1 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 2 7 8 UNITED STATES ... · Sys., 847 P.2d 440, 450-51 (1993)....

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS (MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP)

38TH FLOOR

1000 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104

(206) 622-2000

The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

IN RE STARBUCKS CONSUMER LITIGATION

MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: March 22, 2013

_____________________________________________________________________________

LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS ____________________________________________________________________________

Case 2:11-cv-01985-MJP Document 58 Filed 03/05/13 of 15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS (MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP) - 1

38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

I. INTRODUCTION

Class counsel negotiated a settlement with Starbucks as described and submitted earlier

(Motion for Preliminary Approval, ECF No. 54) and the Court has granted preliminary approval.

12/18/12 Order, ECF No. 55. In advance of the date for objections to the proposed settlement, Lead

Class Counsel submits this motion for award of fees and costs. The fees and costs sought are

consistent with the 25 percent figure described to the Court and to the Class in the Motion for

Preliminary Approval papers and in the Notice to the Class. The Notice to the Class regarding the

proposed settlement informed the Class that the fee request would be no more than 25% of the

common fund settlement amount. See ECF No. 54, Ex. C (Notice Plan) at 8. The Settlement

Agreement, also posted on the settlement notice website also clearly identifies the 25% figure. Id.,

App. 1 (Stip. and Settlement Agreement) at 16.1 A lodestar cross-check built on Seattle area attorney

hourly rates confirms that a fee request of 25% is entirely reasonable. Because work remains to

finalize approval, counsel requests approval of a fee award at this time of 25%. Barring

extraordinary objection issues or appeal, this should be the final fee request.

As set forth below, Lead Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is well-

justified in both law and fact. The request is supported by the percentage method and is also

extremely reasonable when cross-checked by the lodestar method of calculating fees, because it

represents only a 1.19 multiplier of the lodestar amount for work performed to date in this case,

which does not yet include review of objections, monitoring of claim processing or final approval.

Furthermore, the request is justified because of the novel and unique theory advanced by Class

Counsel, which resulted in a settlement which will provide all Class members with the right to

substantial monetary relief. Indeed, Class Counsel has reached an extraordinary settlement, equal to

approximately 100% of the Class’ damages. This result was no accident; it was the result of highly

experienced class action counsel working for the class. Small dollar damages cases fall by the way if

1 The website links to the Settlement Agreement at http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/6956d71c36ba42509f27279e314b68ea.pdf


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

consumers have no efficient vehicle to present their claims. This is true also when claims are

aggregated. Lawyers acting on behalf of a class should be incented to seek recovery even when

aggregate damages are not immense.

Declarations of Leviton, Urmy, Shah and Tondini supporting the fee request are

submitted herewith.

II. DISCUSSION A. Class Counsel’s Request for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Using the

Percentage Method Is Well-Supported by Ninth-Circuit Law.

In order to determine the appropriate attorney fee award in the context of a class action

settlement, the Ninth Circuit recognizes that district courts have the “discretion to use either a

percentage or lodestar method.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998)

(citing In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir. 1994)

(“WPPSS”)). The Ninth Circuit has further held that when state substantive law applies, attorneys’

fees are to be awarded in accordance with state law. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043,

1047 (9th Cir. 2002); Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1325 (W.D. Wash. 2009).

Similar to the Ninth Circuit, Washington law recognizes both the lodestar method and the

percentage method for determining the appropriate attorneys’ fee. See Bowles v. Wash. Dep’t of Ret.

Sys., 847 P.2d 440, 450-51 (1993). Where the settlement results in a shared pool of money to be

distributed among the class and the attorneys—also known as a “common fund” case—Washington

law generally favors the percentage method in calculating fees. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1047; see

also Bowles, 847 P.2d at 451 (“This being a common fund case, we apply the percentage of recovery

approach.”).

Under Washington law, the benchmark award in common fund cases is 25% of the recovery

obtained, with 20-30% as the usual range. See Bowles, 847 P.2d at 450-51. Washington courts also

look to federal law for guidance in the area of attorneys’ fees. Id. Ninth Circuit jurisprudence

echoes Washington law, setting the general benchmark award of 25% in common fund cases. See

Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989). However, “[t]he 25%


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

benchmark rate, although a starting point for analysis, may be inappropriate in some cases.”

Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048. Specifically, “[t]he benchmark percentage should be adjusted … when

special circumstances indicate that the percentage recovery would be either too small or too large in

light of the hours devoted to the case or other relevant factors.” Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz.

Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990). For instance, several district courts have

issued fees in the range of 30-50% of the common fund. A common thread running through these

cases is that they involved relatively smaller funds of less than $10 million. Thus, where the

recovery is more modest, the fee percentage tends to be higher on a proportionate basis because of

the larger ratio of hours to the amount of recovery. See In re Shell Oil Refinery, 155 F.R.D. 552, 573

(E.D. La. 1993) (citing 4 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 14.03

(3rd ed. Dec. 1992)). The Ninth Circuit has also set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors which may

be relevant to a district court’s determination of the percentage ultimately awarded: (1) the results

achieved; (2) the risk of litigation; (3) the skill required and quality of work; (4) the contingent nature

of the fee and the financial burden carried by the plaintiffs; and (5) awards made in similar cases.

See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048-50. Other district courts within the Ninth Circuit have examined the

experience of class counsel, the effort expended by class counsel, and the reaction of the class. See

In re Heritage Bond Litig., 2005 WL 1594389, Case Nos. 02-ML-1475-DT (RCX), et al. at *8 (C.D.

Cal. June 10, 2005) (citations omitted). In the instant case, an examination of these factors coupled

with the cases mentioned above that departed upward from the 25% benchmark reveals that Class

Counsel’s request for a 25% award is well justified.2

2 The following cases demonstrate that district courts do depart upward from the 25% benchmark where the settlement amount is below $10 million. See, e.g., Cullen v. Whitman Med. Corp., 197 F.R.D. 136, 150 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (awarding one-third of a $7.3 million common fund); In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litig., 526 F. Supp. 494, 499 (D.D.C. 1981) (awarding 45% of a $7.3 million common fund); Beech Cinema Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 480 F. Supp. 1195, 1199 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (awarding 53.2% of the settlement fund below $1 million); McKinnie v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 678 F. Supp. 2d. 806, 816 (E.D. Wis. 2009) (awarding 30% of $2.1 million common fund); Romero v. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:05cv0484DLB, 2007 WL 3492841, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2007) (awarding one-third of a settlement fund below $1 million); Faircloth v. Certified Fin., Inc., Case No. Civ.A. 99-3097 2001 WL 527489, at *12 (E.D. La. May 16, 2001) (awarding 35% of $1.53 million fund).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

1. Class Counsel Obtained an Outstanding Result for the Class.

The Supreme Court recognizes that the result achieved is a major factor to be considered

in making a fee award. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983) (“[T]he most critical

factor is the degree of success obtained.”) This District Court has also held that “‘[e]xceptional

results are a relevant circumstance to consider when determining a reasonable fee.” In re Infospace,

Inc. Sec. Litig., 330 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1207 (W.D. Wash. 2004) (quoting Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at

1048). Pursuing a case in the absence of supporting precedent lends support to the notion that

counsel has achieved an excellent result for the class. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048. Here, the

Settlement was by all means an outstanding result for the class. Starbucks is funding the settlement

with 100% of the amount of the reasonably calculable overcharge. See Mot. for Prelim. Approval,

ECF No. 54 at 15-16. Despite the challenges of asserting an overcharge case under multiple state

law schemes and with varying methods of purchase, Class Counsel achieved a result that captures

approximately 100% of the calculable overcharge. In addition, another great challenge in this case

was fashioning relief in such a way that the Class recovery was not gutted by administrative costs.

Most of the overages were small and typical costs of administration could have wiped-out the

recovery. Novel methods and procedures for notice, and claim funding were hammered out during

lengthy arms-length negotiations that sought to maximize class compensation.

2. The Prosecution of this Lawsuit was Risky Because It Involved Novel and Difficult Issues.

The Ninth Circuit recognizes that risk as well as novelty and difficulty of issues presented are

important factors in determining a fee award. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1048; see also WPPSS, 19

F.3d at 1302 (acknowledging that the case was “fraught with risk and recovery was far from certain”

in vacating an award and remanding to district court to increase attorneys’ fees). A fee award above

the 25% benchmark is particularly justified where a case presents complex issues and risks. See In re

Pacific Enter. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a 33% award for fees was

justified because of the complexity of the issues and the risks). In fact, the Ninth Circuit recognizes


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

that it is an abuse of discretion not to consider the risks associated with a case when determining the

appropriateness of a fee award. See Fischel v. Equitable Assur. Soc’y of United States, 307 F.3d 997,

1008 (9th Cir. 2002). And that risk includes bringing relatively small aggregate damages cases.

Here, substantial risks and uncertainties in this litigation made it far from certain that any

recovery would ultimately be obtained or be obtained efficiently. At the time Class Counsel began

investigating the matter (i.e., November 2011), it was highly uncertain for what time period and at

what volume of purchases the overages occurred. Novel issues included whether and how efficient

class-wide recovery could be sought on a nationwide basis. Although once sued, Starbucks engaged

in dispute resolution talks, that defense approach was unknown when the investigative work was

undertaken by Class Counsel. Indeed, even before filing the first complaint in the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, Class Counsel was required to draft and serve a demand pursuant to Massachusetts

General Law (“M.G.L.”) Chapter 93A, § 9 upon Mr. Howard Schultz, Starbucks’ President.

Moreover, on January 9, 2012, Class Counsel requested, pursuant to the Massachusetts Public

Records Laws, M.G.L. Chapter 4 § 7, clause 26, and M.G.L. Chapter 66, § 10, a copy of the

Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation’s (“MOCABR”) file

pertaining to its investigation into Starbucks’ undisclosed surcharge for scooped coffee beans.

These actions involved significant time and were done well before Starbucks even hinted at a

potential resolution of the litigation. See Decl. of Jason M. Leviton in Supp. of Lead Counsel’s

Mot. for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs submitted herewith, ¶ 4 (the “Leviton

Declaration”). Even then, however, strenuous negotiations enhanced what it was that Starbucks was

offering.

3. The Litigation Required Significant Skill and Effort to Properly Perform the Required Legal Services.

Class Counsel exerted time and effort in the prosecution of this action, which required the

work of highly-skilled and specialized attorneys with significant experience in class action litigation.

As set forth in the Leviton Declaration, Block & Leviton expended 317.50 hours for a total lodestar


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

of $197,622.50 in prosecuting this litigation. Id. ¶¶ 5-8. Per its earlier representation to the Court,

Block & Leviton then reduced its hourly rates so that they were consistent with this Court’s Order in

In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, Docket No. 910, Case No. 08-md-1919

MLP (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2011). Based on these discounted hourly rates, Block & Leviton’s

lodestar to date is $151,672.50. Block & Leviton is a highly skilled class action firm with

significant experience litigating complex class action cases. See Leviton Decl., Ex. I (Block &

Leviton’s Firm Resume). The attorneys at Block & Leviton have more than fifty years combined

litigation and trial experience. Senior Partner and co-founder Jeff Block’s legal career spans 25

years and he is one of the nation’s preeminent class action attorneys. Mr. Block is a frequent

lecturer and panelist on class action matters, including, among others, an ALI-ABA Conference

on Financial Service Industry Litigation and an International Law Seminar at the Harvard Club

on damages in securities litigation. Senior Partner and co-founder Jason M. Leviton – who is

admitted to practice in this Court – has extensive experience in class actions and is a frequent

commentator and author on issues relating to the federal securities laws and corporate

governance issues. For example, he has been a recurring guest on Rights Radio, including the

program entitled “Protecting Shareholder Rights through Civil Prosecutorial Litigation.” See Id.

at 6.

Similarly, as set forth in the Declaration of Thomas Urmy in Support of Lead Counsel’s

Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Urmy Decl.”), Shapiro Haber & Urmy

expended 488 hours for a total lodestar of $256,113.00 in prosecuting this litigation. Urmy Decl. ¶

15. After Shapiro Haber & Urmy’s hourly rates were modified consistent with the Court’s Order

in In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, the firm’s lodestar to date is $159,607.50.

Shapiro Haber’s attorneys uniformly possess exceptional credentials, including five partners and

two associates identified as Massachusetts “Super Lawyers” or “Rising Stars.” The firm has

recovered well over $1 billion in losses representing a range of clients in class action and

derivative litigation. The firm has successfully litigated numerous high-profile cases, including,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

for example, cases involving: financial fraud at HealthSouth and securities violations involving

Merrill-Lynch. The Shapiro Haber team in this matter was led by Shapiro Haber partners

Thomas V. Urmy, Jr. and Charles E. Tompkins. See Urmy Decl., Ex. 1 (Shapiro Haber Urmy

Firm Resume).

Attorneys with Shepard, Finkleman, Miller & Shah LLP also assisted the Shapiro Haber

team. This effort was led by Natalie Finkelman and James Shah. They assisted in particular in

researching avenues for relief under California law. See Decl. of James C. Shah in Support of

Reimbursement of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Shah Decl.”), filed herewith. Their

lodestar fee is $23,635.50. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.

As set forth in the Declaration of John Tondini in Support of Counsel’s Motion for Award

of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Tondini Decl.”), Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP expended 74.6

hours as Liaison Counsel for a total lodestar of $30,150.00 in prosecuting this action and acting as

liaison counsel. Tondini Decl. at ¶¶ 5-6. Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP has extensive experience in

complex litigation, including consumer protection and securities class actions, in this District and

throughout the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Keller is a Fellow of the American College of Trial

Lawyers, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, the International Society of Barristers,

and the American Board of Trial Advocates. John Tondini, also a partner in the firm, has over

twenty years of experience in complex cases in Washington courts and in the Western District of

Washington. Mr. Tondini served two terms as the Chair of the Washington State Bar

Association’s Antitrust, Consumer Protection and Unfair Business Practices Section. See

Tondini Decl., Ex. B (Byrnes Keller Cromwell Firm Resume).

Following the public announcement of a state investigation, Class Counsel began their

own investigation into the circumstances surrounding the upcharge and determined that the

charge was a violation of numerous statutory and common law principles. This investigation

included interviews with numerous individuals subject to the surcharge and, critically, a public

records request to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which request saved tens of thousands


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

in discovery attorneys’ fees alone. This public records request afforded Block & Leviton and

Shapiro Haber significant additional information supporting their clients’ claims, including the

fact that even the receipt provided by Starbucks following the purchase of repackaged coffee

beans did not indicate that a surcharge had been added. Following this investigation, and the

fulfillment of all statutory pre-filing requirements in California and Massachusetts, Block &

Leviton and Shapiro Haber sought assistance for this litigation with the preeminent Seattle

boutique law firm, Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP. The three firms then filed a class action in this

Court on behalf of Jonah Cannon (a Washington State resident), James Kaen (a State of

California resident), and Rachel Wassel (a Commonwealth of Massachusetts resident).

Pursuant to the litigation plan presented to the Court, the parties undertook simultaneous

preparation for trial of the matter and earnest settlement discussions. While Starbucks was

willing to put the matter to rest and refund charges, the scope of the Class, the determination of

charges, and mechanisms of identifying the Class and creating efficient compensation vehicles

were significant issues. Although perhaps unglamorous, creative thought regarding cost-

effective ways to achieve a high return to the Class was a time-consuming effort in this case.

4. Class Counsel Carried the Financial Burden in Pursuing this Litigation by Pursuing this Case on a Contingency Fee Basis.

“Attorneys whose compensation depends on their winning the case must make up in

compensation in the cases they win for the lack of compensation in the cases they lose.” Vizcaino,

290 F.3d at 1051. Thus, whether class counsel take a case on a contingency fee basis is a factor in

determining the appropriateness of a fee award. See Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370,

1376-77 (9th Cir. 1993). “Contingent fees [are] . . . a legitimate way of assuring competent

representation for plaintiffs who could not afford to pay on an hourly basis regardless [of] whether

they win or lose.” WPPSS, 19 F.3d at 1299 (citation omitted).

Here, Class Counsel undertook this litigation on a purely contingent basis, with no assurance

of recovering attorneys’ fees or reimbursement of costs. Although there was no guarantee in


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

recovery, and despite the complex and novel issues of law and fact involved, Counsel undertook to

represent consumers who on an individual basis would have literally almost no economic incentive to

sue. Important consumer rights are vindicated in cases like this only because a few consumers and a

few lawyers are willing to devote their time to pursuing such cases. “Private attorney-general” type

actions should be encouraged with a reasonable fee award and especially so in cases where damages

even in the aggregate are not significant. Policing consumer fairness loses momentum if cases are

not brought. Fairly compensating counsel is vital.

The quality of opposing counsel is also important in evaluating the quality of work performed

by Class Counsel. See, e.g., In re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec. Litig., 438 F. Supp. 1303, 1337

(C.D. Cal. 1977) (“[P]laintiffs’ attorneys in this class action have been up against established and

skillful defense lawyers, and should be compensated accordingly.”). Here, Plaintiffs were opposed in

this litigation by Perkins Coie, a highly respected firm in this community with a group of veteran

litigators specializing in the defense of clients involved in complex commercial disputes, such as the

class action brought by Plaintiffs here. Additionally, Class Counsel’s commitment of time and

resources to the instant class action litigation required counsel to forego significant other work. See

Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050 (recognizing that these burdens are relevant circumstances in determining

the appropriateness of a fee award).

As a result, Class Counsel have advanced a substantial amount of time and labor on behalf of

the Class that required significant skill by experienced class action attorneys against a respectable

opponent, thereby justifying Class Counsel’s reasonable fee request. Class Counsel have also only

submitted a fee request for work performed in this case up until February 28, 2013, and therefore the

request has not included the time and work involved in preparing the instant motion. There remains

the final approval motion, and all other related briefings. Class Counsel will also be responsible for

continuing to monitor the Settlement and the disbursement of Settlement proceeds once the Court

fully approves the Settlement. Accordingly, this factor supports Class Counsel’s request for fees.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

5. The Fees Requested Are in the Range of Awards in Similar Cases and No Specific Objection to a Fee of 25% Has Been Raised.

As established in footnote one above, courts often award fees in the 30-50% range for

settlements below $10 million. The likelihood that a court will award a higher percentage of

attorneys’ fees is even higher where the settlement is well below $10 million as is the case here.

Overall, “[e]mpircal studies show that regardless [of] whether the percentage method or the lodestar

method is used, fee awards in class actions average around one-third of the recovery.” 4 William B.

Rubenstein, Alba Conte and Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 14.6 (4th ed. 2007);

see also In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 146 F. Supp. 2d 706, 735 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citing affidavit of

law professor who compiled 289 settlements ranging from $1 million to $50 million to determine that

average percentage is 31.71% and median is one-third).

So far, only 13 opt-out requests have been received. Because the Class Notice and

Preliminary Approval pleadings were available to the Class, each Class Member was provided

reasonable notice weeks ago that a fee award of up to 25% would be sought. Of the 13 opt-outs

only one even mentions in an entirely generic way a fee award to the attorneys. See Tondini

Decl. Ex. C, Opt-Out Email of 1/18/2013 (Email Address Redacted). “It is established that the

absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong

presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are favorable to the class members.”

Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 529 (C.D. Cal. 2004). B. A Cross-Check of Class Counsel’s Fee Request Using the Lodestar Method Supports an

Award of One-Third of the Settlement Amount.

The Ninth Circuit recognizes that applying the lodestar method as a cross-check method

“provides a check on the reasonableness of the percentage award.” Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050; see

also Shaffer v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 362 F. App’x. 627, 631 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s

decision to use the lodestar method to cross-check the percentage method). Moreover, this District

Court recognizes that a “modest 1.82 multiplier requested by [counsel] falls well within the range of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

multipliers approved by Ninth Circuit courts.” Pelletz, 592 F. Supp. 2d at 1328 (citing Vizcaino, 290

F.3d at 1052-54). In fact, the Ninth Circuit acknowledges that most multipliers range from 1.0 to 4.0.

Id.

This Court has approved fee requests from firms with similar and higher hourly rates to the

rates charged by Class Counsel here. See Zaldivar v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. C07-1695-RAJ (W.D.

Wash.) (Dkt. Nos. 188-189) (approving attorneys’ hourly rate of $225 to $650); In re Northwest

Biotherapeutics Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C07-1254-RAJ (W.D. Wash.) (Dkt. No. 79) (same). This

District Court has likewise found that an hourly rate of $305 to $800 is reasonable. See Pelletz, 592

F. Supp. 2d at 1326-27. Class Counsel here have applied a maximum rate of $525 (based upon

Seattle counsel Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP rates) even though for out-of-state counsel this rate is

well below their customary rate. The total “Seattle” lodestar here is $365,065.50

In this case, Class Counsel is requesting a fee award that represents only 1.19 of its lodestar.

The settlement was for $1,733,025, 25% is $433,256.25. In Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051, n.6 the court

took note that a survey of class action settlements nationwide showed 54% of lodestar multipliers fell

within the 1.5 to 3.0 range, and that 83% of multipliers fell within the 1.0 to 4.0 range. As a result,

the fee requested by Class Counsel is reasonably in light of the range of multipliers commonly

approved by district courts within the Ninth Circuit.

C. Class Counsel’s Request for Reimbursement of Costs Is Fair and Reasonable.

“Reasonable costs and expenses incurred by an attorney who creates or preserves a common

fund are reimbursed proportionately by those class members who benefit from the settlement.” In re

Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (citing Mills v. Elec. Auto-

Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 391-92 (1970)). The requested costs must be relevant to the litigation and

reasonable in amount. In re Media Vision, 913 F. Supp. at 1366. Courts allow recovery of “out-of-

pocket expenses that would normally be charged to a fee paying client.” Harris v. Marhoefer, 24

F.3d 16, 19 (9th Cir. 1994).

The categories of expenses for which Class Counsel seek reimbursement are the type of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

expenses routinely charged to hourly clients and, therefore, should be reimbursed here. These costs

included: (1) travel; (2) telephone and facsimile charges; (3) postage; (4) messenger service charges;

(5) commercial and internal copies; (6) costs charged by experts; (7) court fees; (8) court reporters

and transcripts; and (9) computer research. See Leviton Decl., Ex. H; Urmy Decl., ¶ 16, Shah Decl. ¶

8; Tondini Decl., Ex. A. Class Counsel advanced these out-of-pocket costs without assurance that

they would ever be repaid. The expenses incurred were necessary to secure the resolution of this

litigation. See In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1177-78 (S.D. Cal. 2007)

(finding that costs such as filing fees, photocopy costs, travel expenses, postage, telephone and fax

costs, and mediation expenses are relevant and necessary expenses in a class action litigation). See

In re Media Vision, 913 F. Supp at 1371 (“Given the complexity of the issues, this Court does not

doubt that computerized research played an essential role in the litigation at hand.”). To date, these

expenses total $8,878.61.

Class Counsel also seek reimbursement of limited future costs they expect to incur in

distributing the funds of the settlement. See Brailsford v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. C06-

00700CW, 2007 WL 1302978, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2007) (approving plaintiffs’ counsel’s

request for future expenses in finally approving settlement). As laid out in the parties’ preliminary

approval motion and the Settlement Notice, the Class was notified of these costs up to a maximum of

$12,000. Thus, Class Counsel respectfully requests that the Court reimburse all costs advanced by

Class Counsel in order to successfully prosecute this litigation ($8,878.61) with the balance (up to

$12,000) reserved for future expenses.

III. CONCLUSION

The Class is benefitting from a novel program of overcharge refunds in the best economical

fashion that returns as much as reasonably possible to the Class. Counsel should be encouraged to

bring private class actions for what individually would be utterly uneconomical claims. An award of

25% is reasonable.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

DATED this 5th day of March, 2013.

BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP

By: /s/ John A. Tondini

John A. Tondini, WSBA #19092 Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206.622.2000 Facsimile: 206.622.2522 Email: [email protected] Co-Lead and Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs

Jason M. Leviton, WSBA #34106 Jeffrey C. Block, pro hac vice Scott A. Mays, pro hac vice Block & Leviton LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 1303 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617.398.5600 Facsimile: 617.507.6020 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Co-Lead and Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs Thomas E. Urmy, Jr. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617.439.3939 Facsimile: 617.439.0134 Email: [email protected] Co-Lead and Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney certifies that on the 5th day of March, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel on record in the matter.

/s/ John A. Tondini Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Facsimile: (206) 622-2522 [email protected]


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS (MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP) - 1

38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000




MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

For the reasons presented in Lead Counsel’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

Costs, the motion is hereby granted. Fees of 25% of the Settlement Amount, $1,733,025 are

appropriate in this case both as a percentage and cross-checked to a Seattle area lodestar. Fees of

$433,256.25 are approved. Class Counsel’s expenses of up to $12,000 are also approved.

IT IS SO ORDERED, THIS ____ DAY OF _____________, 2013. ______________________________ Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-01985-MJP Document 58-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS (MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP) - 2

38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000




Case 2:11-cv-01985-MJP Document 58-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 2 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DECLARATION OF JOHN A. TONDINI IN SUPPORT OF LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS (MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP) - 1

38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000




MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP DECLARATION OF JOHN A. TONDINI IN SUPPORT OF LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

JOHN A. TONDINI, declares as follows:

1. I am a partner at the law firm of Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP (“BKC”). I submit

this declaration in support of BKC’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees in connection

with services rendered in the above-captioned action (the Action”), as well as for reimbursement

of expenses incurred by my firm in connection with the Action.

