Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class · 5. A copy of my firm’s resume is attached as...

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

27

28

STEVE W. BERMAN (Pro Hac Vice) THOMAS E. LOESER (202724) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 [email protected] [email protected] ALI ABTAHI (224688) IDENE SAAM (258741) ABTAHI THIGPEN LLP 1012 Torney Avenue San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 639-9800 Facsimile: (415) 639-9801 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION MAUDER and ALICE CHAO; DEOGENESO and GLORINA PALUGOD; and MARITZA PINEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

Case No.: CV-10-3118-SBA CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF T. CHRISTOPHER TUCK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND SERVICE AWARDS Date: January 13, 2015 Time: 1:00 p.m. Place: Judge:

Courtroom 210 Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong

Case4:10-cv-03118-SBA Document233 Filed11/14/14 Page1 of 8

- 1 -

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

27

28 DECLARATION OF T. CHRISTOPHER TUCK ISO PLTFS’ MOT. FOR APPROVAL OF ATTYS FEES CASE NO.: 10-cv-03118-SBA

I, T. Christopher Tuck, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows:

1. This declaration is based upon my personal knowledge.

2. I am an attorney currently licensed in good standing to practice law in the states of

South Carolina and Wisconsin. I am a member at the law firm Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook &

Brickman, LLC (“RPWB”), which is Class Counsel in this action.

3. I have been actively engaged in the practice of law since 1996. In 1996, I graduated

from Marquette University Law School and worked as an associate at Habush, Habush, Davis &

Rottier, S.C. In 1998, I joined Ness, Motley, Loadholt Richardson & Poole, P.A., as an associate.

I later joined RPWB in July 2002.

4. My practice is concentrated in complex litigation, including class actions. My cases

have led to numerous appointments for RPWB as class counsel.

5. A copy of my firm’s resume is attached as Exhibit A.

6. RPWB has worked on this litigation for four years. My firm’s work on this case has

included all key aspects of the litigation, including research, preparation of pleadings, discovery,

mediation, and settlement.

7. RPWB worked extensively with Maritza Pinel to address Aurora’s unfair loan

practices. Ms. Pinel owned a residential property at 220 Valley Oak Lane, in Vallejo, California.

In 2009, Ms. Pinel fell behind on her loan. On or about October 29, 2009, Aurora provided Ms.

Pinel with a form Workout Agreement. It required her to make six monthly payments of $1,625,

which she did. She also made an extra payment of $1,625.00 in April 2010. During the Workout

Agreement, the foreclosure was “dual tracked” with the sale date serially postponed.

8. Although Aurora had set a foreclosure sale date, it informed Ms. Pinel that a sale

was not pending as it continued to extract additional payments. In a telephone call on April 29,

2010, Aurora told Ms. Pinel to send additional financial documents and a payment of $1,780.41.

The $1,780.41 payment brought the total payments to $13,160.41 – an amount only $594.89 short

of the arrearage under the Workout Agreement. On May 14, 2009, Ms. Pinel sent $1,780.41 to

Aurora. She was unaware that Aurora had foreclosed the previous day. Ms. Pinel was not


- 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

27


reviewed for a loan modification and was not provided another workout option or cure method

during the term of the workout. She lost her home to foreclosure.

9. Ms. Pinel devoted substantial time to assisting RPWB and co-counsel on the

litigation of the claims and the settlement outcome for the class. After testifying at her deposition,

she attended mediation and then worked extensively with counsel throughout the settlement

process.

10. Class Counsel’s and Ms. Pinel’s efforts led to an excellent settlement for the

common benefit of the Class. The risk of non-recovery was substantial, particularly when viewed

against the winding down of Aurora’s operations and the heavily litigated nature of this case. This

Court, for example, heard repeated motion practice on the discreet issue of preemption. Resolution

only occurred on the eve of class certification after numerous settlement attempts over the course

of many months.

