`Theodore J. Leopold
`Leslie M. Kroger
`COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
`TOLL PLLC
`11780 U.S. Highway One
`Suite N500
`Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
`(561) 515-1400 Telephone
`tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
`
`/s/ Michael L. Pitt
`Michael L. Pitt
`Cary S. McGehee
`PITT MCGEHEE PALMER
`BONANNI & RIVERS, P.C.
`117 West 4th Street
`Suite 200
`Royal Oak, MI 48067
`(248) 398-9800 Telephone
`mpitt@pittlawpc.com
`cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
`
`Paul Novak (P39524)
`Diana Gjonaj (P74637)
`Gregory Stamatopoulos (P74199)
`WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
`3011 West Grand Boulevard
`Suite 2150
`Detroit, MI 48226
`(313) 800-4170 Telephone
`pnovak@weitzlux.com
`dgjonaj@weitzlux.com
`gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
`
`Robin L. Greenwald
`WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
`700 Broadway
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57146 Filed 03/08/21 Page 3 of 58
`
`1000 Louisiana Street
`Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 651-3666 Telephone
`vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com
`sraymond@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Stephen Morrissey
`Jordan Connors
`SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
`1201 Third Ave.
`Suite 3800
`Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 516-3880 Telephone
`smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com
`jconnors@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Peretz Bronstein
`Shimon Yiftach
`BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
`GROSSMAN, LLC
`60 East 42nd Street
`Suite 4600
`New York, NY 10165
`(212) 697-6484 Telephone
`peretz@bgandg.com
`shimony@bgandg.com
`
`Bradford M. Berry
`Anson C. Asaka
`NAACP
`4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
`Baltimore, MD 21215
`(410) 580-5777 Telephone
`bberry@naacpnet.org
`aasaka@naacpnet.org
`
`Kathryn P. Hoek
`SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
`1901 Avenue of the Stars
`
`
`
`New York, NY 10003
`(212) 558-5500 Telephone
`rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
`
`Esther E. Berezofsky
`MOTLEY RICE LLC
`210 Lake Drive East
`Suite 101
`Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
`(856) 667-0500 Telephone
`eberezofsky@motleyrice.com
`
`Teresa Caine Bingman (P56807)
`THE LAW OFFICES OF TERESA
`A. BINGMAN, PLLC
`120 N. Washington Square
`Suite 327
`Lansing, MI 48933
`(877) 957-7077 Telephone
`tbingman@tbingmanlaw.com
`
`William Goodman (P14173)
`Julie H. Hurwitz (P34720)
`Kathryn Bruner James (P71374)
`GOODMAN & HURWITZ PC
`1394 E. Jefferson Ave.
`Detroit, MI 48207
`(313) 567-6170 Telephone
`bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com
`jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com
`kjames@goodmanhurwitz.com
`
`Deborah A. LaBelle (P31595)
`LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A.
`LABELLE
`221 N. Main St.
`Suite 300
`Ann Arbor, MI 48104
`(734) 996-5620 Telephone
`deblabelle@aol.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57147 Filed 03/08/21 Page 4 of 58
`
`Suite 950
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`(310) 789-3100 Telephone
`khoek@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Neal H. Weinfield
`THE DEDENDUM GROUP
`(312) 613-0800 Telephone
`nhw@dedendumgroup.com
`
`Cirilo Martinez (P65074)
`LAW OFFICE OF CIRILO
`MARTINEZ, PLLC
`3010 Lovers Lane
`Kalamazoo, MI 49001
`(269) 342-1112 Telephone
`martinez_cirilo@hotmail.com
`
`David J. Shea
`SHEA AIELLO, PLLC
`26100 American Drive
`2nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48034
`(248) 354-0224 Telephone
`david.shea@sadplaw.com
`
`Mark L. McAlpine (P35583)
`Jayson E. Blake (P56128)
`MCALPINE PC
`3201 University Drive
`Suite 100
`Auburn Hills, MI 48326
`(248) 373-3700 Telephone
`mlmcalpine@mcalpinelawfirm.com
`jeblake@mcalpinelawfirm.com
`
`
`Trachelle C. Young (P63330)
`TRACHELLE C. YOUNG &
`ASSOCIATES PLLC
`2501 N. Saginaw St.
