Post on 08-May-2018
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
HARVEY ROSENFIELD (SBN 123082) harvey@consumerwatchdog.org PAMELA PRESSLEY (SBN 180362) pam@consumerwatchdog.org LAURA ANTONINI (SBN 271658) laura@consumerwatchdog.org CONSUMER WATCHDOG 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Tel: (310) 392-0522 / Fax: (310) 392-8874
JONATHAN W. CUNEO jonc@cuneolaw.com WILLIAM ANDERSON wanderson@cuneolaw.com CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 789-3960 / Fax: (202) 789-1813
STEVE M. CAMPORA (SBN 110909) scampora@dbbwlaw.com ROBERT A. BUCCOLA (SBN 112880) rbuccola@dbbwlaw.com CRAIG C. SHEFFER (SBN 131243) csheffer@dbbwlaw.com DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, CA 95826 Tel: (916) 379-3500 / Fax: (916) 379-3599
NIALL P. McCARTHY (SBN 160175) nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com ANNE MARIE MURPHY (SBN 202540) amurphy@cpmlegal.com ERIC J. BUESCHER (SBN 271323) ebuescher@cpmlegal.com COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 / Fax: (650) 692-3606
Attorneys for the Krauth and Hasper, et al. Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE: HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECONOMY LITIGATION
Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI IN SUPPORT OF KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND COMPENSATION TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS Date: February 26, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. George H. Wu Courtroom: 10
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 57 Page ID #:6668
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
i
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ABOUT CONSUMER WATCHDOG ............................................................... 1 II. SUMMARY OF CONSUMER WATCHDOG ATTORNEYS’ ROLE IN LITIGATION ........................................................................................................... 2 III. PROFESSIONAL TIME .................................................................................. 5 IV. EFFORTS TO RESOLVE FEES WITH DEFENDANTS ............................... 7 V. PROJECTION OF FUTURE EXPENDITURE OF TIME BY CONSUMER WATCHDOG ATTORNEYS .................................................................................. 8 VI. CHRONOLOGY OF WORK IN THIS MATTER ........................................... 8
A. Pre-filing investigation and preparation of complaint in Bird. ...................... 8 B. Discovery and motion practice in Bird. ........................................................ 13 C. Pre-filing investigation and preparation of complaints in Krauth and Hasper; the MDL Petition. ............................................................................................... 15 D. Settlement announcement and confirmatory discovery in the MDL. .......... 18 E. The Process of Improving the Settlement Agreement. ................................. 26
VII. LITIGATION COSTS AND EXPENSES ..................................................... 32 VIII. THE KRAUTH, HASPER, AND BIRD PLAINTIFFS’ CONTRIBUTION . 33
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 57 Page ID #:6669
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
I, Laura Antonini, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and am
admitted to the United States District Court, Central District of California, staff
attorney for Consumer Watchdog and one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiff
Gunther Krauth in Krauth v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:12-cv-01935-
GW-FFM (C.D. Cal.); Plaintiffs Linda Hasper, Kelly Moffett, Evan Grogan,
Carlos Medina, Alberto Dominguez, Catherine Bernard, Michael Breien, Laura
Gill, Thomas Schille, Judith Stanton, Randy Rickert, and Bryan Zirkel in Hasper
et al. v. Hyundai Motor America et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-00220-GW-FFM (C.D.
Cal.); and Plaintiff Louis Bird in Bird v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 34-
2012-00127249 (Sacramento Superior Court).
2. I submit this Declaration on behalf of myself, Harvey Rosenfield and
Pamela Pressley—the Consumer Watchdog attorneys who are counsel for the
Plaintiffs in Krauth, Hasper and Bird—in support of the Krauth/Hasper Plaintiffs’
Motion for Payment of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and
Compensation to Named Plaintiffs (“Motion”).
3. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a
witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth thereof.
4. The Declarations of William Anderson, Anne Marie Murphy and
Steven M. Campora in support of the Motion also provide the Court with a
detailed summary of the tasks those counsel performed during the course of this
litigation, and I incorporate those Declarations by reference.
I. ABOUT CONSUMER WATCHDOG
5. Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit charitable organization.
Established in 1985, Consumer Watchdog utilizes a combination of litigation,
advocacy and public education to effectuate its mission. The personnel of
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 3 of 57 Page ID #:6670
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
28
Consumer Watchdog include some of the nation’s foremost consumer advocates
and experts on consumer matters.
6. Consumer Watchdog’s legal staff advocates on behalf of consumers
before the courts and regulatory agencies. Over the course of nearly three decades,
Consumer Watchdog attorneys have represented consumers in numerous class
actions, civil lawsuits, and administrative proceedings challenging unfair business
practices and other corporate misconduct in the American marketplace. Consumer
Watchdog’s attorneys also hold government agencies accountable through civil
actions. Consumer Watchdog attorneys have established precedential decisions in
numerous landmark cases. A copy of Consumer Watchdog’s Legal Project resume
is attached as Exhibit A to this Declaration.
II. SUMMARY OF CONSUMER WATCHDOG ATTORNEYS’ ROLE IN
LITIGATION
7. Consumer Watchdog counsel’s goal since the inception of the
litigation has been to ensure that every Class Member is fully and fairly
compensated for the Defendants’ egregious misrepresentations about their
vehicles’ fuel economy, which not only resulted in significant financial harm to
the class, but also undermined competition in the marketplace and harmed the
environment, as the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) recently noted.1
8. A highly detailed description of the legal work completed by
Consumer Watchdog attorneys in this litigation is provided below in paragraphs
23-106. In summary, Consumer Watchdog lawyers:
1 Press Release, EPA, United States Reaches Settlement with Hyundai and Kia in Historic Greenhouse Gas Enforcement Case (Nov. 3, 2014), http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/15519081fbf4002285257d8500477615!OpenDocument.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 4 of 57 Page ID #:6671
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
28
• Reviewed consumer complaints submitted to Consumer Watchdog
concerning Hyundai vehicles;
• Conferred with Consumer Watchdog policy staff regarding their requests to
EPA, the White House and Hyundai for investigation and corrective action;2
• Conducted an extensive investigation of the underlying facts surrounding
the Defendants’ fuel economy misrepresentations, which led to the drafting
and filing of the state (Bird) and later the federal (Krauth and Hasper)
complaints;
• Developed and executed litigation strategy at each stage of the process, with
the assistance of the highly experienced co-counsel recruited by Consumer
Watchdog attorneys: the nationally-recognized firms of Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, LLP, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, and Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora, LLP;
• Assisted co-counsel in the prosecution of discovery in the Bird case during
2012 and 2013, challenging the sufficiency of Hyundai’s discovery
responses and its attempts to evade discovery, obtaining documents relevant
to the analysis of the strength of the legal claims, and that were ultimately
utilized in this MDL;
• After the EPA confirmed the Defendants’ misrepresentations in November,
2012, filed the MDL Petition that centralized the 60 federal cases before
this Court;
• Pressed to obtain the terms of the settlement that was disclosed to this Court
at the first MDL hearing in February, 2013, between Hyundai and Kia and
two of the 60 plaintiffs’ firms; and to maximize the production of
information needed to determine whether the proposed settlement was fair
and reasonable, including electronic discovery and interviews with 2 No compensation for those activities is requested in this Motion.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 5 of 57 Page ID #:6672
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
28
Defendants’ personnel. These efforts centered on active participation in
eight status conferences and 21 telephonic calls with Liaison Counsel and
other non-settling parties, numerous discovery proposals and the witness
interview process;
• Provided the Court and the non-settling parties with an extensive critique of
the Settlement Agreement that was finally filed by the Settling Parties on
December 23, 2013, and sought changes; these efforts are reflected in the
twice-amended Settlement Agreement filed in May, 2014 by the Settling
Parties, and supported by Liaison Counsel and other non-settling parties.