11. RPWB did not use the possibility of an incentive award to pressure Ms. Pinel to

accept the settlement. I am personally aware of the communications and written documents

outlining RPWB’s representation of Ms. Pinel, and I have had extensive in-person and telephone

communications with Ms. Pinel to explain the risks of litigation, the proposed settlement relief, and

its fairness to the Class. Based upon these communications and documents, I believe that Ms.

Pinel understood and agreed that her duty as a representative plaintiff was to serve the interests of

the Class as a whole, and that she would receive no special treatment compared to other Class

members.

12. Ms. Pinel was informed of the possibility of a modest service award that would

recognize her efforts in bringing this litigation, cooperating with Class Counsel in discovery, and

discussing the best possible resolution of this case when viewed against risk factors. Ms. Pinel was

also informed that any such service award would be subject to the complete discretion of the Court

and that an award of this sort cannot be promised. To my knowledge, Ms. Pinel expected nothing

in particular in exchange for her service as a class representative, other than fair and customary

treatment in recognition of her service.


- 3 -

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

27


13. RPWB made clear to Ms. Pinel that she had the right to support, object to, or

comment on the settlement in this case without affecting the possibility of a service award. RPWB

is informed and believes that Ms. Pinel’s decision to sign and support the settlement had nothing to

do with the possibility of obtaining a service award.

Fees and Expenses Incurred in This Litigation

14. I personally rendered the majority of all RPWB’s attorney legal services in this case,

and was personally responsible for additional staffing and activity conducted on Plaintiffs’ behalf

by support professionals at my firm, including overseeing all services rendered. Based on my

activities and oversight in this case, as well as my review of my firm’s billing records maintained

in this case, I have personal knowledge of the time attorneys and support professionals at my firm

spent rendering services on behalf of Plaintiffs, the hourly rates charged for those services, and the

necessary costs incurred in the normal course of this litigation.

15. My associate, Katie McElveen, assisted in research and drafting on discreet issues

as necessary.

16. At various times I had the assistance of three support professionals to assist with

discovery and other support functions. Those individuals are Andrea Mangum, Margie Brown, and

Tracy Willis.

17. Exhibit B attached hereto sets forth the time expended by attorneys and support

professionals at RPWB from November 11, 2010, through October 20, 2014, split into six

categories based upon the purpose of the work. RPWB’s billing records are based on routine,

contemporaneous timekeeping in increments of one-tenth hour. I have reviewed RPWB’s time

entries to sort those reflected tasks into six categories that generally include the following: initial

factual and legal research into the case and the initial motion practice; discovery; class

certification; additional motion practice; preparing for mediation and holding extensive settlement

talks; and all time associated with preliminary approval and notice.

18. Some of the hourly rates changed over the course of the case. Those ranges are

reflected below.


- 4 -

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

27


19. The rates of RPWB professionals who billed on this case are as follows:

Timekeeper Position Total Hours Rate/Hour Total

T. Christopher

Tuck Member 516.7 $500-6001 $269,020

Katie McElveen Associate 101.1 $350 $35,385

Andrea Mangum Paralegal 157.6 $120 $18,912

Margie Brown Legal Assistant 144.6 $120 $17,532

Tracy Willis Paralegal 22.5 $120 $2,700

Total 920 Avg: $373.22 $343,369

20. Based on my knowledge and experience, the rates charged by the attorneys and

support professionals at my firm are the same as charged for non-contingent legal services by my

law firm, and are within the range of rates normally and customarily charged in the Northern

District of California by attorneys and support professionals of similar qualifications and

experience in cases of this kind, and in my home district in the District of South Carolina. My

hourly rate and the hourly rates of the other attorneys and support professionals from RPWB who

worked on this case have been approved in multiple class cases throughout the United States.

21. As the primary attorney assigned to this case at RPWB, fees for my time constitute

just over 75% of the total fees that RPWB incurred in this case. Only three other billers had fees

exceeding $3,000, and the cumulative total in fees of me and those three billers is over 99% of the

total fees charged to this case. Biographies of all billers are provided below.

T. Christopher Tuck (Rate: $500-$600/hr; $269,020 in total fees charged to case):

22. A summary of my experience and qualifications are set forth above in Paragraphs 2-5.

My representative experience as lead or co-lead counsel in consumer class actions includes: MDL

No. 1865, In re Household Movers Antitrust Litigation (D.S.C).; In re: DJK Residential, LLC., Case

No. 08-10375, (Bankr. S.D. N.Y.); Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 195 P.3d 38 (Okla. 2008),

and Hess, et al. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 221 P.3d 132 (Okla. Ct. App. 2009). I have

extensive experience in consumer lending class actions, including Dundon v. U.S. Bank, Case No.

1 Out of this range, 403 of the 516.7 total hours were incurred at the $550 rate.


- 5 -

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

27


01-CV-408-GPM (S.D. Ill.); Bess v. German American Capital Corp., Case No. 24-C-04-003-888

(Baltimore Co., MD); and Cates v. U.S. Bank, Case No. 04-6202 (Hennepin Co., MN).

Katie McElveen (Rate: $350/hr; $35,385 in total fees charged to this case):

23. Katie McElveen works in RPWB’s class action and consumer lending group and is

a 7th year associate.

Andrea Mangum (Rate: $120/hr; $18,912 total fees charged to this case):

24. Andrea Mangum served as a paralegal specializing in document review and coding.

Margie Brown (Rate: $120/hr; $17,532 total fees charged to this case):

25. Margie Brown is a legal assistant with 35 years of experience. Her primary support

function on this case included extensive transcription of Aurora audio recordings.

Tracy Willis (Rate: $120/hr; $2,700 total fees charged to this case):

26. Tracy Willis served as paralegal handling miscellaneous support issues for the case.

She has 14 years of experience.

27. In my judgment, and based on my years of experience, the number of hours

expended and the services performed by the attorneys and support professionals at my firm were

reasonable and expended for the benefit of Plaintiff and the Class in this litigation. However, in

light of the possibility of duplication of effort due to four law firms working on this case (even

though I have seen no indications of duplication), Class Counsel has decided to reduce each

firm’s lodestar by 20% for purposes of determining the reasonableness of Class Counsel’s fee

request. As a result, for purposes of the lodestar cross-check of the 30% fee sought, RPWB

has reduced its lodestar to $274,695.

28. RPWB also incurred expenses in the amount of $8,244.19, as of October 29, 2014.

These expenses include: filing fees, facsimile and copying charges, computer research, federal

express and other delivery charges, travel expenses, and other case-related expenses, such as court

reporter costs for depositions, that commonly benefitted Plaintiffs and the Class. Based on my

knowledge and experience, all of these expenses were necessary and reasonable, and incurred for

the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class in this litigation. At the Court’s request, RPWB can provide


- 6 -

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

27


a detailed report itemizing each expense item charged to the case. The following table sets forth

RPWB’s expenses by category:

Travel, etc. $4,216.04

Copies, postage, etc. $695.43

Legal Research $2,243.45

Court Filings/Service $386.37

Other (transcripts) $702.90

Total $8,244.19

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: November 14, 2014 /s/ T. Christopher Tuck

T. Christopher Tuck


- 7 -

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

27


LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) ATTESTATION

In accordance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), concurrence in the filing of this document has

been obtained from each of the signatories and I shall maintain records to support this concurrence

for subsequent production for the court if so ordered or for inspection upon request by a party.

DATED: November 14, 2014 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

By: /s/ Thomas E. Loeser Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice) Thomas E. Loeser (Cal. Bar No. 202724) 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 [email protected] [email protected]


Exhibit A

Case4:10-cv-03118-SBA Document233-1 Filed11/14/14 Page1 of 68

Exhibit B


Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class · 5. A copy of my firm’s resume is attached as...

Documents

Transcript of Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class · 5. A copy of my firm’s resume is attached as...