`Flint, MI 48505
`(810) 239-6302 Telephone
`trachelleyoung@gmail.com
`
`Brian McKeen (P34123)
`Claire Vergara (P77654)
`McKEEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
`645 Griswold Street
`Suite 4200
`Detroit, MI 48226
`(313) 961-4400 Telephone
`bjmckeen@mckeenassociates.com
`cvergara@mckeenassociates.com
`
`Cynthia M. Lindsey (P37575)
`Shermane T. Sealey (P32851)
`CYNTHIA M. LINDSEY &
`ASSOCIATES, PLLC
`8900 E. Jefferson Avenue
`Suite 612
`Detroit, MI 48214
`(248) 766-0797 Telephone
`cynthia@cmlindseylaw.com
`shermane@cmlindseylaw.com
`
`Andrew P. Abood (P43366)
`ABOOD LAW FIRM
`246 East Saginaw Street
`Suite One
`East Lansing, Michigan 48823
`(517) 332-5900 Telephone
`andrew@aboodlaw.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57148 Filed 03/08/21 Page 5 of 58
`
`
`In Re Flint Water Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
` No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM
`
`HON. JUDITH E. LEVY
`
`MAG. MONA K. MAJZOUB
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN
`AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57149 Filed 03/08/21 Page 6 of 58
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... iv
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED ......................................... ix
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ..................................... x
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................. 4
`III. THE FEE PROPOSAL ......................................................................................... 7
`IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Court Should Approve Plaintiffs’ Fee Proposal .................................. 9
`
`1. The Proposed Common Benefit Assessments Are Appropriate .............. 11
`
`2. Co-Lead Class Counsel Should Be Awarded Fees from the Settlement
`Subclass Funds and the Programmatic Relief Sub-Qualified Settlement
`Fund .......................................................................................................... 20
`
`3. The Court Should Award Attorney Fees Using the Percentage-of-the-
`Fund Approach ......................................................................................... 22
`
`4. The Fee Proposal Is Appropriate When Compared to Other Percentage of
`the Fund Awards ....................................................................................... 25
`
`5. The Relevant Factors Justify the Fee Proposal ......................................... 27
`
`i. The Value of the Benefit Achieved ..................................................... 27
`
`ii. Risks of Litigation and Contingent Nature of the Fee ....................... 28
`
`iii. Public Policy Considerations ............................................................ 29
`
`iv. The Value of Services on an Hourly Basis ........................................ 30
`
`v. The Complexity of the Litigation ....................................................... 35
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57150 Filed 03/08/21 Page 7 of 58
`
`vi. The Quality of the Representation ..................................................... 36
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Approve Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Request for
`Reimbursement of Reasonable Litigation Expenses ................................ 37
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 40
`V.
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................... 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57151 Filed 03/08/21 Page 8 of 58
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades on Dec. 29, 1972,
`549 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1977) .................................................................................. 13
`Arthur S. Langenderfer, Inc. v. S.E. Johnson Co.,
`684 F. Supp. 953 (N.D. Ohio 1988) ......................................................................... 33
`In re Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 12-md-02311, 2018 WL 7108072 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2018) ................... 32, 34
`Barnes v. City of Cincinnati,
`401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ x, 33
`In re Bayou Sorrel Class Action,
`No. 6:04CV1101, 2006 WL 3230771 (W.D. La. Oct. 31, 2006) ........................ x, 20
`Blum v. Stenson,
`465 U.S. 886 (1984) ................................................................................................. 23
`Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert,
`444 U.S. 472 (1980) ............................................................................................. x, 11
`Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`102 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 1996) .................................................................... x, 26, 28, 31
`Camden I Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Dunkle,
`946 F.2d 768 (11th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................. 24
`In re Cardinal Health Inc. Sec. Litigs.,
`528 F. Supp. 2d 752 (S.D. Ohio 2007) ............................................................... 32, 35
`In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig.,
`218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003) .................................................................... passim
`Cent. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus,
`113 U.S. 116 (1885) ................................................................................................. 11
`Connectivity Sys. Inc. v. Nat’l City Bank,
`No. 2:08-CV-1119, 2011 WL 292008 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2011) ........................... 33
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57152 Filed 03/08/21 Page 9 of 58
`
`In re Delphi Corp. Secs., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig.,
`248 F.R.D. 483 (E.D. Mich. 2008) ........................................................................... 24
`Doe 1-2 v. Deja Vu Servs., Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-10877, 2017 WL 2629101 (E.D. Mich. June 19, 2017) ...................... 34
`In re DPL Inc., Sec. Litig.,
`307 F. Supp. 2d 947 (S.D. Ohio 2004) ..................................................................... 21
`Ford v. Fed.-Mogul Corp.,
`No. 2:09-cv-14448, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3399 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 7,
`2015) ......................................................................................................................... 32
`Gascho v. Glob. Fitness Holdings, LLC,
`822 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ x, 32
`In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`No. MDL 05-1708, 2008 WL 682174 (D. Minn. Mar. 7, 2008)
`amended in part, No. MDL 05-1708 (DWF/AJB), 2008 WL 3896006
`(D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2008) ............................................................................... x, 12, 21
`Hadix v. Johnson,
`65 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. x, 32
`Hensley v. Eckerhart,
`461 U.S. 424 (1983) ................................................................................................. 28
`Internal Imp. Fund Trs. v. Greenough,
`105 U.S. 527 (1881) ................................................................................................. 11
`Kogan v. AIMCO Fox Chase, L.P.,
`193 F.R.D. 496 (E.D. Mich. 2000) ........................................................................... 35
`Maley v. Del Glob. Techs. Corp.,
`186 F. Supp. 2d 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ...................................................................... 37
`Martin v. Trott Law, P.C.,
`No. 15-12838, 2018 WL 4679626 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2018) .............................. 34
`McHugh v. Olympia Entm’t, Inc.,
`37 F. App’x 730 (6th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 32
`In re MGM Grand Hotel Fire Litig.,
`660 F. Supp. 522 (D. Nev. 1987) ................................................................. 13, 17, 27
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57153 Filed 03/08/21 Page 10 of 58
`
`Missouri v. Jenkins ex rel. Agyei,
`491 U.S. 274 (1989) ....................................................................................... x, 26, 33
`In re Nat’l Football League Players’ Concussion Inj. Litig.,
`No. 2:12-MD-02323-AB, 2018 WL 1658808 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2018) ............ passim
`
`In re Nineteen Appeals Arising Out of the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel
`Fire Litig., 982 F.2d at 610 ................................................................................ 12, 18
`In re NuvaRing Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 4:08 MDL 1964 RWS, 2014 WL 7271959 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 18,
`2014) ......................................................................................................... x, 16, 21, 39
`N.Y. State Tchrs.’ Ret. Sys v. Gen. Motors Co., 315 F.R.D. 226, 242 (E.D.
`Mich. 2016) aff’d, Marro v. N.Y. Tchrs.’ Ret. Sys., No. 16-1821, 2017
`WL 6398014 (6th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017) ................................................... 12, 21, 24, 35
`In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon”,
`No. MDL 2179, 2012 WL 2236737 (E.D. La. June 15, 2012) ................................ 18
`In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`2000 WL 1622741 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2020) ............................................................ 39
`In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 08-MDL-01952, 2011 WL 6209188 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2011) .......... x, 24, 28
`Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn,
`559 U.S. 542 (2010) ............................................................................................. x, 33
`Phipps Grp. v. Downing (In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig.),
`764 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................... 39
`Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc.,
`508 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1974) .............................................................................. x, 31
`Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Props., Inc.,
`9 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 1993) ................................................................................. passim
`Ret. Sys. v. Gen. Motors Co.,
`315 F.R.D. 226 (E.D. Mich. 2016) .................................................................... passim
`Smiley v. Sincoff,
`958 F.2d 498 (2d Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57154 Filed 03/08/21 Page 11 of 58
`
`Smillie v. Park Chem. Co.,
`710 F.2d 271 (6th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................ 28, 29, 31
`Sprague v. Ticonic Nat’l Bank,
`307 U.S. 161 (1939) (Frankfurter, J.) ................................................................. 11, 12
`Stanley v. U.S. Steel Co.,
`No. 04-74654, 2009 WL 4646647 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2009) .......................... 24, 25
`In re Superior Beverage/Glass Container Consol. Pretrial,
`133 F.R.D. 119 (N.D. Ill. 1990) ............................................................................... 35
`In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig.,
`264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 39
`U.S. Football League v. Nat’l Football League,
`887 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1989) ..................................................................................... 39
`In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`650 F. Supp. 2d 549 ................................................................................................. 19
`In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`760 F. Supp. 2d 640 (E.D. La. 2010) ....................................................................... 13
`Walitalo v. Iacocca,
`968 F.2d 741 (8th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................. 13, 19
`In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig.,
`754 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................... 18
`In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`424 F. Supp. 2d 488 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) ................................................................ 19, 27
`RULES
`Mich. Ct. R. 8.121 ..................................................................................................... 7, 27
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`David F. Herr, Annotated Manual for Complex Litigation § 14.11 (4th ed.
`2020) ......................................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57155 Filed 03/08/21 Page 12 of 58
`
`David F. Herr, Annotated Manual for Complex Litigation § 22.927 (4th
`ed. 2020) ................................................................................................................... 19
`Federal Judicial Center, Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Managing Fee
`Litigation (3d ed. 2015) ............................................................................................ 13
`5 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions (5th ed. 2020) ........................... 32
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57156 Filed 03/08/21 Page 13 of 58
`
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
`Should the Court approve Plaintiffs’ proposed structure for attorneys’ fees to be
`awarded to Plaintiffs’ Counsel?
`Should the Court approve Plaintiffs’ motion for a common benefit assessment
`from the Qualified Settlement Fund?
`Should the Court approve Plaintiffs’ motion for reimbursement of expenses
`incurred by Plaintiffs’ Counsel?
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57157 Filed 03/08/21 Page 14 of 58
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
`• Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)
`• Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)
`• Mich. Ct. R. 8.121
`• Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005)
`• In re Bayou Sorrel Class Action, No. 6:04CV1101, 2006 WL 3230771 (W.D. La.
`Oct. 31, 2006)
`• Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980)
`• Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., 102 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 1996)
`• In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003)
`• Gascho v. Glob. Fitness Holdings, LLC, 822 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2016)
`• In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prod. Liab. Litig., No. MDL 05-
`1708 DWF/AJB, 2008 WL 682174 (D. Minn. Mar. 7, 2008)
`• Hadix v. Johnson, 65 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 1995)
`• Missouri v. Jenkins ex rel. Agyei, 491 U.S. 274 (1989)
`• In re Nat’l Football League Players’ Concussion Inj. Litig., No. 2:12-MD-02323-
`AB, 2018 WL 1658808 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2018)
`• In re NuvaRing Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 4:08 MDL 1964 RWS, 2014 WL 7271959
`(E.D. Mo. Dec. 18, 2014)
`• In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 08-MDL-01952, 2011 WL 6209188 (E.D.
`Mich. Dec. 13, 2011)
`• Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010)
`• Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 508 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1974)
`• Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Props., Inc., 9 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 1993)
`• David F. Herr, Annotated Manual for Complex Litigation § 14.11 (4th ed. 2020)
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57158 Filed 03/08/21 Page 15 of 58
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Working together, Plaintiffs’ Counsel2 have achieved a landmark, $641.25
`
`million partial settlement in these cases that the Court has rightly called “complex” and
`
`“intensely litigated.”3 This substantial recovery was secured only through the focused
`
`and diligent advocacy and considerable investment of time, expenses, and risk-taking of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel, led by Co-Liaison Counsel, Co-Lead Class Counsel, the Plaintiffs’
`
`Executive Committee for the Proposed Class (“Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee”), and
`
`Subclass Settlement Counsel.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel have worked on a contingent basis for more than five years
`
`now, without compensation of any kind, to achieve this remarkable result. Moreover,
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel have invested and will continue to invest time and resources into
`
`implementing this Settlement (while also continuing to litigate against the Non-Settling
`
`Defendants4). To compensate Plaintiffs’ Counsel for their services and the risk they
`
`
`2 “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” refers to Movants Co-Lead Class Counsel and Co-Liaison
`Counsel, as well as Settlement Subclass Counsel and the law firms that have worked
`with and under the supervision of Co-Lead Class Counsel, including the Plaintiffs’
`Executive Committee.
`3 Op. & Order Granting Pls.’ Mot. to Establish Settlement Claims Procedures &
`Allocation & for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Components & Granting
`Pls.’ Mot. for an Order Adopting the Proposed Mot. for Approval of Wrongful Death
`Settlement (the “Prelim. Approval Order”) at 13, Jan. 21, 2021, ECF No. 1399,
`PageID.54410.
`4 “Non-Settling Defendants” refers to Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc.,
`Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C., Leo A. Daly Company, Veolia North America,
`LLC, Veolia North America, Inc., and Veolia Water North America Operating Services,
`LLC.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57159 Filed 03/08/21 Page 16 of 58
`
`undertook in prosecuting these cases, Plaintiffs request that the Court approve their
`
`proposed framework for attorneys’ fees to be awarded to Plaintiffs’ Counsel (the “Fee
`
`Proposal” or “Proposal”).