Our work during this period included participation in five telephonic calls
with Liaison Counsel and other non-settling parties;
• After all but two of the other non-settling plaintiffs’ firms acceded to the
revised Settlement in May, 2014, continued our strenuous advocacy on
behalf of the class and our clients by filing an opposition to the Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, which demanded numerous
substantive changes to the terms of the Settlement;
• After the Court denied preliminary approval on June 26, 2014, worked to
obtain specific changes to the terms of the Settlement. In particular,
Consumer Watchdog attorneys pressed for and obtained (with the Court’s
active interest) greater clarity in and reach of the notice and claims forms
and claims process, in order to enable Class Members to take full advantage
of all the benefits of the Settlement Agreement without unnecessary
confusion, delay, friction or limitations. These efforts include five hearings,
and five rounds of briefings and proposed revisions, often requiring a line-
by-line, word-by-word analysis, and extended through October, 2014 – well
after the Court granted preliminary approval; and,
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 6 of 57 Page ID #:6673
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
28
• Throughout the litigation, we and our co-counsel continuously
communicated with our 14 named clients as well as responding to hundreds
of inquiries by other Class Members.
III. PROFESSIONAL TIME
9. This litigation was pursued on a fully contingent basis. Through
December 18, 2014, Consumer Watchdog counsel devoted 2,778.2 hours of
professional time to the investigation, development, prosecution and resolution of
this litigation. Based upon the current hourly rates ordinarily charged by
Consumer Watchdog counsel in conjunction with civil class action litigation, the
lodestar value of that time is $1,488,697.50. All of the services performed by
Consumer Watchdog counsel were reasonably necessary to effective the
prosecution of this litigation.
10. Our lodestar was compiled from contemporaneous time records
regularly maintained by Consumer Watchdog attorneys in the ordinary course of
business, providing descriptions of hours spent on each task divided in tenths of an
hour. Because Consumer Watchdog counsel’s billing records (describing
precisely what tasks were performed) constitute our attorney work product and
contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege, I have not
submitted our billing records at this time. Instead, below I provide the Court with
a highly detailed description of the tasks we performed during the course of this
litigation. However, Consumer Watchdog attorneys regularly provide our time
records for review in state agency administrative proceedings, and we are prepared
to submit our billing records in this proceeding to the Court, subject to redaction
of information protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.
11. Attached as Exhibit B is a chart that lists the Consumer Watchdog
attorneys who have worked on the litigation, their hourly rates and hours worked,
and their respective lodestar totals through December 18, 2014.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 7 of 57 Page ID #:6674
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
28
12. Consumer Watchdog’s hourly rates are based on the experience and
qualifications of its attorneys, our review of the hourly rates charged by plaintiff
firms for attorneys of comparable skill and experience, the historical rates awarded
or paid for Consumer Watchdog attorneys’ professional services in other class
action proceedings,3 and in consultation with Mr. Richard Pearl, a recognized
expert on attorneys’ fees issues in the California market. A Declaration by Mr.
Pearl supporting this Motion is filed concurrently herewith. No adjustment was
made to these usual and customary hourly rates, notwithstanding the complexity
of the matters involved, the opposition encountered, the preclusion of other
employment, the expected delay in payment, or the others factors present in this
case that might justify a higher rate of compensation.
13. In preparing their respective time records for this submission,
Consumer Watchdog’s attorneys, exercising their billing judgment, have reduced
the actual lodestar reflected on our billing records by $70,432.50 to account for
potential duplication of effort or otherwise unbillable time. I have reviewed
Consumer Watchdog’s time billing records and believe that the time expended and
work performed in the proceeding, as reflected in paragraph 9 and Exhibit B, was
reasonable and appropriate, and the minimum required to properly represent our
clients and to achieve the result obtained.
14. Throughout the entire litigation – in this proceeding and in the Bird
action – Consumer Watchdog attorneys coordinated with our co-counsel, Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, and Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora, LLP (collectively, “Consumer Watchdog Legal Team”),
3 See, e.g., Order Granting Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Doe, et al. v. United Healthcare Insurance Company, et al., Case No. SACV 13-0864 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014) (Dkt. 77).
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 8 of 57 Page ID #:6675
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
28
in order to ensure there was minimal duplication of efforts while maintaining the
high quality of legal work for which these highly respected firms are known.
15. The Consumer Watchdog Legal Team also collaborated with Liaison
Counsel and other non-settling plaintiffs’ lawyers during the confirmatory
discovery phase, to efficiently divide tasks so as to avoid unnecessary duplication
of efforts.
16. Similarly, Consumer Watchdog attorneys divided tasks among
themselves so as to maximize efficiency while ensuring superior representation of
our clients and the Class.
17. The prosecution of this litigation on a coordinated basis has resulted
in enhanced efficiency, as the professional time required to accomplish many
necessary tasks was eliminated or significantly reduced without compromising the
interests of the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team’s clients or the Class. The Class
in this litigation has received the full benefit of the professional time expended.
IV. EFFORTS TO RESOLVE FEES WITH DEFENDANTS
18. After all but the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team and two other
firms acceded to the proposed settlement as modified on May 2, 2014, the settling
and previously non-settling parties disclosed that they intended to mediate their
anticipated request for attorneys’ fees.
19. The Consumer Watchdog Legal Team had not been informed of the
mediation. After discussion with our co-counsel, and with Liaison Counsel, we
determined that it would not be appropriate to participate in the private mediation
at that time, because our efforts to improve the Settlement were ongoing.
20. Subsequently, the Court calendared the instant motion for attorneys’
fees. In the event there was an opportunity to conserve both the Court’s and the
parties’ resources prior to briefing and filing this Motion, and with the
understanding that our efforts on behalf of the Class would continue, on October
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 9 of 57 Page ID #:6676
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
8
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
24, 2014, my colleague Harvey Rosenfield and I left a voicemail for Shon Morgan,
counsel for Hyundai, in an effort to discuss a resolution of the Consumer
Watchdog Legal Team’s fees. We received no response.
21. On October 30, 2014, I emailed Mr. Morgan regarding the Consumer
Watchdog Legal Team’s fees. Mr. Morgan responded by email on October 31,
2014 that he would get back to me by phone, but did not do so.
V. PROJECTION OF FUTURE EXPENDITURE OF TIME BY
CONSUMER WATCHDOG ATTORNEYS
22. At the October 6, 2014 hearing, the Court requested that the parties
estimate their future expenditures in the case as part of this Motion. (10/6/14 Hrg.
Tr. at 12:25 – 14:8.) Consumer Watchdog attorneys conservatively estimate they
will incur an additional $36,000 in lodestar through final approval to review
claims rate data and, if necessary, submit supplemental briefing advocating for
additional measures to increase the claims rate. This additional lodestar expense is
calculated utilizing current hourly rates and assumes that I will incur an additional
50 hours of work and that Consumer Watchdog counsel Harvey Rosenfield will
incur an additional 20 hours of work. (This estimate of additional lodestar is not
included in the lodestar total reflected in paragraph 9, or in Exhibit B). No
estimate is made here regarding an appeal, if necessary, in this matter.
VI. CHRONOLOGY OF WORK IN THIS MATTER
A. Pre-filing investigation and preparation of complaint in Bird. (January, 2012 - July 3, 2012)
23. In November, 2011, Consumer Watchdog began investigating
numerous fuel economy complaints it received from consumers about the 2011
and 2012 Hyundai Elantra. (See Complaint at ¶29, Krauth v. Hyundai Motor
America, Case No. 8:12-cv-01935-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012) (Dkt. 1);
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 10 of 57 Page ID #:6677
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
9
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
Complaint at ¶65, Hasper et al. v. Hyundai Motor America et al., Case No. 8:13-
cv-00220-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2013) (Dkt. 1).)
24. In response to these complaints, on November 30, 2011, Consumer
Watchdog sent a letter to the EPA requesting that the EPA re-test the 2011 and
2012 Elantra model in its own facility to determine whether the Elantra’s
advertised fuel economy was accurate. (Id.)
25. Consumer Watchdog subsequently sent letters to Hyundai Motor
America (December, 2011), President Obama and the EPA Administrator
(January, 2012), Hyundai Motor America’s CEO at the time, John Krafcik, and
Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai and Kia’s parent company, located in South
Korea) CEO, Eok Jo Kim (February, 2012) questioning the accuracy of Hyundai’s
representations about the fuel economy of the Elantra and asking the company to
take corrective action. (Id.)
26. Additionally, in letters to Hyundai in February, 2012, Consumer
Watchdog requested that Hyundai remove or qualify any prominent “MPG”
claims in its 2012 Super Bowl advertising until the Elantra’s fuel economy
numbers were validated. Shortly thereafter, Hyundai pulled the “40 MPG Elantra”
claim from its 2012 Super Bowl advertisement for the Elantra.
27. Consumer Watchdog’s comments garnered significant media
attention between November, 2011 and February, 2012. 4 4 See, e.g., Chris Woodyard, Consumer Outfit Rips Hyundai Elantra’s Gas Mileage Rating, USA Today, Nov. 30, 2011, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/11/consumer-outfit-rips-hyundai-elantras-gas-mileage-rating/1#.VIjAzIfB9cA; John Voelcker, Consumer Watchdog to EPA: Re-Test Hyundai Elantra Gas Mileage, Green Car Reports, Dec. 1, 2011, http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1070094_consumer-watchdog-to-epa-re-test-hyundai-elantra-gas-mileage; Christian Seabaugh, Hyundai Responds to Consumer Watchdog’s Elantra Fuel Economy Complaints, Motor Trend, Dec. 2, 2011, http://wot.motortrend.com/hyundai-responds-to-consumer-watchdogs-elantra-fuel-economy-complaints-142051.html; Jeff Sabatini,
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 11 of 57 Page ID #:6678
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
11
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
fees for work performed on the tasks described in paragraphs 23 through 27 above
is included in this Motion.
31. As a result of the media attention, Consumer Watchdog received a
high volume of consumer complaints about the fuel economy of the Elantra and
other Hyundai vehicles. In January, 2012, Consumer Watchdog attorneys
reviewed these complaints, conducted numerous telephonic conferences with
affected consumers, including potential lead plaintiffs, and reviewed various
documents submitted by them confirming their ownership or lease of a Hyundai
Elantra and providing information about the fuel economy advertisements that
they relied upon when shopping for a new car.
32. Consumer Watchdog attorneys then performed extensive research on
Hyundai’s advertisements about the fuel economy of the Elantra and disparities
between the advertised and actual fuel economy for the vehicle. Legal research
conducted by Consumer Watchdog attorneys at this stage included review of
potential violations of California law and federal regulations governing the
automobile manufacturers’ obligation to make certain disclosures in
advertisements about their vehicles’ fuel economy.
33. Based on their research, Consumer Watchdog attorneys drafted and
on April 23, 2012 mailed a letter on behalf of Plaintiffs Louis Bird and Gunther
Krauth to Hyundai pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California
Civil Code § 1750 et seq.), demanding that Hyundai cease and desist its continued
use of a deceptive marketing campaign regarding the fuel economy of the Hyundai
Elantra and pay damages to Hyundai Elantra purchasers, including damages for
unexpected, additional fuel costs.
34. Receiving no response, Consumer Watchdog counsel drafted the
complaint in Bird v. Hyundai Motor America, filed on July 3, 2012 in Sacramento
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 13 of 57 Page ID #:6680
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
12
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
Superior Court on behalf of California Hyundai Elantra owners and lessees.5 Bird
alleged that Hyundai’s “40 MPG Elantra” advertisements violated the CLRA, the
Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., the False
Advertising Law (“FAL”), Bus. & Prof. Code §17500 because they did not
comply with the disclosures required by federal law. The filing of Bird also
generated widespread, national media coverage in early July, 2012.6
5 After Consumer Watchdog’s letters to the government and Hyundai received significant media attention, the law firm of McCune Wright LLP filed a case against Hyundai over fuel economy advertising related to the Hyundai Elantra and Sonata. (Espinosa v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:12-cv-00800 (C.D. Cal.).). The Espinosa complaint cited to Consumer Watchdog’s letter to the EPA. (First Amended Complaint at ¶27, Espinosa (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2012) (Dkt. 15).) Espinosa was the only similar case pending nationally at the time Bird was filed. 6 See, e.g., Michael Finney, Man Sues Over Car’s Advertised Mileage, KGO-TV, Jul. 5, 2012, http://abclocal.go.com/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=8726800; Jonathan Stempel, Hyundai Sued over Elantra Fuel Economy Ad Claims, Reuters, Jul. 9, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/us-hyundai-elantra-lawsuit-idUSBRE8681DH20120709; Jerry Hirsch, Hyundai Misleads About Elantra Fuel Economy, Suit Says, LA Times, Jul. 10, 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/10/business/la-fi-autos-mileage-lawsuits-20120711; Eric Evarts, Hyundai Lawsuit Points out Why Consumers Need to Beware of 40 mpg Claims, Consumer Reports, Jul 10, 2012, http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2012/07/hyundai-lawsuit-points-out-why-consumers-need-to-beware-of-40-mpg-claims/index.htm; Fred Meier, Hyundai sued over ads touting Elantra’s 40 mpg rating, USA Today, July 11, 2012, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/07/hyundai-sued-over-ads-touting-elantras-40-mpg-rating/1#.U4S1XyhWjHY; Aaron Robinson, Hyundai Is Sued Over Elantra Mileage, NY Times, Jul. 13, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/automobiles/hyundai-is-sued-over-mileage.html?_r=0; Suzanne Kane, Hyundai Sued Over Elantra 40-MPG Ad Claims, HighGearMedia.com (WashingtonPost.com), Jul. 16, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/hyundai-sued-over-elantra-40-mpg-ad-claims/2012/07/15/gJQAXxK2lW_story.html.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 14 of 57 Page ID #:6681
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
14
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
motions to compel, and ordered Hyundai to produce documents and information in
response to the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team’s first set of discovery requests.
(Minute Order, Motion to Compel Requests for Production, Bird, Feb. 27, 2013;
Minute Order, Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories, Bird, Feb. 27, 2013.)
Consumer Watchdog attorneys also reviewed documents in the 11 productions
Hyundai made during this period. These documents provided information highly
relevant to the analysis of the strength of the legal claims in the MDL.
40. Between September and October, 2012, Consumer Watchdog
attorneys conducted legal research for and drafted the opposition to Hyundai’s
demurrer. However, prior to the deadline for filing the opposition, the EPA
announced that Hyundai and its sister company Kia had misstated the fuel
economy of approximately 20 of their 2011, 2012, and 2013 model year vehicles,
in both advertising, and on the window stickers (“Monroney Labels”) affixed to
each new vehicle sold, and that the companies would be adjusting the advertised
MPG values of all affected vehicles (“November 2012 EPA Announcement”).
Included in this announcement were the Elantra models that were the subject of
Bird.
41. Following the November 2012 EPA Announcement, the Consumer
Watchdog Legal Team associated in the firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
to help prosecute the Bird case and other potential litigation against Hyundai and
Kia.
42. Consumer Watchdog attorneys amended the complaint in Bird on
November 27, 2012 to reflect the EPA’s determination (and Hyundai’s
acknowledgement) that the Elantra’s fuel economy had been inflated. In drafting
both the opposition to the demurrer and the First Amended Complaint in Bird,
Consumer Watchdog attorneys conducted legal research on the strength of the
claims, including preemption and primary jurisdiction issues raised by Hyundai.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 16 of 57 Page ID #:6683
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
27
28
43. After the MDL was initiated (discussed in detail below), Hyundai
moved to stay Bird two times. Consumer Watchdog attorneys reviewed and edited
drafts of the oppositions to Hyundai’s motions to stay Bird prepared by co-counsel.
The Sacramento Superior Court denied Hyundai’s first motion to stay on the
grounds that no class had been certified in the MDL. (Minute Order, Motion to
Stay Proceedings, Bird, Mar. 20, 2013.)
44. After this Court expressed concerns about Bird proceeding
simultaneously with the MDL, the Sacramento Superior Court stayed Bird
pending resolution of the MDL. (Minute Order, Motion for Reconsideration, Bird,
May 2, 2013.) Since then, Consumer Watchdog attorneys have drafted statements
and worked with Hyundai’s counsel to prepare joint stipulations updating the
Sacramento Superior Court regarding the status of the MDL.
45. Consumer Watchdog attorneys expended 375 hours during this
period, and have a total lodestar of $166,855.00, using their regular hourly rates.
C. Pre-filing investigation and preparation of complaints in Krauth and Hasper; the MDL Petition. (November 2, 2012 - February 13, 2013)
46. The November 2012 EPA Announcement confirmed the allegations
raised by Consumer Watchdog in its correspondence with the federal government.
Consumer Watchdog attorneys reviewed both the EPA statement and Hyundai and
Kia’s simultaneous announcement that they were adjusting the mileage of more
than a dozen models of their 2011, 2012, and 2013 vehicles. Consumer Watchdog
attorneys paid particular attention to the websites erected by Hyundai and Kia for
the “Voluntary Reimbursement Program” that the companies had established
ostensibly to pay consumers for “additional fuel costs associated with the fuel
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 17 of 57 Page ID #:6684
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
16
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
economy rating change[,]”7 in order to evaluate the benefits the companies
proposed to make available to consumers.
47. Concluding that the Voluntary Reimbursement Program did not
adequately compensate affected consumers across the United States, Consumer
Watchdog attorneys drafted the Krauth complaint, filed on November 6, 2012, on
behalf of a national class of 2011, 2012, and 2013 Hyundai Elantra owners and
lessees, alleging causes of action under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL and for unjust
enrichment.
48. The November 2012 EPA Announcement spurred an onslaught of
similar class action complaints against Hyundai and Kia in federal courts across
the United States.8 After filing Krauth, the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team
concluded that it would be most efficient to invoke the MDL process and
centralize all federal cases in California. Consumer Watchdog attorneys reviewed
and revised drafts prepared by co-counsel of the petition to the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to transfer similar cases to the Central District
of California, which resulted in this litigation.
49. Consumer Watchdog attorneys filed and served the MDL petition on
all parties in the related cases on November 19, 2012. Thereafter, Consumer
Watchdog attorneys reviewed class action complaints and documents filed in the
7 Press Release, Hyundai and Kia Initiate Voluntary Program to Adjust Fuel Economy Ratings on Select Vehicles, Nov. 2, 2012, https://hyundaimpginfo.com/news/details/hyundai-and-kia-initiate-voluntary-program-to-adjust-fuel-economy-ratings. 8 Among the new cases was Hunter v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:12-cv-01909 (C.D. Cal.), filed on November 2, 2012 by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, one of the Settling Plaintiffs’ firms who negotiated the Settlement Agreement. Like the Espinosa complaint, the Hunter complaint relies on a previous inquiry from Consumer Watchdog to the EPA and the White House. (Complaint at ¶49, Hunter (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) (Dkt. 1).)
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 18 of 57 Page ID #:6685
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
17
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
MDL proceeding related to the over 40 additional cases that were filed during this
period, and conferred with co-counsel regarding the filings and the MDL hearing.
50. The November 2012 EPA Announcement led to another large influx
of consumer complaints to Consumer Watchdog from affected Hyundai and Kia
owners across the country. Between November 2, 2012 through February 7, 2013,
Consumer Watchdog attorneys conducted dozens of telephonic conferences with
these consumers and reviewed numerous documents submitted by them
confirming their ownership or lease of an affected Hyundai or Kia vehicle and
providing information about the fuel economy advertisements that they had relied
upon when purchasing or leasing their vehicle.
51. Consumer Watchdog attorneys also performed factual and legal
research regarding Hyundai’s and Kia’s fuel economy representations for the 2011,
2012, and 2013 model year vehicles included in the November 2012 EPA
Announcement.
52. In order to ensure that the interests of all Hyundai and Kia owners
affected by the November 2012 EPA Announcement were protected, the
Consumer Watchdog Legal Team filed Hasper, a second federal complaint on
behalf of all Hyundai and Kia owners and lessees affected by the November 2012
EPA Announcement. Consumer Watchdog counsel drafted portions of the Hasper
complaint, filed on February 7, 2013. It names 12 plaintiffs from eight states who
owned or leased Hyundai or Kia vehicles, alleging causes of action under
California, Florida, Illinois, Connecticut, Texas, Indiana, and Arizona consumer
protection statutes.
53. Consumer Watchdog attorneys expended 457.1 hours during this
period, and have a total lodestar of $225,145.00, using their regular hourly rates.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 19 of 57 Page ID #:6686
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
18
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
D. Settlement announcement and confirmatory discovery in the MDL. (February 14, 2013 - January, 2014)
54. As requested by the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team, the JPML
issued an order transferring all relevant cases to the Central District on February 5,
2013.9
55. At the first MDL status conference on February 14, 2013, attorneys
from two law firms (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and McCune Wright
LLP, on behalf of the Espinosa, Brady and Hunter plaintiffs (collectively,
“Settling Plaintiffs”)) announced they had “had four face-to-face meetings with
counsel for Hyundai” between the filing of Hunter and the first MDL status
conference, and that they had reached a settlement with Hyundai. (2/14/13 Hrg. Tr.
at 9:19-24.) The Consumer Watchdog Legal Team asked the Court to order the
terms of the settlement be provided to all plaintiffs’ counsel in the MDL. (Id. at
30:19 – 34:4.) The Court required the Settling Parties to provide the settlement
terms within one week. (Id.) (At the next MDL status conference on February 28,
2013, Hyundai declared that a settlement agreement would be produced within 60
days. (2/28/13 Hrg. Tr. at 12:6-7).)