2. BKC is the Court-appointed liaison counsel for plaintiffs in the Action. In this

capacity, my firm performed the following tasks:

• Researched the best available avenues for relief under Washington law;

• Participated with lead counsel in developing and implementing overall case

strategies regarding discovery, trial, and settlement;

• Assisted and coordinated efforts for court filings, motions and court conducted

conferences;

Case 2:11-cv-01985-MJP Document 59 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1 of 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

• Strategized on needed discovery;

• Strategized on breakthroughs for settlement impasses; and

• Coordinated BKC efforts with those of other plaintiffs’ counsel to keep all

plaintiffs’ counsel abreast of significant developments and avoid duplication of

effort.

3. The commitment of time to any contingent fee case is of significance to my firm.

Time devoted to contingent fee cases is time that is taken from other fee generating matters. Not

all contingent fee matters result in recoveries and disincentives for consumer contingent work is

more and more a problem given challenges to proof in class-wide contexts.

4. The schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is a detailed summary indicating the

amount of time spent by each attorney and professional support staff of my firm who was

involved in this Action, and the lodestar calculation based on billing rates for this matter. The

schedule was prepared from contemporaneous daily time records regularly prepared and

maintained by my firm, which are available at the request of the Court. Time expended in

preparing this application for fees and reimbursement of expenses has not been included in this

request.

5. The hourly rates for the attorneys and professional support staff in my firm

included in Exhibit A are within the range of the hourly rates charged by other Seattle attorneys

and support staff with comparable levels of experience who do similar types of work. Mr.

Keller’s experience and standing in the bar was detailed in our submission on the motion for

appointment of lead class counsel. I have practiced in this District since 1989. I have served as

Chair on two occasions of the WSBA Antitrust, Consumer Protection and Unfair Business

Practices Section.

6. The total number of hours expended on this Action by my firm from its inception

through and including February is 74.6. We bill to the tenth of an hour. The total lodestar for

my firm for that period is $30,150.00, of that amount $1715.00 is for professional paralegal time.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

7. My firm’s lodestar figures are based upon billing rates which do not include

charges for hard dollar expense items. Expense items are billed separately and such charges are

not duplicated in my firm’s billing rates.

8. As detailed in Exhibit A, my firm has incurred a total of $1,247.30 in

unreimbursed expenses in connection with the prosecution of this Action from its inception

through and including February 2013.

9. The expenses incurred in this Action are reflected on the books and records of my

firm. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records and other

source materials and are an accurate record of the expenses incurred. With respect to on-line

legal research, my firm pays a flat monthly rate for Westlaw that it allocates to specific

matters/clients based on each matter/client’s proportional use.

10. With respect to the standing of my firm, attached hereto as Exhibit B is a brief

biography of my firm and attorneys in my firm who were principally involved in this Action.

11. Of the opt-out letters reviewed by me as of today, only one makes a tangential

reference to attorney’s fees. A copy of that email, with the email addresses redacted is attached

hereto as Exhibit C.

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true and correct.

Dated this 5th day of March, 2013, at Seattle, Washington. /s/ John A. Tondini John A. Tondini, WSBA #19092


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

EXHIBIT A

In re Starbucks Consumer Litigation Master Case No. C11-1985MJP

BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP

TIME REPORT

Inception through February 28, 2013

Fees:

Bradley S. Keller Attorney $525.00 16.6 $ 8,715.00John A. Tondini Attorney $400.00 49.3 $19,720.00Mika L. Kitamura Legal Assistant $200.00 8.2 $ 1,640.00Kimberly E. Johnston Legal Assistant $150.00 .5 $ 75.00Total Fees $30,150.00 Expenses: Duplicating $ 136.05Westlaw $ 154.25Filing Fees (W.D. Wash.)

$ 950.00

Messenger $ 7.00Total Expenses $ 1,247.30


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

EXHIBIT B BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP FIRM AND ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHY

FIRM DESCRIPTION

Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP was established in 1984 and has become one of Seattle’s foremost litigation boutiques. Byrnes Keller Cromwell combines the legal sophistication and expertise of the largest law firms with extensive in-court jury and other experience, delivered with the efficiencies and responsiveness of a small firm. Representing clients ranging from the nation’s largest companies to individuals and small businesses, the firm’s practice includes complex commercial disputes, securities, antitrust, business torts, professional liability, trade secrets, insurance-related matters, environmental, product liability, and personal injury.

Byrnes Keller Cromwell is known for the depth of its trial experience, which includes nationally-publicized high stakes cases. The firm has been involved in many of the major cases in the Pacific Northwest, ranging from representing a significant portion of the Alaska seafood processing industry in the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation to a central role as trial counsel in the Washington Medicaid recoupment tobacco litigation, in the highly publicized litigation over the Seattle Supersonics’ move to Oklahoma City, and in litigation arising from the collapse of WaMu.

Byrnes Keller Cromwell offers over 40 years of experience in securities and class action

experience. Although well known for its defense work, Byrnes Keller Cromwell’s efforts in various cases helped its clients recover over $100 million in 2010. The firm has an excellent track record in securities litigation, including favorable jury verdicts in a number of cases tried.

ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES

Bradley S. Keller is one of the founding partners of Byrnes & Keller LLP (currently Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP). Brad has exclusively been engaged in a trial practice since 1980, focusing on business and tort litigation. Brad has tried a substantial number of jury and non-jury disputes representing both plaintiffs and defendants, ranging from RICO, securities fraud, products liability, Consumer Protection Act, antitrust, dealer-termination, and class action cases. His clients include a wide variety of individuals and businesses, ranging from closely-held private concerns to Fortune 500 companies.

Mr. Keller is a Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers; a Fellow, International Society of Barristers; a Fellow, International Academy of Trial Lawyers; a Member, American Board of Trial Advocates; and is Listed in Best Lawyers in America. John A. Tondini has practiced law in Seattle since 1989. His federal and state court trial practice includes representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex litigation matters. Additionally, he counsels clients on joint ventures, trade practices, antitrust and consumer issues. In 2001 and 2012 he chaired the WSBA Antitrust, Consumer Protection and Unfair Business Practices Section. He has represented clients in securities and consumer class actions; professional liability suits; mass tort litigation; and trade secret and patent cases; among other matters. Before joining Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP in 1999, he was a partner at Bogle & Gates

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


38TH FLOOR


(206) 622-2000

PLLC. Mr. Tondini is “Preeminent AV” rated by Martindale, was recognized in Seattle Metropolitan under the classification of “Best Lawyers for Antitrust and Trade Regulation” and is a Fellow in the Litigation Counsel of America.


-1- DECLARATION OF THOMAS V. URMY, JR. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES & REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FILED (MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26




) ) ) ) ) ) ) )))

MASTER CASE NO. C11-1985MJP DECLARATION OF THOMAS V. URMY, JR. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES & REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FILED

I, Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., declare as follows:

1. I am a partner in the firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (“SHU”). Together with

Block & Leviton LLP (“B&L”), SHU is Class Counsel in this Action. Byrnes Keller Cromwell

LLP (“Byrnes Keller”) is Liaison Counsel. As described more fully below, our three firms have

represented the Plaintiffs Jonah Cannon, James Kaen, and Rachel Wassel (“Plaintiffs”), as well

as the certified Class, in this action against Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”).

2. I submit this declaration in support of SHU’s application for an award of

attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with litigating this Action.

3. SHU first learned from a November 14, 2011 newspaper article that the

Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (MOCABR) had



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

investigated Starbucks’ practice of selling certain brands of coffee beans in quantities of less than

one pound at per pound prices that were greater than its posted per pound prices for those beans,

without disclosing the higher per pound prices or “Upcharges” being charged for the smaller

amounts. This news prompted SHU and B&L to begin their own investigation into Starbucks’

Upcharges, which included interviews with numerous individuals subject to the Upcharges and

research into the legality of such charges.

4. During the course of that investigation, Plaintiff Rachel Wassel (“Wassel”)

retained SHU and B&L to pursue a Massachusetts class action claim against Starbucks relating

to the Upcharges. As a result of their investigation, SHU and B&L researched and drafted a

class action complaint on behalf of Wassel as well as a demand letter pursuant to Mass. Gen.

Laws ch. 93A. The demand letter was sent on December 5, 2011. The complaint was filed on

December 9, 2011 in Massachusetts Superior Court.

5. SHU and B&L aggressively prosecuted the Massachusetts case on behalf of

Plaintiff Wassel. On December 16, 2011, they served Starbucks with a request for the

production of documents and also used a public records request to obtain documents relating to

MOCABR’s investigation of Starbucks Upcharges. Based on a review of these documents, on

January 24, 2012 SHU and B&L filed an amended complaint in Wassel’s Massachusetts

Superior Court case that contained far more detailed allegations than the initial complaint.

6. Because Starbucks had engaged in the same Upcharge practices nationwide, SHU

and B&L investigated the possibility of filing similar litigation in other jurisdictions, including

California and Washington. The two firms collaborated with Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &

Shah, LLP (“Shepherd, Finkelman”), which was retained by plaintiff James Kaen and sent a

demand letter to Starbucks under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1750, et seq., and on January 30, 2012, SHU, B&L, Byrnes Keller, and Shepherd Finkelman

filed a nationwide class complaint against Starbucks in this Court on behalf of Jonah Cannon,

James Kaen, and Rachel Wassel. SHU and B&L subsequently dismissed the Massachusetts

Superior Court case after negotiating a tolling agreement with Starbucks in order to protect

Massachusetts class members.

7. Because the Cannon case overlapped with a related case that had been brought by

Bonnie Kurnick in this Court, SHU, B&L, and Byrnes Keller then engaged in extensive motion

practice to consolidate the two cases and appoint lead counsel. In addition to filing legal briefs,

counsel participated in a conference with the Court and presented lists of judicial references to

the Court.

8. On March 12, 2012, the Court consolidated the Cannon and Kurnick cases and

appointed SHU and B&L as Interim Co-Lead Counsel and Byrnes Keller as Liaison Counsel.

These firms then drafted a Consolidated Amended Complaint which was also filed on April 16,

2012. Concurrent with this process, counsel for all parties engaged in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)

meeting on March 29, 2012 and drafted a Joint Litigation and Discovery Plan, which was filed

on April 16, 2012. Counsel also negotiated and drafted a Stipulated Protective Order, which the

Court entered on April 23, 2012.

9. Following the filing of the Consolidated Amended Complaint and the Joint

Litigation and Discovery Plan, SHU and B&L began discussions with Starbucks to explore

whether it might be possible to resolve the litigation by settlement. These discussions proved to

be productive. Over the following months, Starbucks produced detailed information regarding

the variations in Starbucks' Upcharge practices and practices related to different products at

different times between 2007 and 2011, and SHU conducted extensive reviews of this



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

information and engaged in continuous dialogue with Starbucks through August of 2012. As

part of this process, SHU identified missing information that increased the potential settlement

value for Class Members. Starbucks ultimately produced new or supplemental data files on nine

separate occasions during the discussion process.

10. The discussions with Starbucks eventually led Starbucks to calculate a final

estimate of the total Upcharges. Counsel negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)

under which Starbucks would pay out approximately 100% of these total Upcharges. The parties

signed this MOU on August 24, 2012.

11. Pursuant to the MOU, Starbucks provided a representative to be interviewed to

confirm the factual premises on which the MOU was based and address any remaining questions

regarding the company’s Upcharge practices. Representatives from SHU and B&L flew to

Seattle and met with this representative on October 2, 2012. As a result of this meeting, SHU

and B&L determined that a full settlement should be completed.

12. In October and November, SHU and B&L worked with Starbucks’s counsel to

prepare a detailed 44 page Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, including an on-line Notice

Plan suggested by Starbucks.

13. At the same time as counsel were finalizing the Stipulation and Settlement

Agreement and Notice Plan, SHU, B&L, and Byrnes Keller prepared a Motion Seeking

Preliminary Approval of the Settlement and supporting documents. The parties executed the

Stipulation and Settlement Agreement on November 30, 2012 and filed all of the settlement

related documents on the same date. On December 19, 2012, the Court entered its Order

Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14. Since December 19, 2012, SHU and B&L have continued to work diligently on

this case. Specifically, the firms have worked with Simpluris, Inc. to administer claims received

from Class Members, analyzed and addressed questions raised by a possible objector, and

reviewed all opt-out requests received from Class Members. The firms have also continued to

work on papers related to the final approval of the Settlement.

15. The following schedule summarizes the amount of time spent by the attorneys and

paralegals of my firm on this litigation through February 27, 2013, as well as their current hourly

rates. This schedule was prepared from contemporaneous daily time records maintained by my

firm. The total lodestar amount for attorney and paralegal time based on my firm’s current rates

is $256,113.00. We have adjusted our hourly rates to reflect what we have been advised are the

prevailing rates in Seattle. Our total adjusted lodestar is $159,607.50. A breakdown of the

lodestar is as follows:

Name Type Normal Rate

Adjusted Rate Hours

Normal Lodestar

Adjusted Lodestar

Edward F. Haber Senior Partner $850.00 $525.00 2.80 $2,380.00 $1,470.00

Thomas G. Shapiro Senior Partner $850.00 $525.00 5.90 $5,015.00 $3,097.50

Thomas V. Urmy, Jr. Senior Partner $850.00 $525.00 103.90 $88,315.00 $54,547.50

Michelle H. Blauner Partner $750.00 $425.00 2.80 $2,100.00 $1,190.00 Charles E. Tompkins Partner $750.00 $425.00 73.60 $55,200.00 $31,280.00 Ian J. McLoughlin Partner $650.00 $350.00 0.70 $455.00 $245.00 Robert E. Ditzion Associate $525.00 $315.00 91.00 $47,775.00 $28,665.00 April Kuehnhoff Associate $350.00 $210.00 81.00 $28,350.00 $17,010.00 Kimberly D. Hagan Paralegal $210.00 $175.00 0.40 $84.00 $70.00 Katherine Hermann Paralegal $210.00 $175.00 22.70 $4,767.00 $3,972.50 Lauren E. Wolahan Paralegal $210.00 $175.00 5.00 $1,050.00 $875.00 Erica A. Lewis Paralegal $210.00 $175.00 7.50 $1,575.00 $1,312.50 Kristen E. Keen Paralegal $210.00 $175.00 90.70 $19,047.00 $15,872.50 TOTAL 488.00 $256,113.00 $159,607.50



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16. The following schedule sets forth the expenses incurred by my firm in connection

with this litigation, which total $4,913.25. This expense summary was prepared from detailed

contemporaneous expense records kept by my firm.

Expense Category Total Internal Reproduction / Copies $94.05 Court Fees (Filing costs, etc.) $293.00 Court Reporters / Transcripts $65.25 Computer Research $502.33 Telephone/Fax $188.00 Postage/Express Delivery/Messenger $19.04 Professional Fees (Expert, Investigator, Mediator, etc.) $1,900.00 Witness/Service Fees $75.00 Travel (Air Transportation, Ground Travel, Meals, Lodging, etc.) $1,059.24 Miscellaneous $717.34 Total Expenses $4,913.25

17. With respect to the standing of my firm, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is our current

firm resume detailing the education and certain experiences of the attorneys in my firm.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 5th day of March, 2013.

Thomas V. Urmy, Jr. (pro hac vice) /s/ Thomas V. Urmy, Jr.________

SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 439-3939 – Telephone (617) 439-0134 – Facsimile [email protected]


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1

38TH FLOOR 1000 SECOND AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 622-2000





Exhibit 1


SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP

OVERVIEW

With over 30 years of experience litigating, trying, and winning multi-million dollar cases across the country, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has long been a national leader in the field of complex, high-stakes litigation. Each of our attorneys has the educational background, expertise, and creativity to litigate against the largest, most prominent law firms in the country – and win. Unlike many other law firms in which only a few, if any, of the lawyers have actually tried a case to conclusion, our lawyers have successfully tried dozens of cases to verdict, including complex antitrust and securities fraud actions, and have obtained outstanding results for our clients when efforts to reach a negotiated settlement have failed. As a result, we approach each case – large or small – with the expectation that it may be tried, and with the rigor and attention to detail that excellent trial preparation requires. Four of Shapiro Haber & Urmy’s partners, Thomas G. Shapiro, Edward F. Haber, Thomas V. Urmy, Jr. and Michelle H. Blauner, were named Massachusetts Super Lawyers in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 and partner Ian J. McLoughlin was named a Massachusetts Rising Star in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Associates Adam M. Stewart and Robert Ditzion were named Massachusetts Rising Stars in 2011 and 2012. The firm has been awarded the “AV” rating by the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, which is given only to those firms that have earned a very high measure of professional esteem and have adhered to the highest ethical standards in the legal profession. Shapiro Haber & Urmy’s commitment to success in high-stakes, high-profile litigation is matched by its commitment to providing access to quality legal representation on a pro bono or reduced-fee basis to low-wage individuals who otherwise might not be able to afford legal help. Our attorneys have represented low-wage workers in the fields of hospitality, janitorial services, and retail, in actions seeking to recover unpaid wages ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars. In each of these smaller cases we incur large fees and expenses, often far in excess of the wages sought to be recovered. It is our belief that part of our duty as members of the bar is to represent those who otherwise would not have any means to obtain relief in court, and we welcome that responsibility. In recognition of this commitment, the firm received the Law Firm Award from the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project (PAIR) for its pro bono work in representing asylum seekers.


OUR LEGAL TEAM

Thomas G. Shapiro, Partner • 1965, B.A. magna cum laude, Harvard College • 1969, J.D. cum laude, Harvard Law School

Edward F. Haber, Partner • 1966, B.A., Cornell University • 1969, J.D. cum laude, Harvard Law School

Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., Partner • 1960, B.A. cum laude, Amherst College • 1964, L.L.B., Yale Law School

Michelle H. Blauner, Partner • 1983, B.A. with highest distinction, Cornell University • 1986, J.D. cum laude, Harvard Law School

Ian J. McLoughlin, Partner • 1997, B.A. cum laude, Gonzaga University • 2000, J.D. magna cum laude, Boston University School of Law

Adam M. Stewart, Associate

• 2001, B.S. magna cum laude, Northeastern University • 2004, J.D. magna cum laude, Suffolk University Law School • 2004-2005, law clerk for the Justices of the Massachusetts Superior Court

Robert E. Ditzion, Associate • 1996, B.A. cum laude, Harvard College • 2004, J.D. magna cum laude, Georgetown University Law Center • 2004-2005, law clerk to the Honorable James Robertson (D.D.C.)

Rachel M. Brown, Associate • 1992, B.A. with first class honors, Cambridge University • 1993, M. Phil., Cambridge University • 1999, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology • 2006, J.D. magna cum laude, Harvard Law School

Patrick J. Vallely, Associate • 2002, B.A. magna cum laude, University of Dayton • 2005, J.D. with honors, University of Chicago Law School

April Kuehnhoff, Associate • 2001, B.A. summa cum laude, Wellesley College • 2004, M.A., University of Sussex • 2009, J.D., Harvard Law School • 2010-2012, law clerk for the Honorable Gary Katzmann at the Massachusetts

Appeals Court

______________________________________________________________________ Complete Biographies For Each Of Our Attorneys Are Attached At The End Of This Resume.


mailto:[email protected]�







JUDICAL RECOGNITION

• Shapiro Haber & Urmy “comes with a wealth of experience and skill in

prosecuting class actions.” US West, Inc., et al. v. Macallister, et al., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97, 269 (D. Colo. 1992) (Babcock, J.).

• Shapiro Haber & Urmy is “highly qualified to act as lead counsel for the Class” and “has extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, including as lead counsel.” United States Trust Co. of New York v. Albert (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (Grubin, J.).

• “[Shapiro Haber & Urmy] have wide experience in the field of securities class litigation [and] … counsels’ skillful and zealous representation over a six-year period enabled the settling classes to obtain a favorable and certain cash recovery. . . . The high quality of representation provided by [Shapiro Haber & Urmy] is evident from the extensive record of this case . . . .” In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 156, 164, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Keenan, J.).

• Shapiro Haber & Urmy “has broad-based experience in complex litigation, including experience in securities fraud class actions in this district and others.” Swack v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 230 F.R.D. 250, 267 (D. Mass. 2005) (Woodlock, J.).

• “I am satisfied that [Shapiro Haber & Urmy] will prosecute this action

vigorously and will protect the interests of the absent class members.” McLaughlin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 224 F.R.D. 304, 310 (D. Mass. 2004) (Keeton, J.).

• “I think that [Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP] has done an excellent job on this and

makes my job much, much easier.” Olmeda v. AM Broadband, LLC, C.A. No. 06-cv-30051 (D. Mass. 2009) (Final Approval Hearing, Oct. 14, 2009) (Neiman, M.J.)

• Shapiro Haber & Urmy is “highly qualified both generally, and in the specific context of private class actions under the Federal securities laws.” Coopersmith, et al. v. Lehman Brothers, Inc., 344 F. Supp. 2d 783, 784 (D. Mass. 2004) (Gorton, J.).


Highlights of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP’s class and derivative action experience include the following:

SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION # Shapiro Haber & Urmy partner Edward Haber is one of the court-appointed lead counsel

in the consolidated derivative action brought on behalf of the HealthSouth Corporation against its former CEO, Richard Scrushy, its other former officers and directors, its auditors, investment bankers, and others. This action coordinates derivative actions brought on behalf of HealthSouth in the Delaware Chancery Court, the Federal District Court in Alabama, and the state court in Birmingham, Alabama. The legal team, on which Shapiro Haber & Urmy serves as one of the lead counsel, has obtained the following recoveries for HealthSouth: (i) summary judgment in the Delaware Chancery Court for over $17 million against Scrushy, In re HealthSouth Corp. Shareholders Litig., 845 A.2d 1096 (Del. Ch. 2003), aff’d, 847 A.2d 1121 (Del. 2004); (ii) summary judgment in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama against Scrushy for over $47 million, see Tucker v. Scrushy, 2006 WL 37028 (Ala. Cir. Ct. Jan. 3, 2006), aff’d, 2006 WL 2458818 (Ala. Aug. 25, 2006); (iii) a settlement of the derivative claims against some of the officers and directors of HealthSouth (not including Scrushy) for $100 million, to be paid by those defendants’ insurers; (iv) a $133 million settlement of the derivative claims against HealthSouth’s former investment advisor, UBS; and (v) in addition to the summary judgment described above, a $2.8 billion dollar judgment against Mr. Scrushy after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy was at the forefront of shareholder litigation addressing the nationwide epidemic of improperly backdated stock options. Shapiro Haber & Urmy filed derivative actions in both state and federal courts concerning the improper backdating (or other manipulation) of stock options granted to officers, directors, and executives of the following corporations: Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp.; i2 Technologies, Inc.; Linear Technology Corp.; Maxim Integrated Products; Rambus, Inc.; Staples, Inc.; and UnitedHealth Group, Inc. The UnitedHealth derivative action settled for over $700 million in cash and re-priced or surrendered options – the largest derivative action options settlement on record. Other notable settlements included Maxim (approximately $38 million in cash and re-priced and surrendered options); Affiliated Computer Services (approximately $40 million in cash and re-priced and surrendered options); Cablevision (approximately $34 million in cash and other consideration); Staples (approximately $8.2 million in cash and re-priced options); Linear Technology ($4.5 million in cash and re-priced options as well as corporate governance changes with substantial quantifiable value).


# Mr. Haber was the court-appointed co-chairman of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in

In re Merrill Lynch Analyst Reports Sec. Litig., 02-MDL-1484 (S.D.N.Y.). Shapiro Haber & Urmy was also court-appointed lead counsel in two of the Merrill Lynch securities analyst cases: InfoSpace Analyst Reports Sec. Litig., and Internet Capital Group Analyst Reports Sec. Litig. The Court approved a settlement in the amount of $125 million.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is co-lead counsel in a class action alleging fraud against former officers of Actrade Financial Technologies on behalf of a class of purchasers during the period March 11, 1999 through August 22, 2002.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is prosecuting a class action on behalf of the purchasers of Human Genome Sciences, Inc. stock from December 7, 2007 through January 22, 2008 alleging securities fraud and insider trading against FrontPoint Partners, LLC, Yves Benhamou, and Joseph F. “Chip” Skowron.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is prosecuting a class action alleging that Ross Fialkow Capital Partners, LLP, and its partners, Jay Lawrence Fialkow and Jeffrey P. Ross, illegally offered securities in connection with a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Richard Elkinson of Framingham, Massachusetts.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents a Massachusetts bank in litigation against Merrill Lynch involving the sale of auction rate securities.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy was one of plaintiffs’ counsel in shareholder derivative litigation against Cendant Corporation, which arose from one of the largest financial frauds in American history. The case was settled for $54 million. In Re Cendant Corp. Deriv. Action Litig. (D.N.J.).

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented the Trustee of UNIFI Communications, Inc., in a

breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit against its former directors, alleging that they grossly mismanaged UNIFI in the period leading up to its bankruptcy, causing UNIFI’s insolvency to deepen. Shapiro Haber & Urmy recovered $3.95 million for UNIFI and its creditors. Ferrari v. Ranalli (D. Mass.).

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented shareholders of EcoScience Corp. in a breach of

fiduciary duty lawsuit against its former directors, arising out of the merger between EcoScience and Agro Power Development, Inc. The case, brought in the Delaware Chancery Court, charged that the merger was accomplished by means of a false proxy statement, and resulted in the payment of an unfair price to EcoScience shareholders. Shapiro Haber & Urmy recovered $2 million for EcoScience’s shareholders. Smalley v. DeGiglio (Del. Ch.).


# Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented former employees of Stone & Webster, Inc. to

recover damages suffered by the company’s retirement plans for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA by certain former officers and directors of Stone & Webster who were fiduciaries of the plans. The action settled for $8 million. Stein v. Smith (D. Mass).

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented shareholders of three ING Principal Protection Funds

who brought suit alleging that the advisory fees charged are excessive and violate Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The action was settled for payment by the defendants to the ING Principal Protection Funds of significant funds and a substantial reduction in investment advisory fees to be charged, which resulted in millions of dollars of future savings to the funds and their shareholders. Price v. ING Funds Distributors, LLC (D. Mass.).

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy, led by partner Edward Haber, represented a class of persons who

had sold businesses to Waste Management, Inc. for common stock of Waste Management. The case arose from Waste Management’s restatement of its financial statements. Shapiro Haber & Urmy obtained summary judgment against Waste Management as to liability for a majority of the class members. Shapiro Haber & Urmy also successfully defended defendant’s appeal of the class certification order, Mowbray v. Waste Management Holdings, Inc., 208 F.3d 288 (2000). The case was subsequently settled for a combination of cash and stock with a total value of $25 million.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy partner Thomas Shapiro successfully argued the appeal to the

First Circuit in Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 83 F.3d 1194 (1st Cir. 1996), a securities class action that arose from a secondary offering of Digital securities. After remand, the case was settled for $5.2 million.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pension

Reserves Investment Trust (“PRIT”) in a securities fraud action against Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The case arose out of the sale of $81 million in subordinated debentures issued by Weintraub Entertainment Group (“WEG”), a start-up film company. In February 1987, PRIT bought $5 million in bonds from Bear Stearns, the placement agent for the issuer. WEG declared bankruptcy in 1990, and the bondholders lost virtually their entire investment. A class action was filed in San Diego against Bear Stearns and others. PRIT also filed suit in 1991, and in 1993 our action was consolidated with the class action for discovery and trial. The case was tried to a jury in San Diego in the summer of 1998. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP partner Thomas V. Urmy was PRIT’s trial counsel. After a four-week trial, the jury found that Bear Stearns had committed securities fraud and entered a $6.57 million verdict in favor of PRIT, representing 100% of the damages sought by PRIT at the trial. The case was subsequently settled while on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.


# Shapiro Haber & Urmy partners Thomas Shapiro and Edward Haber were chief trial

counsel in a securities class action entitled Fulco v. Continental Cablevision (D. Mass.), in a three-week jury trial before the United States District Court in Boston. The case was brought on behalf of the limited partners in four partnerships that owned and operated cable television systems. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for approximately $4.5 million. The case thereafter settled for $6.2 million, including interest.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy has recovered substantial settlements for defrauded shareholders

by prosecuting securities class action suits on behalf of shareholders of, inter alia: Bank of New England Corp. ($6.5 million); Bank of New England Corp. bondholders ($8.4 million); Biopure Corp. ($10 million); Centennial Tech., Inc. (stock and cash with a value of approximately $20 million); CreditSuisse First Boston/Razorfish ($3 million); CreditSuisse First Boston/Winstar ($8 million); Inso Corp. ($12 million); Kendall Square Research Corp. (cash, stock and warrants, with a total value of approximately $17 million); Kurzweil Applied Intelligence, Inc. ($9.625 million); Lotus Dev. Corp. ($7.5 million); MicroCom, Inc. ($6 million); Molten Metal Tech., Inc. ($13.16 million); Monarch Capital Corp. ($5 million); Open Environment Corp. ($6 million); Pegasystems, Inc. ($5.25 million); Picturetel Corp. ($12 million); Presstek, Inc. ($20 million); Rothchild Oil and Gas Drilling Limited Partnerships ($15 million).

CONSUMER LITIGATION

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy represents plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in the

Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County, No. 98-6002-H, against Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Philip Morris, Inc. The suit is brought under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. c.93A, and the common law, and seeks to recover damages from the defendants on behalf of all persons who purchased Marlboro Lights cigarettes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the class period. The case alleges that by using words such as “Lights” and “Lowered Tar and Nicotine” on the packaging of Marlboro Lights, defendants falsely represented to purchasers that the cigarettes contained and delivered lower levels of tar and nicotine to human smokers than did regular cigarettes. In October of 2001, the Superior Court certified the case as a class action. Shapiro Haber & Urmy successfully argued against defendants’ appeal from the Superior Court’s class certification decision, which was affirmed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in August of 2004, Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 442 Mass. 381 (2004). The firm also successfully prevailed, before both the Massachusetts Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Court, against Philip Morris’ argument that a consumer’s claims under state law were preempted by federal law and the actions of the Federal Trade Commission. The final decision is reported at 453 Mass. 431 (2009). The remaining issues in the case are still being litigated before the Massachusetts Superior Court.


# Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents defrauded consumers and business owners by

prosecuting class action suits against Seven Massachusetts Automobile Insurance Companies for nonpayment of interest on

arbitration awards

Bank of America for purchasing and charging for hazard or flood insurance in excess of the coverage amounts required by the mortgage agreements

Building Products of Canada for selling defective roofing shingles

Various health maintenance organizations for failure to pay claims of non-participating medical service providers for medical services in a timely fashion

Zions First National Bank for charging and collecting excessive overdraft fees

Re$ubmitIt, LLC for unauthorized fees charged for insufficient funds checks

U-Haul for attempted price-fixing in violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute

Wozo, LLC, for American Medical Security, Inc. for unfair insurance practices

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has also represented defrauded consumers and business

owners by prosecuting class action suits against TJX Companies, Inc. and Princeton Review related to the theft of personal and

financial information of customers

E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company for the potential of serious health hazards resulting from the manufacturing, sales and advertising of “Teflon”;

Gillette for engaging in deceptive practices with respect to its M3P product;

Bayview Crematory for engaging in wrongful practices with respect to their cremation services;

Southwestern Bell (doing business as Cellular One) for overcharging;

SmithKlineBeecham Corp. for antitrust violations with respect to its brand name drug Relafen (settled for $175 million); and

Abbott Laboratories and others for fraudulently overcharging for a brand name drug (settled for $150 million).


WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy has successfully represented plaintiff employees in many wage

and hour individual and class actions seeking to recover overtime pay owed to them under both state and federal law. Such cases have been successfully prosecuted in federal and state courts in Massachusetts and other states, recovering millions of dollars in damages from employers such as Electronic Arts; Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.; Arbella Insurance Company; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; Continental Insurance Company; USAA; Ames Department Stores, Inc.; Argenbright, Inc.; Abercrombie & Fitch; Lane Bryant, Inc.; Express; AM Broadband LLC; Hurley of America LLC; and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, among others.

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy has played a leading role as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering

Committee in In re Plasma Derivative Protein Therapies Antitrust Litigation, 09-cv-07666 (N.D. Ill.), successfully defeating three lengthy and substantial motions to dismiss in that case. This is a complex, nationwide putative class action against manufacturers of plasma protein derivative therapies, which are proteins used to treat seriously ill patients across the United States. The action, filed on behalf of all direct purchasers of plasma-derivative protein therapies, alleges that plasma manufacturers agreed to restrict supply and therefore increase prices. In deciding to appoint the firm to its leadership position, the Court highlighted Shapiro Haber & Urmy’s extensive experience litigating complex class actions and its ability to work cooperatively with co-counsel to effectively prosecute the case.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy represents several of the nation’s largest bedding manufacturers and licensers as opt-out Plaintiffs in In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 10-md-02196 (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and their co-conspirators contracted, combined, or conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices and allocate customers for polyurethane foam in the United States.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy is part of the Executive Committee in In Re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 12-md-02409 (D. Mass.) representing a putative class of consumers and third-party payors who purchased or paid for Nexium products. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired and entered into anticompetitive agreements designed to shield Defendant AstraZeneca and its brand name drug, Nexium, from competition with generic, lower priced versions of the drug.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy has assisted in the representation of a certified class of dairy farmers in the Northeastern United States who allege that the Defendants unlawfully monopolized and fixed the prices that they paid dairy farmers for their milk, and unlawfully allocated markets. The Defendants included Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.,


Dairy Marketing Services, LLC, and Dean Foods Company. The Court approved a settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Dean Foods Company that provided for $30 million in settlement funds. The case is Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 09-cv-230 (D. Vt.).

# In In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents a putative class of indirect purchasers of various auto parts. The action alleges that Defendants fixed and maintained the prices at which such parts were sold.

# In In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 10-md-2143 (N.D. Cal.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents a putative class of purchasers of optical disc drives, as well as products containing optical disc drives, including DVD players, computers, and other electronic devices. The action alleges that Defendants and their co-conspirators fixed and maintained an artificial price at which optical disc drives, as well as products containing optical disc drives, were sold in the United States.

# In In re: Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 09-md-02042 (E.D. Mich.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy represents a putative class of indirect purchasers of refrigerant compressors. The action alleges that Defendants fixed and maintained the prices at which such compressors were sold.

# Shapiro Haber & Urmy was appointed Vice Chair of the Executive Committee

representing the class of direct purchasers in In re Marine Products Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 10-cv-2319 (C.D. Cal.) (continuing as Ace Marine Rigging & Supply, Inc. v. Virginia Harbor Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-cv-00436 (C.D. Cal) and Board of Commissions of the Port of New Orleans v. Virginia Harbor Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-cv-004367 (C.D. Cal)). The firm represented a class of direct purchasers of several products used in the marine industry to protect vessels, docks, and piers. The class action alleged that manufacturers of these marine products collaborated to rig bids and divide the market in order to avoid competition and maximize profits.


Attorney Biographies

Partners:

Thomas G. Shapiro

Mr. Shapiro graduated from Harvard College (magna cum laude) in 1965 and from Harvard Law School (cum laude) in 1969. Mr. Shapiro is well known for his expertise and experience in securities litigation. He has an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell and has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer numerous times, most recently in 2012. He has also been named to the national list of Super Lawyers in the Corporate Counsel Edition for securities litigation. He has been a faculty member in continuing legal education programs concerning securities litigation sponsored by the Practicing Law Institute, ALI-ABA, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, and the Boston Bar Association. Mr. Shapiro has lectured on securities litigation issues for the American Corporate Counsel Association and at a NASDAQ Financial Executive Conference for senior officers of NASDAQ companies. Mr. Shapiro was also on the faculty of the Flaschner Judicial Institute’s seminar for Massachusetts Superior Court judges on the Trial and Management of Complex Cases. Mr. Shapiro is the author of the chapter “Depositions in Class Actions” in Massachusetts Deposition Practice Manual, published by Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education in 1992, and co-author of Securities Litigation in the Aftermath of In Re Data Access Securities Litigation, 24 New. Eng. L. Rev. 537 (1990). He served as the first Chairman of the Federal Practice Committee of the Massachusetts Bar Association. He is a member of the Bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Edward F. Haber

Mr. Haber graduated from Cornell University in 1966 and from Harvard Law School (cum laude) in 1969. Upon graduation from Harvard Law School, he taught at the Boston College Law School during the 1969-1970 academic year. Mr. Haber has an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, and has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer in the field of securities litigation for the past several years, most recently in 2012. He has also been named to the national list of Super Lawyers in the Corporate Counsel Edition for securities litigation. In 1988 and 1990, he was on the faculty of the New England Federal Securities Regulation Institute, sponsored by the American Law Institute/American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education. In April 1992, he was on the faculty of the Massachusetts Bar Association’s seminar on the Fundamentals of Securities Arbitration. Mr. Haber is a member of the Bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals for the First and Seventh Circuits, and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.


Thomas V. Urmy, Jr.

Mr. Urmy graduated from Amherst College (cum laude) in 1960 and from Yale Law School in 1964. He has an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell and has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer numerous times, most recently in 2012. Between 1964 and 1972 he was the personal assistant and associate for the Honorable Whitman Knapp, who was named as the head of the Commission to Investigate Police Corruption in New York City and later a Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Before formation of the current firm in 1988, Mr. Urmy was a partner in the Boston law firm Warner & Stackpole. Mr. Urmy is a member of the Bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits and the United States Supreme Court.

Michelle H. Blauner

Ms. Blauner is a 1983 graduate of Cornell University (with highest distinction) and a 1986 graduate of Harvard Law School (cum laude). She has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer numerous times, most recently in 2012. Upon graduation she became an associate at the Boston law firm of Foley, Hoag & Elliot. In 1988 she joined the firm as an associate, and she became a partner in 1993. Ms. Blauner has worked on many of the complex class actions prosecuted by the firm. She is co-author, with Mr. Shapiro, of Securities Litigation in the Aftermath of In Re Data Access Securities Litigation, 24 New. Eng. L. Rev. 537 (1990). Ms. Blauner is a member of the Bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States District Courts for the Districts of Massachusetts and Colorado, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Ian J. McLoughlin

Mr. McLoughlin is a 1997 graduate of Gonzaga University (cum laude) and a 2000 graduate of Boston University School of Law (magna cum laude). He has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer Rising Star in the field of business litigation for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. He was a litigation associate at the Boston law firm of Foley Hoag LLP from 2000 to 2007 and joined Shapiro Haber & Urmy in 2008. He became a partner in 2012. He is a member of the Bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Districts of Massachusetts and Colorado. His work has contributed to Shapiro Haber & Urmy’s receipt of the 2011 Pro Bono Law Firm Award from the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project (PAIR) for its work in representing asylum seekers.


Associates:

Adam M. Stewart

Mr. Stewart is a 2001 graduate of Northeastern University (magna cum laude) and a 2004 graduate of Suffolk University Law School (magna cum laude). ). He has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer Rising Star for 2011 and 2012. He was a law clerk to the Justices of the Massachusetts Superior Court from 2004 to 2005 and joined Shapiro Haber & Urmy in 2005. He is the author of The Silent Domino: Allowing Pre-Arrest Silence As Substantive Evidence of Guilt and The Possible Effect on Miranda, 37 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev 189 (2004). He is a member of the Bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Robert E. Ditzion

Mr. Ditzion is a 1996 graduate of Harvard College (cum laude) and a 2004 graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center (magna cum laude). He has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer Rising Star for 2011 and 2012. He was a law clerk to the Honorable James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 2004 to 2005 and joined Shapiro Haber & Urmy in 2005. Mr. Ditzion is the author of Electronic Surveillance in the Internet Age: The Strange Case of Pen Registers, 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev 1321 (2004) and co-author of the Eighteenth Survey of White Collar Crime: Computer Crimes, 40 Am. Crim. L. Rev. (2003). He is a member of the Bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Districts of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. His work contributed to Shapiro Haber & Urmy’s receipt of the 2011 Pro Bono Law Firm Award from the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project (PAIR) for its work in representing asylum seekers.

Rachel M. Brown

Ms. Brown is a 1992 graduate of Cambridge University (first class honors) and a 2006 graduate of Harvard Law School (magna cum laude). She also earned an M. Phil. degree from Cambridge University in 1993 and a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1999. She was a litigation associate at the Boston law firm of Foley Hoag LLP from 2006 to 2010, and joined Shapiro Haber & Urmy in 2010. Prior to law school, Ms. Brown worked as an assistant professor of philosophy at Union College in New York State and at McGill University in Quebec. She has several publications in peer-reviewed philosophy journals. During law school, she was a court mediator with the Harvard Mediation Program and mediated numerous disputes in Massachusetts small claims courts. She is a member of the Bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States


District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Her work contributed to Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP’s receipt of the 2011 Pro Bono Law Firm Award from the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project (PAIR) for its work in representing asylum seekers.

Patrick J. Vallely

Mr. Vallely is a 2002 graduate of the University of Dayton (magna cum laude) and a 2005 graduate of The University of Chicago Law School (with honors), where he was Editor in Chief of the Chicago Journal of International Law. He was a litigation associate at the Boston law firm of Foley Hoag from 2005 to 2012, and joined Shapiro Haber & Urmy in 2012. He is a member of the Bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

April Kuehnhoff

Ms. Kuehnhoff is a 2001 graduate of Wellesley College (summa cum laude), a 2004 graduate of Sussex University, and a 2009 graduate of Harvard Law School. She was a law clerk to the Honorable Gary Katzmann at the Massachusetts Appeals Court from 2010 to 2012. She is a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1

38TH FLOOR 1000 SECOND AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 622-2000





1 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 2 7 8 UNITED STATES ... · Sys., 847 P.2d 440, 450-51 (1993)....

Documents

Transcript of 1 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 2 7 8 UNITED STATES ... · Sys., 847 P.2d 440, 450-51 (1993)....