`
`The Fee Proposal is designed to provide reasonable and fair compensation to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel and to ensure equitable treatment for all who make claims under the
`
`Settlement. It also provides distinct fees for work performed by both Co-Liaison
`
`Counsel and Class Counsel for the benefit of all Plaintiffs (“common benefit work”), for
`
`Class Counsel’s work on behalf of the Settlement Subclasses, and for non–common
`
`benefit work performed by counsel individually retained by individual Claimants. A
`
`significant amount of the work performed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel has benefitted all
`
`Plaintiffs in this litigation. Long-standing precedent recognizes that in common fund
`
`cases, counsel are entitled to compensation for such common benefit work.
`
`As compensation for common benefit work performed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the
`
`Proposal includes a global Common Benefit Assessment (“CBA”) of 6.33% of the
`
`Qualified Settlement Fund (the “Fund”), to be divided equally between Co-Lead Class
`
`Counsel and Co-Liaison Counsel and paid beginning on final approval of the Settlement
`
`and thereafter as the Fund is further funded. Beyond that global CBA, the Proposal
`
`provides that Co-Lead Class Counsel will be compensated for their work on behalf of
`
`the Settlement Subclasses, in the amount of 27% of the value of all resolved Subclass
`
`claims, and 27% of the value of the Programmatic Relief Sub-Qualified Settlement
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57160 Filed 03/08/21 Page 17 of 58
`
`Fund.
`
`Contingency fees for individually retained counsel (“IRC”) are capped at 27%.
`
`The Proposal also caps the contingency fee for IRC at a lower 10% for any contingency
`
`fee contract entered on or after July 16, 2020 and assesses an additional 17% CBA of
`
`the gross award to such Claimant who retained counsel, or as to Minors assisted by
`
`counsel, on or after July 16, 2020. Contingency fees for IRC on such claims are
`
`correspondingly capped such that no claim is subject to total fees greater than 27% after
`
`the 6.33% global CBA. Other than the global 6.33% CBA, which serves to provide some
`
`upfront compensation to counsel who have led these cases for the benefit of all Plaintiffs,
`
`all fees are to be distributed only as and to the extent that claims are paid out.
`
`In this way, consistent with the law and equitable principles, the Proposal has all
`
`claims contribute an equal pro rata share to Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s fees, while also
`
`contributing to common benefit compensation in proportion to Claimants’ reliance on
`
`common benefit work. The structure of the Proposal is therefore sound. Moreover, the
`
`amounts requested under the Proposal are reasonable under the factors courts weigh in
`
`determining fee awards. The percentage amounts contemplated by the Proposal are in
`
`line with the awards approved in similar complex litigation. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s efforts,
`
`already commended by the Court, have produced a sizable recovery for the Plaintiffs,
`
`with the potential for additional recovery from the Non-Settling Defendants. Plaintiffs’
`
`Counsel also took on considerable risk in litigating these complex cases on a contingent
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57161 Filed 03/08/21 Page 18 of 58
`
`basis. Plaintiffs’ Counsel have invested 182,571 hours of work into this litigation,
`
`representing more than $84 million of lodestar at current rates, and have advanced more
`
`than $7 million in expenses. Plaintiffs’ Counsel could have received no reimbursement
`
`whatsoever had the cases failed. Finally, public policy supports incentivizing counsel to
`
`take on important cases like these without upfront or certain compensation, as they
`
`otherwise might not be undertaken.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel also request reimbursement from the Fund for their expenses
`
`of $7,158,987.33 incurred to date in prosecuting this litigation, which have also provided
`
`a common benefit to all Plaintiffs.
`
`II.
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`Plaintiffs filed the first complaints related to this litigation in November 2015.5
`
`After over a year of litigation and appeals, the Flint Water Cases were consolidated in
`
`this Court on July 27, 2017.6 The Court appointed Theodore Leopold and Michael Pitt
`
`as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and Hunter Shkolnik and Corey Stern as Co-Liaison
`
`Counsel for the Individual Plaintiffs.7 In accordance with their Court-appointed roles,
`
`Class Counsel and Co-Liaison Counsel, alongside a Court-appointed Plaintiffs’
`
`
`5 Compl., Mays v. Snyder, No. 5:15-cv-14002 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2015), ECF
`No. 1.
`6 Order Granting in Part Waid Mot. for Consolidation & Appointment of Interim
`Co-Lead Class Counsel & Appointment of Liaison Counsel, July 27, 2017, ECF No.
`173.