56. Leadership Structure. After the announcement that a settlement of
the MDL had been reached, Consumer Watchdog counsel reviewed drafts of
statements to the Court prepared by co-counsel opposing the appointment of
Settling Plaintiffs’ law firms as lead counsel without full briefing on the issue.
(See Dkt. 6 at 4:20 – 5:22.) At the February 28, 2013 status conference, the Court
did not appoint Settling Plaintiffs as lead counsel. (2/28/13 Hrg. Tr. at 12:16-22.)
57. Prompted by the concerns expressed by the Consumer Watchdog
Legal Team at the hearing, the Court proposed to appoint a liaison counsel to
attend, but not participate in, settlement negotiations on behalf of the non-settling
9 On April 3, 2013, the District Court consolidated all of the MDL cases.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 20 of 57 Page ID #:6687
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
19
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
parties. The Court invited applications for the position. (See 2/28/13 Hrg. Tr. at
19:2-22; 33:2-9.)
58. In response to the Court’s invitation, Consumer Watchdog counsel
assisted in drafting a statement to the Court declining to apply for the liaison
counsel position given its constraints. (Dkt. 33.) On March 28, 2013, the Court
subsequently appointed Mr. Eric Gibbs as Liaison Counsel, with the support of
Consumer Watchdog Legal Team and other non-settling parties. (3/28/13 Hrg. Tr.
at 40:16 – 41:1.)
59. Working with Liaison Counsel. At the Court’s direction, non-
settling plaintiffs communicated with the Settling Plaintiffs and Hyundai and Kia
primarily through Liaison Counsel.
60. Throughout the entire confirmatory discovery process structured by
the Court (February, 2013 through January, 2014), described in paragraphs ¶61
through ¶84 below, Consumer Watchdog attorneys, with and through Liaison
Counsel, aggressively pursued information about the Settlement Agreement from
the Settling Parties, seeking full disclosure of the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and the underlying support for it during the 21 conference calls with
Liaison Counsel (on March 27; April 9; April 23; May 8; May 22; May 31; June
2; June 3; June 12; June 18; June 25; July 29; August 7; August 12; August 13;
August 14; August 16; August 21; August 27; September 23; December 16).
61. On these calls, Consumer Watchdog attorneys continuously proposed
hard deadlines for promised information or document productions, identified
insufficiencies in document productions and interviews, sought greater disclosure
of information to non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel, and worked to ensure non-
settling plaintiffs’ counsel had the opportunity to provide substantive input at
every step in the process.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 21 of 57 Page ID #:6688
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
20
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
62. Production of Pre-Settlement Discovery to All Non-Settling
Plaintiffs’ Counsel. The preeminent focus of the litigation during this time period
was the inquiry to determine how the terms of the settlement were reached and
whether the facts supported the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable. After
receiving a spreadsheet of the Lump Sum Payment values for Hyundai vehicles
and determining that it was unclear how each value was arrived at, Consumer
Watchdog attorneys urged the Court at a hearing on March 28, 2013, to require the
Settling Parties to provide information about the formulas (3/28/13 Hrg. Tr. at
13:3-14) and to produce to non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel all of the information
they had produced to Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel for their settlement discussions.
(Id. at 14:16-22.) The Court agreed, further requiring Settling Parties to include
non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel in all aspects of the confirmatory discovery process,
noting that when non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel “make a request for reasonable
information, that information should be provided.” (Id. at 14:16-22.) The Court
also agreed with Consumer Watchdog counsel that Defendants should produce a
privilege log of withheld documents. (Id. at 25:19 – 26:2.)
63. Having received none of the documents produced to Settling Parties
for the purpose of settlement negotiations, Consumer Watchdog counsel joined
with co-counsel at the April 11, 2013 hearing to insist that Defendants would to
timely produce the settlement discovery documents. (4/11/13 Hrg. Tr. at 13:1-
14:5.) The Court confirmed the documents would be timely produced and also
agreed with the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team that any additional discovery
documents Defendants produced to the Settling Parties and Liaison Counsel would
also be produced to all non-settling plaintiffs simultaneously. (Id. at 14:6-19.).
64. Challenging the Sufficiency of the Pre-Settlement Discovery.
After the Defendants produced the pre-settlement discovery documents to non-
settling plaintiffs, Consumer Watchdog attorneys reviewed a portion of the
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 22 of 57 Page ID #:6689
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
21
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
documents, as well as memoranda summarizing the production prepared by
Liaison Counsel.
65. Through this review process, it became apparent that the Settling
Plaintiffs had not obtained much, if any, substantive discovery prior to announcing
their settlement on February 14, 2013. In response to comments from Consumer
Watchdog counsel concerning the paucity of pre-settlement discovery, the Court
ordered additional confirmatory discovery. For example, Consumer Watchdog
counsel noted that none of the pre-settlement discovery documents revealed how
the Defendants’ inaccurate fuel economy data had led to the erroneous advertising
campaign. (4/25/14 Hrg. Tr. at 23:5-9.) In response, the Court stated, “I want the
confirmatory discovery to go into that area.” (Id. at 24:12-13.) Liaison Counsel
confirmed with the Court that Consumer Watchdog attorneys would be involved
in drafting additional discovery requests. (See id. at 7:15-20.)
66. Pursuit of Further Discovery. In consultation with the Consumer
Watchdog Legal Team and Liaison Counsel, Consumer Watchdog counsel
assisted in drafting and sent a letter to Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel on April 29,
2013, identifying in detail how the documents produced were insufficient to
evaluate the settlement term sheet and Lump Sum Payment chart. The letter
sought the previous discovery requests served by Settling Plaintiffs on Defendants
and demanded additional information about: the calculations and variables used to
determine the Hyundai Lump Sum Payment amounts; the interviews that the
Settling Plaintiffs were planning to conduct in Korea (without any non-settling
plaintiffs); and support for the Kia settlement since no discovery whatsoever had
been produced from Kia. (Ex. F, a true and correct copy of the letter dated April
29, 2013, from Consumer Watchdog counsel to Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel.)
Consumer Watchdog counsel also demanded a copy of Settling Plaintiffs’
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 23 of 57 Page ID #:6690
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
26
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
Defendants had refused to respond (on October 16, 2013; November 7, 2013;
December 10, 2013; and January 3, 2014).
84. After attempts at informally resolving discovery issues with Hyundai
failed, counsel for Consumer Watchdog performed research for and drafted
portions of the Joint Discovery Stipulation, filed November 21, 2013 (Dkt. 154),
and a Supplemental Discovery Memorandum, filed November 25, 2013 (Dkt. 157),
and attended a December 9, 2013 hearing on the privilege log and document
request issues. (See Dkt. 182.) After the hearing, Hyundai revised its privilege log
and produced additional documents to all plaintiffs’ counsel. The Court then
undertook an in camera review of the sufficiency of Hyundai’s privilege assertions,
as Consumer Watchdog’s Legal Team had requested. (See 12/9/13 Hrg. Tr. at 9:17
– 11:2; Dkt. 201.)
85. Throughout this period, Consumer Watchdog counsel actively
communicated by phone and email with its 14 clients, providing updates about the
status of the litigation and discussing their ongoing fuel economy issues. Also
throughout this period, Consumer Watchdog counsel responded to a large volume
of consumer complaints from Class Members.
86. Consumer Watchdog attorneys expended 618.1 hours during this
period, and have a total lodestar of $376,075.00, using their regular hourly rates.
E. The Process of Improving the Settlement Agreement. (December 23, 2013 – December 18, 2014)
87. Initial Analysis of Settlement Terms. Settling Parties finally filed
the Settlement Agreement on December 23, 2013. The Court ordered that all non-
settling plaintiffs’ counsel submit their positions on the Settlement.
88. Consumer Watchdog attorneys drafted a detailed 14-page analysis of
the Settlement Agreement, submitted to Liaison Counsel and all other non-settling
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 28 of 57 Page ID #:6695
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
27
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
plaintiffs’ counsel on January 22, 2014 and filed with the Court on January 30,
2014 by Liaison Counsel. (Dkt. 211-3.)
89. In developing their analysis of the monetary compensation available
under the Settlement Agreement, counsel for Consumer Watchdog collected
mileage information from the 14 named Plaintiffs in Bird, Krauth, and Hasper and
undertook a detailed examination of what each Plaintiff would each get under the
Settlement and Voluntary Reimbursement Program.
90. The analysis of the settlement circulated by Consumer Watchdog
attorneys raised serious issues regarding the notice and claims process, the amount
of monetary compensation that would be available to Class Members, and the
provision permitting Hyundai and Kia to keep unclaimed and expired funds. (Dkt.
211-3.) As set forth in Liaison Counsel’s January 30, 2014 report to the Court,
there was widespread agreement among the non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel that
the 13-page long form notice, the 11-step claim form and the claims process were
deeply flawed. (See Dkt. 211.)
91. Between January and May 2014, counsel for Consumer Watchdog
reviewed meet and confer letters, memoranda, and emails between Liaison
Counsel and Settling Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding many of the issues raised
in Consumer Watchdog’s January 22, 2014 analysis, and others. During this time,
Consumer Watchdog counsel participated in five teleconferences with Liaison
Counsel. Subsequently the Settlement was amended twice. First, on January 16,
2014, the Settlement Agreement was amended to extend the additional “4 x 40”
compensation to certain qualified former owners. (Dkt. 206.) Again, on May 2,
2014, the Settlement Agreement was amended to provide that Hyundai and Kia
would send Class Members a postcard notice in lieu of the long form notice and
claim form. (Dkt. 226-1, Ex. A.) The second amendment also provided that
Hyundai and Kia would establish an online claim form website so Class Members
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 29 of 57 Page ID #:6696
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
28
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
could electronically submit claims, as suggested in Consumer Watchdog’s January
22, 2014 analysis. (Id. at § 1.2.)
92. Shortly after the second amendment to the Settlement Agreement in
May, 2014, all but two of the other non-settling plaintiffs’ firms supported, no
longer objected, or did not state their position regarding the Settlement.
93. Consumer Watchdog Legal Team Opposes Settlement, Court
Requires Improvements in Lengthy Process. The Consumer Watchdog Legal
Team carefully reviewed the proposed settlement and, after consultations with our
clients, concluded that the proposed settlement was not fair, reasonable, or
adequate. Of the 58 other firms not originally involved in the settlement, only the
Consumer Watchdog Legal Team and two others filed oppositions.10
94. Consumer Watchdog counsel performed factual and legal research
and prepared a 24-page Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Approval, filed
on May 30, 2014. (Dkt. 236.) The Opposition argued that the Court should reject
preliminary approval because the class notices (post card and long form) and the
claims form were highly confusing, the claims process was onerous, and
unnecessary in any event. Due to the inadequacies of the notice, it was likely that
relatively few Class Members would be able to avail themselves of the relief
ostensibly provided by the settlement. Moreover, Consumer Watchdog’s
opposition argued, Hyundai and Kia had structured the settlement in this manner
to improperly escape accountability for their misconduct because the proposed
10 Plaintiff in Wilson v. Kia Motors America, Case No. 2:13-cv-01625-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal.), represented by the law firm of Lewis G. Adler, Esquire, is the only other plaintiff that joined the Plaintiffs represented by the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team in their opposition to the settlement terms. (Dkt. 238.) Plaintiffs in Gentry, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 2:14-cv-01359-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal.) also filed an opposition to the Settlement on behalf of a class of Hyundai Elantra owners in Virginia, largely on the grounds that it improperly denied his clients, Virginia residents, their rights. (Dkt. 234.)
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 30 of 57 Page ID #:6697
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
29
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
settlement permitted Hyundai and Kia to keep all unclaimed and expired funds
(the “reverter”). The Opposition also argued it was improper for Hyundai and Kia
to administer the Settlement.
95. In response to Consumer Watchdog’s opposition, on June 24, 2014,
Hyundai and Kia filed a second set of notice and claim forms. (Dkt. 264.)
Defendants replaced their proposed illegible postcard notice with a larger short-
form mailer with larger font. (Dkt. 264-2.) On June 25, 2014, Consumer
Watchdog counsel filed and served a response, highlighting the problems with the
new short-form mailer and providing a mocked-up example of a short-form mailer
that would cure the deficiencies in what Settling Parties proposed. (Dkt. 266.)
96. On June 26, 2014, the Court agreed with Consumer Watchdog
counsel that there were “major problems” with the Settling Parties’ proposed
notice. (6/26/14 Hrg. Tr. at 11:7-8.) The Court denied the motion for preliminary
approval, emphasizing the concerns raised by Consumer Watchdog counsel that
the notice documents did not contain relevant facts and were not calculated to
catch the attention of Class Members. (See Dkt. 267, June 26, 2014 Tentative
Ruling, at 21.) The Court ordered the parties to revise the format and content of
the notice documents and also provide email notice to Class Members.
97. The Court rejected Consumer Watchdog counsel’s argument
concerning the reverter, but stated that if the class claims rate was low, the Court
would be prepared to require additional measures to ensure that the class received
the compensation it was entitled to. (6/26/14 Hrg. Tr. at 47:11-14.)
98. On July 9, 2014, the Defendants submitted a third set of notice and
claim forms, revised to address Consumer Watchdog counsel’s concerns. (Dkt.
271.) Consumer Watchdog counsel drafted a supplemental brief explaining how
the Settling Parties’ revised short-form mailer failed to include relevant
information and was not calculated to catch the attention of the recipient. (Dkt.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 31 of 57 Page ID #:6698
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
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
27
28
277.) Consumer Watchdog counsel also pointed out that Settling Parties had not
provided information about how the Lump Sum Payments were calculated, which
was needed to evaluate the monetary compensation under the Settlement. (Id.)
99. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued a tentative ruling stating that it
“agree[d] with the Krauth and Hasper plaintiffs that there are ways in which the
notice forms and claims website could be improved further.” (See July 24, 2104
Tentative Ruling at 4.) The Court, addressing the issues raised by Consumer
Watchdog counsel in their supplemental brief and comments at the hearing:
• ordered the Settling Parties to revise their notice and claim forms so they
are not “overly complicated in their explanation of settlement options” and
they properly explain “how prior participation in the Reimbursement
Program affects a class member’s options” (July 24, 2104 Tentative Ruling
at 4, fn. 1);
• ordered the Settling Parties to provide a detailed explanation about how
they calculated the Lump Sum Payments (see Dkt. 297); and
• ordered the Settling Parties to submit reports on Class Member participation
after the claims process begins, and stated that the Court would require a
secondary notice if the claims rates were low. (See July 24, 2104 Tentative
Ruling at 4, fn. 1.)
100. Even after the Court’s June and July 2014 orders, the Court required
multiple further rounds of revisions to finally get the notice and claim documents
in an acceptable format. Between August and September 2014, Consumer
Watchdog counsel reviewed three additional sets of notice and claim forms
(August 1; August 15; and September 12) and provided four sets of line-by-line,
word-for-word, redlined edits and comments on the revised notice and claim
forms (August 11; August 18; August 25; and September 19), each time pointing
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 32 of 57 Page ID #:6699
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
31
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
out unnecessary, burdensome steps; problems with the text that made the
compensation options unclear; and typos and formatting issues.
101. Consumer Watchdog counsel attended three court hearings (August
21; September 10; and September 29), each of which dedicated significant time to
Consumer Watchdog’s detailed comments about the confusing language in the
notice and claim forms. At each of the hearings, the Court ordered the Settling
Parties to revise the specific language in the notice and claim forms pursuant to
Consumer Watchdog counsel’s comments and suggestions. This pain-staking, but
extremely important, process finally concluded on October 3, 2014, when the
Court approved the notice and claim documents.
102. In response to Consumer Watchdog’s filings and comments at
hearings during this period, the Court also ordered the Defendants to submit a
declaration on whether they could obtain vehicle registration information that
would negate the need for a claim form for former owners, and a report ensuring
they had informed their call center representatives to provide a telephone number
for Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel, since the information is not contained in the notice.
Defendants did so. (Dkts. 320, 363.)
103. Throughout this period, Consumer Watchdog counsel would actively
communicate by phone and email with its 14 clients, providing updates about the
status of the litigation and discussing the terms of the Settlement and the clients’
potential compensation under the Settlement and Voluntary Reimbursement
Program. Also throughout this period, Consumer Watchdog counsel responded to
a large volume of consumer complaints from affected consumers.
104. Consumer Watchdog attorneys expended 1,104.7 hours during this
period, and have a total lodestar of $626,500.00, using their regular hourly rates.
105. The record of the proceedings of this litigation – by necessity
summarized in this declaration – demonstrates that Consumer Watchdog attorneys
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 33 of 57 Page ID #:6700
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
32
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
and their co-counsel played a unique and significant role in exposing and
addressing the injustice of the Defendants’ misrepresentations.
106. Though the Defendants reached a settlement with other plaintiffs’
lawyers before this MDL had even begun, the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team
worked unceasingly to improve the settlement and maximize the benefits of the
settlement for the class. The Court has correctly stated that it will revisit the
claims process should the claims rate be low. As noted above at paragraph 22, we
are prepared to continue our efforts on behalf of our clients and the class.
VII. LITIGATION COSTS AND EXPENSES
107. From the inception of this litigation through December 18, 2014,
Consumer Watchdog paid or incurred costs and expenses in the sum of $4,670.20.
These unreimbursed costs and expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred
in the prosecution of this Litigation, and are broken down as follows:
Explanation of Expense Amount
Filing fees
$1,424.50
Federal Express and court delivery service
$1,122.27
Photocopies
$877.26
Travel/Meals
$675.41
Hearing transcripts
$392.81
Telephone conference calls $138.75
Online legal research $39.50
TOTAL $4,670.20
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 34 of 57 Page ID #:6701
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
33
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
108. The costs and expenses paid and incurred are reflected on the books
and records of Consumer Watchdog. These books and records are prepared from
checks and expense vouchers that are regularly kept and maintained by Consumer
Watchdog in the ordinary course of business and accurately reflect the costs and
expenses incurred. Consumer Watchdog’s expenses were reasonably expended to
prosecute this matter. Law firms in the Los Angeles area customarily bill
separately from the base hourly rate for such out-of-pocket expenses. Consumer
Watchdog’s requested out-of-pocket expenses are not customarily considered
covered by the base hourly rate as part of the overhead, but are routinely billed
separately.
VIII. THE KRAUTH, HASPER, AND BIRD PLAINTIFFS’
CONTRIBUTION
109. All 14 of the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team’s clients in Krauth
(Gunther Krauth), Hasper (Linda Hasper, Kelly Moffett, Evan Grogan, Carlos
Medina, Alberto Dominguez, Catherine Bernard, Michael Breien, Laura Gill,
Thomas Schille, Judith Stanton, Randy Rickert and Bryan Zirkel) and Bird (Louis
Bird) have been actively involved in this case since prior to the filing of each
action, and throughout the course of the litigation. These Plaintiffs have expended
hours providing me and the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team with documents and
information about their Hyundai and Kia vehicles. They approved the filing of the
original complaints in the relevant actions and the allegations about their
situations. They reviewed relevant pleadings have been in routine contact with me
to discuss the status of their cases and the progress of the Settlement throughout
this action.
///
///
///
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 35 of 57 Page ID #:6702
DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM
34
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
110. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed this 23th day of December, 2014 at Santa Monica, California.
By: ____________________ Laura Antonini
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 36 of 57 Page ID #:6703
Consumer Watchdog Legal Project Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit, non-partisan, consumer research and advocacy organization founded in 1985 by consumer attorney and advocate Harvey Rosenfield. Its mission is to provide an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government, and politics. The organization deploys public interest attorneys, policy experts, strategists, and grassroots activists to expose, confront, and change unjust practices in the private and public sectors. Consumer Watchdog's Legal Project attorneys advocate for consumers' rights and hold corporations and government officials accountable in federal and state courts and before regulatory agencies. The Legal Project specializes in highly complex litigation, including class actions in federal and state courts, to address abuses in the marketplace such as illegal overcharges, false advertising, and violation of consumer protection laws. Some of our most notable accomplishments include:
• Settled a class action against United Health Care for illegally requiring HIV/AIDS patients to purchase their medications from a mail-order pharmacy, threatening their health and privacy. As a result of the settlement, United Health Care members prescribed HIV/AIDS medications have a right to opt-out of the mail-order program at any time. The company also agreed to reimburse consumers for out of pocket losses resulting from the mail order requirement.
• Settled a class action against Blue Cross for illegally requiring HIV/AIDS patients to purchase their medications from a mail-order pharmacy, threatening their health and privacy. As a result of the settlement, Blue Cross members prescribed HIV/AIDS medications have a right to opt-out of the mail-order program at any time. The company also agreed to reimburse consumers for out of pocket losses resulting from the mail order requirement.
• Settled a class action against Blue Cross for illegally closing insurance policies and using large rate hikes to force patients into lower-benefit and higher-deductible health coverage – a practice known as the "death spiral." Relief obtained included a cap on future rate increases and the opportunity for plan members to switch coverage, without medical underwriting, to any open policy regulated by the California Department of Managed Health Care.
• Settled a class action against the Auto Club requiring the insurer to pay $22.5 million in refunds to policyholders who were overcharged for not having prior insurance, a practice that is prohibited by insurance reform Proposition 103.
• Secured a consumer’s right to enforce the Insurance Code in court under the state’s Unfair Competition Law in a case against Mercury for illegally surcharging drivers without prior insurance.
• Obtained an order from the Insurance Commissioner approving a settlement agreement requiring Farmers
Insurance to refund $1.2 million in premium overcharges and pay a $2 million fine to the State of California for utilizing improper homeowners insurance underwriting practices.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 38 of 57 Page ID #:6705
• Successfully blocked insurance rate hike requests by dozens of insurance companies, saving Californians over $3 billion on their auto, homeowners, earthquake, and medical malpractice insurance between 2003 and 2013.
Consumer Watchdog’s attorneys have taken the lead role – authored comprehensive appellate briefs and participated in oral argument – in numerous landmark cases resulting in published appellate and California Supreme Court opinions upholding consumer protection statutes:
• Consumer Watchdog et al. v. Department of Managed Health Care et al. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 862 (counsel
for petitioner Consumer Watchdog) – holding that the Department of Managed Health Care can no longer uphold a health plan’s denial of coverage for autism treatment provided or supervised by a nationally board-certified individual on the basis that the provider is not licensed
• Association of California Insurance Companies v. Poizner (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1029 (counsel for intervenor Consumer Watchdog) – upholding Department of Insurance regulations consistently with the language and purpose of Proposition 103 to promote consumer participation in rate proceedings
• In re Tobacco II (2009) 207 P.3d 20 (counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog) – holding that Prop 64 standing requirements apply only to named plaintiffs and not unnamed putative class members
• Karnan v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 814 (counsel for plaintiff) – allowing plaintiff in a UCL action to proceed with pre-certification discovery to locate class members
• Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403 (counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog) – allowing a UCL action to proceed against an insurer challenging as excessive fees paid by policyholders to the insurer’s management company
• Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights v. Garamendi (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1354 (counsel for
plaintiff) – overturning an illegal legislative amendment to Proposition 103 that would have allowed illegal surcharges to drivers who lacked prior insurance coverage
• State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1029 (counsel for amicus curiae FTCR) – upholding against industry challenge Department of Insurance regulations requiring the public disclosure of insurance redlining data submitted to the Insurance Commissioner as required by Proposition 103
• Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968 (counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog) – upholding consumers’ right to bring a UCL action to enforce Proposition 103
• Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1473 (counsel for plaintiff) –
invalidating an illegal legislative amendment to Proposition 103 that would have decreased the amount of refunds owed to policyholders under the initiative’s rate rollback provision.
• Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1243 (counsel for intervenor) – Cal. Supreme Court decision invalidating an illegal legislative amendment to Proposition 103 that would have exempted surety insurance from regulation
• 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216 (counsel for intervenor) – Cal. Supreme Court decision upholding insurance rate regulations enforcing Proposition 103’s prohibition against excessive or inadequate rates
• Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian (1989) 48 Cal.3d 805 (counsel for intervenor) – Cal. Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 103 against constitutional challenge by the insurance industry
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 39 of 57 Page ID #:6706
Consumer Watchdog’s Legal Project is currently litigating high impact consumer protection lawsuits and administrative actions, including:
• A California class action challenging DIRECTV’s unconscionable contract terms, including the imposition of an early cancellation penalty on people who discontinue DIRECTV’s services before the expiration of a supposed 18-24 month term commitment, even when the satellite TV receiver leased from DIRECTV stops working or a customer moves to an area where the service is no longer available. (Imburgia et al. v. DIRECTV (L.A. County Super. Ct.), Nos. BC 398295 and BC398431.)
• An administrative enforcement action against Mercury Insurance Company for charging excessive and unfairly
discriminatory rates by allowing its agents to charge illegal broker fees at the point of sale. (In the Matter of Mercury Ins. Co., et al. (Cal. Dept. Ins.), No. NC03027545.)
• A class action against Blue Shield for violating California law by routinely closing more desirable health plans to
new customers and then forcing out existing policyholders by sharply increasing their premiums without offering them the option to switch to plans with comparable coverage. (Martin, et al. v. California Physicians’ Service, dba Blue Shield of California, et al. (S.F. Super. Ct.), No. CGC-12-521539.)
• A class action against Blue Cross for violating California law by dramatically increasing “annual” deductibles in
the middle of the year and announcing that the company may now change any terms of consumers’ contracts each month, including which health care services and benefits are covered. (Kassouf, et al. v. Blue Cross of California (L.A. Super. Ct.), No. BC473408.)
Brief Biographies of Consumer Watchdog Attorneys
Harvey Rosenfield (Of Counsel) is one of the nation's foremost consumer lawyers and the founder of Consumer Watchdog (1985). Rosenfield has organized and led countless consumer protection lawsuits and administrative proceedings. Rosenfield authored insurance reform Proposition 103 and organized the campaign that led to its passage by California voters in 1988. He has also authored or co-authored legislative proposals on patient safety, insurance and utility rate regulation. Rosenfield is the author of the book, Silent Violence, Silent Death: The Hidden Epidemic of Medical Malpractice. (Essential Books, 1994). Rosenfield has worked for the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Congress, as a staff attorney for Public Citizen Congress Watch and as the Program Director for the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG). Rosenfield graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College (1974) and obtained a joint Law and Masters degree in Foreign Service from Georgetown University (1979). He received an honorary doctorate from Amherst in 2010. He is admitted to practice in D.C. (1979) and California (1986). Pamela Pressley is Consumer Watchdog’s Litigation Director, heading up Consumer Watchdog's litigation and regulatory efforts since 1999. Pressley has served as lead counsel in challenges to insurance industry rate hike proposals resulting in savings to California policyholders of over $3 billion since 2003. Additionally, Pressley has led Consumer Watchdog's efforts to enforce Proposition 103's mandates to protect California insurance policyholders against discriminatory practices and premium overcharges, including through rulemaking proceedings before the California Department of Insurance and court actions. Pressley has also authored numerous appellate briefs and presented oral argument in cases seeking to enforce Proposition 103 and California’s consumer
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 40 of 57 Page ID #:6707
protection laws. Currently, she is one of the lead attorneys in a certified class action against DIRECTV challenging its illegal early cancellation penalties. Pressley received her B.A. in Sociology from UCLA and her J.D. from Pepperdine University School of Law. She was admitted to the California Bar in 1995. Before joining Consumer Watchdog, Pressley worked for CALPIRG as its Consumer Attorney and as a staff attorney for the Center for Law in the Public Interest, a non-profit, public interest law firm specializing in consumer, environmental, and civil rights advocacy and litigation. Laura Antonini is a staff attorney who has worked on civil litigation and regulatory matters in all of Consumer Watchdog’s focus areas. She previously volunteered as an intern for Consumer Watchdog during her undergraduate education in 2004, helping organize the Rx Express, a campaign calling attention to the high cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens. She decided to return to Consumer Watchdog as a volunteer attorney in early 2011, and then joined the team full time in Spring 2011.
During law school, Antonini conducted legal and scientific research on several projects, including the development of carbon dioxide quantification software for businesses and municipalities, and water quality and environmental compliance assessments of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore. Prior to joining Consumer Watchdog, Antonini tutored and mentored law school students and recent law school graduates for the California Bar Exam, and also co-authored a “How To” book for law students, focused on legal writing.
Antonini received a B.S. in Environmental Biology and Management from University of California, Davis, and a J.D. from Pace University School of Law, with a specialization in Environmental Law. Antonini was admitted to the California Bar in 2010.
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 41 of 57 Page ID #:6708
In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation CONSUMER WATCHDOG LODESTAR CHART
NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR
Harvey Rosenfield 806.50 $925/hr $746,012.50 Pamela Pressley 175.30 $650/hr $113,945.00 Laura Antonini 1,796.40 $350/hr $628,740.00
TOTAL 2,778.2 $1,488,697.50
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 43 of 57 Page ID #:6710
EXHIBIT C (filed under seal)
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 44 of 57 Page ID #:6711
EXHIBIT D (filed under seal)
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 45 of 57 Page ID #:6712
EXHIBIT E (filed under seal)
Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 Page 46 of 57 Page ID #:6713