*1 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs” (Dkt. # 885) and their “Detailed Time Entries and Cost Breakdown” (Dkt. # 892). Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties and having again reviewed the record underlying the order awarding sanctions, the Court finds as follows:

On July 19, 2023, the Court found that Bradley P. Thoreson, John B. Crosetto, Jennifer Oswald, and the law firm Buchalter P.C. (collectively, “Buchalter”) “unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings in this matter” insofar as “[t]heir dogged insistence that they were entitled to rely upon a ‘pleading promise’ and Mr. Thoreson's insertion of himself as a fact witness resulted in Buchalter's adoption of unjustified stances and the reckless and knowing disregard of their discovery obligations.” Dkt. # 882 at 4. Although the Court could have required Buchalter to pay all of the excess fees and costs plaintiffs were forced to incur in their years-long attempt to obtain basic discovery from Buchalter's client and to rebut Mr. Thoreson's declarations of “fact,” it opted to limit the award of fees and costs to those incurred in bringing this motion. Dkt. # 882 at 6.

At the Court's request, plaintiffs provided billing records from December 7, 2022 (shortly after Buchalter's client filed for bankruptcy) to July 21, 2023 (two days after the Court granted in part the motion for sanctions against Buchalter). Plaintiffs seek $147,279.80[1] in fees and costs in this matter. Buchalter objects that the hourly rates charged by non-Washington counsel are unreasonable, that the number of hours spent on activities related to the sanctions motion was unreasonable, that counsel should have used more junior attorneys and fewer shareholders/partners for researching, drafting, and revising their submissions, that block billing makes it impossible to ascertain how much time was spent on a specific task, that too many attorneys attended the sanctions hearing, that plaintiffs should not be permitted to recover fees expended on issues they lost, and that counsel has already been compensated for the activities at issue through the settlements it has negotiated in this case.

The Court has carefully considered Buchalter's arguments but is not persuaded. As noted above and recounted in more detail in the Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Against Buchalter P.C.” Dkt. # 882, Buchalter unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied and obstructed the proceedings over the course of years, causing plaintiffs to incur unnecessary fees and costs trying to distinguish fact from fiction and piecing together the basic purchase, sale, and profit data that was at the heart of this litigation. The amount of fees at issue was extraordinary, and plaintiffs cannot be faulted for putting forth their best efforts towards recovering what Buchalter's conduct had cost them. Recounting and documenting what Buchalter – separate from its client -- had done over a four year period required the attention and participation of the shareholders and partners involved, and their presence at the sanctions hearing ensured that those with personal knowledge were present to answer any questions the Court may have had. Counsel's hourly rates, while steep, are not unreasonable given the nature of this litigation,[2] and neither instances of block billing nor the pursuit of arguments that were unsuccessful prevent a finding that the hours expended were reasonable.

*2 With regards to the argument that plaintiffs are seeking a double recovery for fees already compensated through various settlement agreements approved by the Court, it is true that plaintiffs will likely recover slightly more than their lodestar by the time all settlements are finalized and that the hours that make up the lodestar include the hours spent dueling with Buchalter.[3] That does not make an award of fees against Buchalter punitive, non-compensatory, or duplicative in the context of this case, however. Counsel would have been entirely justified in seeking far greater amounts from their clients as payment for their work on this litigation, but have instead chosen to seek compensatory sanctions from Buchalter. When evaluated as a percentage of the common fund, the fees awarded through the settlement process will be less than 12% of the benefits obtained for the individual class members (including both the cash recovery for past wrongs and the present day value of the injunctive relief designed to prevent the exact same type of harm going forward).[4] Under a lodestar analysis, plaintiffs would arguably be entitled to a significant multiplier based on the impressive results achieved for the class[5] and the risks associated with the contingent nature of the fee arrangement. Instead of seeking additional awards out of the common fund their efforts created, counsel seek to hold Buchalter responsible for the excess fees and costs its conduct engendered. The request seeks compensation for expenses directly tied to Buchalter's conduct and can be recovered in addition to, not in place of, the relatively moderate fees paid by the class out of the common fund.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs are hereby awarded $147,279.80 against Buchalter as compensation for the reasonable fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions.

Dated this 25th day of September, 2023.

ROBERT S. LASNIK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE