`
`
`
`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