Johnson v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., No. 18-35967 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff challenged the district court's attorneys' fee award, arguing that the entire award was arbitrary because the district court did not adequately explain its decision to cut the number of hours expended by class counsel by 25%. The underlying class action was brought by plaintiff on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers, alleging that defendants marketed James Bond DVD and Blu-ray sets as containing all the Bonds films, when in fact they failed to include two movies. The parties settled and the settlement agreement included defendants' agreement to pay attorneys' fees and cost.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the attorneys' fee award, holding that the district court's order, when read in its entirety, explained the lodestar calculation it conducted and its application of the percentage-of-recovery analysis as a cross-check for reasonableness. Therefore, the panel found that the district court adequately explained its reasoning and did not abuse its discretion.
Court Description: Attorneys’ Fees. The panel affirmed the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees to plaintiff class counsel following the settlement of a consumer protection class action. Plaintiff challenged the award, arguing that it was arbitrary because the district court did not adequately explain its decision to cut the number of hours by 25%. The panel held that the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees, when read in its entirety, explained the lodestar calculation it conducted and its application of the percentage-of-recovery analysis as a cross-check of reasonableness. The panel concluded that the district court adequately explained its reasoning and did not abuse its discretion. ** The Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. JOHNSON V. METRO-GOLDWYN MAYER STUDIOS 3 In a concurrently filed memorandum disposition, the panel rejected plaintiff’s remaining arguments for reversal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.