In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation

Docket number: 18-cv-05062-EJD (N.D. Cal.)

The Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) filed an objection on behalf of two car rental franchises to an an eleventh-hour request by attorneys to add $93 million to an already-generous fee award in In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation. The class action has produced more than $1.2 billion in settlements, for which class counsel has already received over $269 million in fees across four rounds of settlements. The fifth and final around adds only $3.1 million to the fund, yet class counsel seeks an additional $93 million pre-interest, to push their total fee award in the “megafund” to 30%.

Class counsel told Judge Battani in June 2016 they would not seek 30% of a billion dollar fund, and this commitment was repeated in class notice for the first four rounds, which claimed attorneys would seek progressively smaller percentages in every round of settlement, which is normal as the size of a fund increases.

In Rounds 3 and 4, class counsel requested and received what they told the court was a final fee for those settlements—22% cumulatively—at the direction of then-presiding Judge Battani. A 22% fee on over a billion-dollar fund far exceeds the average in billion-dollar cases, where fees typically fall below 15%. Class counsel is well-compensated.

In 2020, Judge Battani retired to better fight her cancer, which took her life months later.

After reaching the final few, comparatively small, settlements, class counsel changed course and now seeks 30% for the entire fund, plus an indeterminate amount of interest.

The objectors oppose revisiting the prior fee awards, which were not “incomplete” as class counsel says. The objection asks the court to confirm that prior rounds are closed and that any additional award may come, if at all, only from the modest $3.1 million added in Round 5.

The objectors also seek clarity about the interest sought, because on portion of the fee motion makes it sound as if class counsel seeks interest on the entire common fund, which would inappropriately diminish class recovery. Large class claimants like the objectors have received no money from the settlements while class counsel has already received hundreds of millions of dollars 5-8 years ago. The time value on remaining funds belongs to the class, not attorneys.

On July 11, Judge Cox denied the fee motion without prejudice to renew, citing arguments raised by CCAF and other objectors. “The Court also concludes that the motion should be denied without prejudice because the requested fee award is excessive.” The order suggests that the award should only increase the percentage to perhaps 23-25% or instead be based on lodestar for new work, but states this is a matter for a new judge to decide (Judge Cox retires before the end of the month).

CCAF will review the new fee request on behalf of its clients, whenever it is filed.

Case Documents