`
`7 Id. The Court renewed these appointments on December 7, 2018, December 20,
`2019, and November 2, 2020. ECF Nos. 696, 1021, 1306.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57162 Filed 03/08/21 Page 19 of 58
`
`Executive Committee, have propelled this litigation forward, including through motions
`
`to dismiss, lengthy discovery, and several appeals. Discovery, which is ongoing, has
`
`been substantial, including millions of pages of document production and review, the
`
`exchange of substantive written interrogatories, more than eighty depositions, and
`
`extensive expert analysis and discovery. In addition, since January 2018, Class and Co-
`
`Liaison Counsel, with the help of experienced Court-appointed mediators and a Court-
`
`appointed Special Master, have spearheaded settlement negotiations with the
`
`Defendants. On August 26, 2019, at the request of Class Counsel, the Court also
`
`appointed experienced Settlement Subclass Counsel (“SSC”) to negotiate allocation.
`
`Order Granting Class Pls.’ Renewed Mot. in Part, ECF No. 929.
`
`After nearly four years of litigation, discovery, appeals, and settlement
`
`negotiations, Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants8 executed the Amended Settlement
`
`
`8 “Settling Defendants” refers to The State of Michigan, Michigan Department of
`Environmental Quality (now the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes,
`and Energy), Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Michigan
`Department of Treasury, former Governor Richard D. Snyder, Governor Gretchen
`Whitmer, the Flint Receivership Transition Advisory Board, Liane Shekter Smith,
`Daniel Wyant, Stephen Busch, Kevin Clinton, Patrick Cook, Linda Dykema, Michael
`Prysby, Bradley Wurfel, Eden Wells, Nick Lyon, Dennis Muchmore, Nancy Peeler,
`Robert Scott, Adam Rosenthal, Andy Dillon (“State Defendants”); the City of Flint,
`Darnell Earley, Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow, Gerald Ambrose, Edward Kurtz,
`Michael Brown, Dayne Walling, Daugherty Johnson (“City Defendants”); McLaren
`Health Care Corporation, McLaren Regional Medical Center, McLaren Flint Hospital,
`(“McLaren Defendants”); and Rowe Professional Services Company.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57163 Filed 03/08/21 Page 20 of 58
`
`Agreement (the “Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”) on November 16, 2020.9 On
`
`January 21, 2021 the Court approved the Settlement’s claims procedures and allocation,
`
`granted preliminary approval of the Class Settlement components, and approved the
`
`wrongful death settlement. Approval Order, ECF No. 1399. As the Court noted in its
`
`Order, id. at 14, PageID.54411, the Settlement provides that “Counsel for Individual
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Members shall be reimbursed and paid solely out of the FWC
`
`Qualified Settlement Fund for all expenses and fees, including but not limited to:
`
`attorneys’ fees; past, current, or future litigation and administration expenses (including,
`
`but not limited to, experts’, consultants’, and guardians ad litem fees and expenses); and
`
`the costs of providing the Settlement Class Notice and Individual Notice.” Settlement
`
`Agreement ¶ 11.1, PageID.54159. The Court directed counsel to make any motion for
`
`attorneys’ fees and expenses on or before February 26, 2021. Approval Order at 70,
`
`PageID.54467.
`
`The first bellwether trials of individual cases are scheduled to commence in or
`
`around October 2021. Co-Lead Class Counsel moved for class certification on June 30,
`
`2020; that briefing is ongoing. Resolution of the Motion for Class Certification, trial of
`
`
`9 Decl. of Theodore J. Leopold in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. (the “Preliminary Approval
`Motion”) to Establish Settlement Claims Procedures & Allocation & for Prelim.
`Approval of Class Settlement Components, Ex. A, Amended Settlement Agreement,
`Nov. 18, 2020, ECF No. 1319-1. An amended agreement was filed on January 15, 2021.
`Notice Regarding Pls.’ Mot. for Settlement Approval, Ex. A, Amended Settlement
`Agreement, ECF No. 1394-2.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1458, PageID.57164 Filed 03/08/21 Page 21 of 58
`
`the Individual Plaintiffs and any potential Class claims, and related appeals could require
`
`many years to fully resolve.
`
`III. THE FEE PROPOSAL
`Plaintiffs’ Fee Proposal is designed to provide reasonable and equitable
`
`compensation to Plaintiffs’ Counsel for the work they have performed, the risk and
`
`expenses they have shouldered in prosecuting these cases, and future work they will do
`
`in implementing the Settlement. The Proposal entails common benefit assessments for
`
`work p

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket