1 the margarian law firm hovanes margarian (sbn: … · 2020. 2. 27. · hovanes margarian (sbn:...

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARD FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

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

THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM

HOVANES MARGARIAN (SBN: 246359) SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN (SBN: 318617) 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 553-1000 Facsimile: (818) 553-1005 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN TIME TRADERS, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public; TIME TRADERS, INC., a California corporation, on behalf of itself, all others similarly situated, and the general public Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: BC606392 Class Action

Hon. Daniel J. Buckley PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND

EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARD

FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

Date: May 28, 2020 Time: 10:30 a.m. Place: Department 1 Complaint Filed: January 8, 2016 Trial Date: None set

E-Served: Feb 24 2020 4:13PM PST Via Case Anywhere

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND SERVICE

AWARDS FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

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

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR

ATTORNEY OF RECORD

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 28, 2020, at 10:30 a.m., in Department 1, of

the above-captured Court, located at 312 North Sprint Street, Los Angeles, California

90012, the Honorable Daniel J. Buckley presiding, Plaintiffs, Armen G. Kojikian, as an

individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public;

Time Traders, Inc., a California corporation, on behalf of itself, all others similarly

situated, and the general public, by and through Plaintiffs’ attorneys, will, and hereby do,

move for entry of an order awarding attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and a service

award for the class representative. Plaintiffs bring this motion on the grounds that the

parties’ Settlement Agreement authorizes the aforementioned, which is also warranted

under, inter alia, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1780(e) and

the Private Attorney General Statute, Cal. Civ. Pro. Code Section 1021.5.

This Motion is based upon: (1) this Notice of Motion and Motion; (2) the

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof; (3) the Declaration of

Hovanes Margarian; (4) the Declaration of Armen G. Kojikian; (4) the Settlement

Agreement and attached exhibits thereto; (5) Order Granting Preliminary Approval of

Class Action Settlement; (6) the records, pleadings, and papers filed in this action; the

(7) other documentary and oral evidence or argument as may be presented to the Court at

or prior to the hearing.

Dated: February 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: ______________________________

Hovanes Margarian Shushanik Margarian The Margarian Law Firm Attorneys for Plaintiffs



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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................9

A. Extension of Powertrain Warranty Period…………………………….……..9

B. Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Costs Incurred Before the Class Notice

Date………………………………………………………………………….9

C. Piston Repairs After Execution of the Settlement………………………….10

D. A Consumer-Friendly Claims Process……………………………..………11

E. Check Cashing Deadline…………………..……………………………….11

F. Honda as Settlement Administrator……………………...……………...…11

G. Enhancement Award……………………………………………………….11

II. FACTS RELEVANT TO MOTION.......................................................................12

A. The Proposed Settlement’s Benefits to the Class..........................................12

1. Extension of Powertrain Warranty Period…......................................12

2. Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Costs Incurred Before the Class

Notice Date………………………………….....................................12

3. Piston Repairs After Execution of the Settlement..............................13

4. A Consumer-Friendly Claims Process……………………………...13

B. Advantages of this Settlement over Those in Analogous

Cases.............................................................................................................14

C. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Expertise and Tenacity………………………………15

D. Plaintiffs’ Considerable Investigation and Discovery……………………...15

E. The Parties Protracted Arm’s-Length Settlement

Negotiations……………………………………………………………......17

F. Class Counsel’s Ongoing Efforts to Enforce the Settlement Terms……….18

G. The Enhancement Award…………………………………………………..19

III. ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................19

A. The Settlement is an Excellent Result for Class Members…………….......20



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

B. The Settlement Resulted from Arm’s-Length

Negotiations………………………………………………………………..21

C. According to any Accepted Method of Calculation, Plaintiffs’ Fees Are

Reasonable…………………………………………………………………23

1. Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorneys’ Fees is Reasonable in Light of the

Lodestar Cross-Check………………………………………………24

a. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Lodestar Calculation………………………25

b. While An Enhancer/Multiplier to the Lodestar is Justified, the

Discount Reflected in the Instant Settlement Agreement Makes the

Fee Request Even More Reasonable…………………………..…27

c. Class Counsel Faced Considerable Risks in Taking this Case…..28

d. The Results Obtained on Behalf of the Class were Significant….29

e. Class Counsel Expertly Handled the Difficult Issues Present in this

Litigation…………………………………………………………30

f. Preclusion of Other Employment………………………………...30

g. The Requested Fee is Modest When Compared to Fees Awarded in

Comparable Lawsuits…………………………………………….30

h. The Parties’ Negotiated Amount Includes Reimbursement for

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Litigation Expenses………………………..32

i. Plaintiffs’ Requested Incentive Awards Are Reasonable………..33


Comparison to Benefit………………………………………………33

IV. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………...…34



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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

California Cases

7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85 Cal. App. 4th 1135

(2000)……………………………………………………………………………...22

Building a Better Redondo Beach, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach, 203 Cal. App. 4th

852 (2012)…………………………………………………………………………28

Clark v. American Residential Services LLC, 175 Cal. App. 4th 785 (2009)…….33

Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 533 (2004)……………………...28

Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122 (2001)…………………………………..24, 28

In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 180 Cal. App. 4th 1110 (2009)…….21, 23

In re Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th 545 (2009)……….24, 25, 27, 28

In re Microsoft I-V Cases, 135 Cal. App. 4th 706 (2006)……………………..21-22

In re Vitamin Cases, 2004 WL 5137597 (San Francisco Sup. Ct., 2004)………...29

Lafitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 231 Cal. App. 4th 860 (2014)…………………...24

Lealao v. Beneficial Calif., 82 Cal. App. 4th 19 (2000)…………………………..24

Natural Gas Anti- Trust Cases I, II, III & IV, 2006 WL 5377849 (Cal. Super.

2006)………………………………………………………………………………28

Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1228 (2014)……………...28



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

Wershba v. Apple Computer, 91 Cal. App. 4th 224 (2001)………………21, 24, 27

Zakskorn et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al (2:11-cv-02610-KJM-

KJN) (E.D. Cal.) (Filed: 10/04/2011) (Final Approval: 06/09/2015)…………….31

Other States’ Cases

Alin v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., No. 08-4825, 2012 WL 8751045 (D.N.J. Apr. 13,

2012)………………………………………………………………………………31

In re: Volkswagen and Audi Warranty Extension Litigation, No. 07-01790 (D.

Mass.)……………………………………………………………………………..30

Zwicker v. General Motors Corp., No. C07-291 JCC (W.D. Wash. 2008)………31

Federal Cases

Aarons v. BMW of North America, No. 11-7667, 2014 WL 4090564 (C.D. Cal.

Apr. 29, 2014)……………………………………………………………………..30

Asghari v. Volkswagen Group of American Inc., et al (2:13-cv-02529) (C.D. Cal.)

(4/10/2013)………………………………………………………………………..26

Browne v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. CV 09-06750 (C.D. Cal.

2010)…………………………………………………………………………..27, 30

Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 2013 WL 4516806 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013)………...24

Fischel v. Equitable Life. Assur. Soc’y, 307 F. 3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002)…………...24

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corporation, 150 F. 3d 1011 (1998)…………………..…21, 25



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

Henderson v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, No. CIV.A. 09-4146 CCC, 2013 WL

1192479 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2013), appeal dismissed (May 30, 2013)……………..31

In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 109

F.3d 602 (9th Cir. 1997)…………………………………………………………..25

Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell et al. v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., et al (5:17-cv-04435)

(N.D. Cal.) (8/4/2017)…………………………………………………………….27

Kakani v. Oracle Corp., No. C 06- 06493 WHA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95496

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2007)…………………………………………………………25

Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 10-09508 (C.D. Cal.)…………30

Davitt et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2:13-cv-00381-MCA-JBC)

(D.N.J.) (Filed: 01/18/2013) (Final Approval: 05/08/15)…………………………32

Koumoulis v. LPL Fin. Corp., No. 09CV1973-DMS BLM (S.D. Cal.), 2010 WL

4868044 (2010)……………………………………………………………………24

Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor America, 796 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (2010)………...27, 31

Powers v. Eichen, 229 F. 3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2000)………………………………..24

Sadowska v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., (Case No: 2:11-cv-00665)

(01/21/2011) (C.D. Cal.); 2013 WL 9600948………………………………...27, 30

Soto et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (3:12-cv-01377-SI) (N.D. Cal.)

(Filed: 03/19/2012) (Final Approval: 03/27/2014)………………………………..32

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (2003)…………………………………...14, 22

Vizcaino v. Microsoft, 290 F. 3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002)……………………………25



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

SECONDARY AUTHORITIES

Richard M. Pearl, California Attorney Fee Awards (3d ed. Cal CEB 2013) (“Pearl Fee

Awards”)……………………………………………………………………………..21, 23

4 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions §14.7 (4th ed. 2002;

Supp. 2013)………………………………………………………………………………25



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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Across the country, owners and lessees of certain vehicles designed, manufactured,

distributed, marketed, sold and warranted by American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”

or “Defendant”) began experiencing problems with their engines that resulted in

excessive oil consumption (oil consumption defect). As a result, Plaintiffs Armen

Kojikian and Time Traders filed a class action to remedy these problems. The efforts of

Plaintiffs, along with those of their attorneys, have now paid off, resulting in an

exceptional Settlement for current and former owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles.

The benefits of the Settlement to the Class include at least the following:

A. Extension of Powertrain Warranty Period

AHM will extend the original powertrain warranty period of 5 years/60,000 miles

to 8 years/125,000 miles (whichever occurs first) from the date of the original sale or

lease of each Class Vehicle (“Powertrain Warranty Period”). See Settlement Agreement

at §§ I (47) and III (B) at Page 13.

B. Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Costs Incurred Before the Class

Notice Date

Upon submission of a timely Claim Form, AHM will reimburse Class Members for

valid and eligible Out-Of-Pocket Costs incurred prior to the Class Notice Date. Id. at §

III (A) at Page 13. To obtain reimbursement under Paragraph III of the Settlement

Agreement, Class Members must submit (i.e., transmit via the settlement website, U.S.

mail or fax) a timely and valid Claim Form and Required Documentation to the Class

Administrator before the Applicable Claims Deadline (as set forth in Paragraph I (3) of

the Settlement Agreement). A timely Claim Form is one that is postmarked within the



10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Applicable Claims Deadline. Validated Claims will be paid by the Approved Claim

Payment Date.

C. Piston Repairs After Execution of the Settlement

AHM agrees to cover under warranty the costs for a Piston Repair on a Class

Vehicle after the Settlement Agreement has been signed provided such repair is

performed during the Powertrain Warranty Period or, if applicable, during the Powertrain

Warranty Gap Period by a Honda or Acura dealership. Id. at § III (B) at Page 13.

Specifically, the terms of the settlement require Honda to extend the powertrain

warranty for the Class Vehicles to cover an 8-year/125,000 mile period (whichever

occurs first) from the date of the original sale or lease of each Class Vehicle.

AHM has already provided notice of the new Powertrain Warranty Period to

dealers and to Class Members promptly after the Settlement Agreement was signed. Such

notice is separate and apart from any Class Notice the Court required for the Settlement.

AHM has also given notice pursuant to the terms approved and ordered by the Court at

the time of granting the preliminary approval of class settlement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Class Vehicles will receive a Piston Repair

provided: (1) there is no evidence of abuse, misuse, or accident damage to the Piston or

Piston Ring, and (2) the Class Vehicle is presented to an Authorized Acura Dealership

during the Powertrain Warranty Period, or, if applicable, during the Powertrain Warranty

Gap Period. Piston Repairs performed by third party repair facilities after notice of the

Powertrain Warranty Period is mailed will not be paid or otherwise covered by AHM.

Class Members who obtain Piston Repairs pursuant to section III of the Settlement

Agreement are precluded from opting out of the Settlement even if an otherwise valid and

timely opt-out notice is sent to the Claims Administrator.



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

D. A Consumer-Friendly Claims Process

The claims process has been designed to minimize the burden on Class Members

while ensuring that only valid claims are paid. To obtain reimbursement for a Service

Adjustment performed prior to the Class Notice, a Class Member must supply

documentary proof necessary to substantiate claims and out-of- pocket expenses. Id. at §

IV at Page 15.

E. Check Cashing Deadline

The deadline by which Class Members must cash checks for approved claims is

180 days. See Settlement Agreement at § V (G) at Page 17.

F. Honda as Settlement Administrator

Honda will serve as Settlement Administrator. Id. at § I (10) at Page 5. It is

common for a defendant with the ability and experience to administer claims to self-

administer a settlement. Honda has the necessary experience and capacity to administer

this settlement, as reflected by its appointment as settlement administrator in the several

other class actions.

G. Enhancement Award

Plaintiff Armen Kojikian is the sole owner of Time Traders, Inc., the corporate co-

plaintiff in this case. Mr. Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc. are the co-purchasers of their

Class Vehicle, which is why both were named as plaintiffs in this case. The parties

agreed to a proposed enhancement of $5,000 total for the proposed class

representative(s). Id. at § IX (B) at Page 22.

Considered individually or in the aggregate, these are outstanding benefits. The

parties’ Settlement Agreement properly addresses the Plaintiffs’ primary complaint – that



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

some Class Vehicles may consume an excessive amount of engine oil – and remedies that

defect by providing reimbursement of resulting out-of-pocket expenses and a warranty

extension that will cover piston repairs should the need arise. See Kojikian Decl. at ¶ 3.

These benefits are particularly notable in light of the economy with which

Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel managed this case. The Margarian Law Firm prosecuted this

case and allocated work within the firm in an efficient manner, avoiding unnecessary and

duplicative work and reducing fees incurred.

As part of the Settlement, Plaintiffs seek Court approval of a negotiated resolution

of their claim for attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and class representatives incentive

awards.

II. FACTS RELEVANT TO MOTION

A. The Proposed Settlement’s Benefits to the Class

The Settlement provides remarkable benefits to the Class, including:

1. Extension of Powertrain Warranty Period

AHM will extend the original powertrain warranty period of 5 years/60,000 miles

to 8 years/125,000 miles (whichever occurs first) from the date of the original sale or

lease of each Class Vehicle (“Powertrain Warranty Period”). See Settlement Agreement

at §§ I (47) and III (B) at Page 13.

2. Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Costs Incurred Before the

Class Notice Date

Upon submission of a timely Claim Form, AHM will reimburse Class Members for

valid and eligible Out-Of-Pocket Costs incurred prior to the Class Notice Date. Id. at §

III (A) at Page 13. To obtain reimbursement under Paragraph III of the Settlement



13

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

Agreement, Class Members must submit (i.e., transmit via the settlement website, U.S.

mail or fax) a timely and valid Claim Form and Required Documentation to the Class

Administrator before the Applicable Claims Deadline (as set forth in Paragraph I (3)(a) of

the Settlement Agreement). A timely Claim Form is one that is postmarked within the

Applicable Claims Deadline. Validated Claims will be paid by the Approved Claim

Payment Date.

3. Piston Repairs After Execution of the Settlement

AHM agrees to cover under warranty the costs for a Piston Repair on a Class

Vehicle after the Settlement Agreement has been signed provided such repair is

performed during the Powertrain Warranty Period or, if applicable, during the Powertrain

Warranty Gap Period by a Honda or Acura dealership. Id. at § III (B) at . AHM

has already provided notice of the new Powertrain Warranty Period to dealers and to

Class Members promptly after the Settlement Agreement was signed. Such notice is

separate and apart from any Class Notice the Court will require for the Settlement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Class Vehicles will receive a Piston Repair

provided (1) there is no evidence of abuse, misuse, or accident damage to the Piston or

Piston Ring, and (2) the Class Vehicle is presented to an Authorized Acura Dealership

during the Powertrain Warranty Period, or, if applicable, during the Powertrain Warranty

Gap Period. Piston Repairs performed by third party repair facilities after notice of the

Powertrain Warranty Period is mailed will not be paid or otherwise covered by AHM.

Class Members who obtain Piston Repairs pursuant to section III of the Settlement

Agreement are precluded from opting out of the Settlement even if an otherwise valid and

timely opt-out notice is sent to the Claims Administrator.

4. A Consumer-Friendly Claims Process

The claims process has been designed to minimize the burden on Class Members

while ensuring that only valid claims are paid. Id. at § IV at Page 15. To obtain



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

reimbursement for a Service Adjustment performed prior to the Class Notice, a Class

Member must supply documentary proof necessary to substantiate claims and out-of-

pocket expenses.

B. Advantages of this Settlement over Those in Analogous Cases

The instant Settlement Agreement is more beneficial to Plaintiffs than in analogous

agreements for a number of reasons. First, settlement agreements in analogous cases

often provide only some automobile owners relief, typically tethering relief to proof of

damage. This Settlement ensures that 100% of the Class Members will receive an

extended warranty without need for proof of damages.

Second, settlement agreements in analogous cases often provide a cap to the

amount of reimbursement class members can receive. This settlement agreement provides

no such cap.

Third, many settlement agreements allow class members to recover only a portion

of the amount expended to correct a vehicle defect, and are subject to certain time and

mileage limitations. This settlement agreement allows class members to receive 100% of

the cost of repairs, and is not subject to any such limitation.

Fourth, the value of the Settlement does not include the benefit that Class Members

will enjoy as a result of the substantially decreased number of oil changes that Class

Members need to perform.

Fifth, in addition to the extended warranty benefit, Plaintiffs have conferred

additional benefits to the class in the form of notice and claim administration costs. See

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F. 3d 938, 975 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the cost of

providing notice to the class can reasonably be considered a benefit to the class).



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

Finally, comparable agreements involving AHM are detailed herein and

underscore the excellent benefit of the instant case to the Class Members – thus,

warranting the award requested via this motion.

C. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Expertise and Tenacity

As set forth below, the benefits conferred on the Class are largely attributable to

the expertise and tenacity of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, who worked strategically, aggressively,

diligently, and tirelessly for over five (5) years without any pay or reimbursement for the

substantial time and expenses devoted to the Class. Plaintiffs’ Counsel has exclusively

practiced consumer protection litigation for over a decade, representing thousands of

consumers in automotive defects cases, giving Plaintiffs’ counsel a breadth and depth of

experience necessary to effectively litigate the present matter.

D. Plaintiffs’ Considerable Investigation and Discovery

Both prior to and after filing these actions, Plaintiffs thoroughly investigated and

litigated this case. See Decl. of Margarian at ¶ 9. Among other things, Plaintiffs fielded

inquiries from prospective Class Members; consulted and retained automotive experts;

researched publicly available materials and information provided by the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) concerning consumer complaints

about excessive oil consumption; reviewed and researched consumer complaints and

discussions of excessive oil consumption in articles and forums online; reviewed various

manuals and technical service bulletins discussing the alleged defect; conducted research

into the various causes of actions; drafted three oppositions to motions to dismiss; and

two oppositions to motions to transfer.

Class Counsel successfully engaged in meet and confers with Defendants

regarding the originally filed Complaint, drafted and filed a First Amended Class Action



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

Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief, opposed a demurrer and a motion to strike.

See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 10.

Plaintiffs also propounded discovery on Defendants. See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 11.

In response, Defendants produced significant warranty claims data and voluminous

documents, including: owners’ manuals, maintenance and warranty manuals, design

documents (e.g., technical drawings), VIN Decoders, technical service bulletins, field

reports, customer comments detail reports, and other documents.

In addition to reviewing Defendant’s documents, Plaintiffs also conducted their

own testing, which included, among other things, hiring experts, and conducting

extensive testing regarding the alleged oil consumption defect, which allowed Plaintiffs’

counsel to evaluate Defendants’ representations concerning the alleged excessive oil

consumption issue and repair solutions. See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 12. Plaintiffs prepared

for and took the depositions of AHM’s Person Most Knowledgeable designee, an out-of-

state witness, who provided substantial testimony and document production needed to

effectively engage and secure a favorable settlement for the Class. Plaintiffs also

scrutinized the repair logs to understand the true extent of the problem, including the

mileage of the vehicles that were fixed, the geographic locations, and whether there were

accompanying repairs. Id.

In short, in light of the pervasiveness of the oil consumption problem, Plaintiffs’

Counsel made an exhaustive effort to ensure that any negotiated remedy would directly

benefit the Class as a whole and it will.

//

//



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

E. The Parties’ Protracted Arm’s-Length Settlement Negotiations:

The proposed Settlement was the culmination of protracted discussions between

the Parties, extensive consultation with their experts, discovery, and thorough analysis of

the pertinent facts and law at issue. See Margarian Decl. at See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 13.

The Parties engaged in significant negotiations.

Ultimately, the Parties engaged in two (2) full day mediation sessions with the

assistance of the Hon. Howard B. Wiener. See Margarian Decl. at See Margarian Decl. at

¶ 14. The first session focuses solely on the class benefits. Only after negotiating the

class benefits did the Parties discuss Class Counsel’s fees, costs and the Plaintiffs’

enhancement award. After much back and forth regarding fees and lodestar multipliers,

the Parties decided it was most productive to negotiate whole numbers. See Margarian

Decl. at See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 13. They final agreed upon attorney’s fees sum was in

fact below the sum suggested to the parties by the Hon. Howard B. Wiener as a final

compromise to settle. See Margarian Decl. at See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 14.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel decided to cut its fee components for the benefit of the Class

and to reach the instant Settlement Agreement sooner for the benefit of the Class. See

Decl. of Margarian at See Margarian Decl. at See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 13 See Margarian

Decl. at See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 15 and 16. As set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s

fees at full value would have been warranted given the Firm’s expertise and tenacity in

this matter. The ultimate award sought pursuant to the Settlement Agreement is

practically half that amount. The costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this matter are also

reasonable. See Decl. of Margarian at See Margarian Decl. at See Margarian Decl. at ¶

21 and attached Exhibit (Cost Table). Finally, the Service Award sought, which was also

negotiated and set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is reasonable for the reasons set

forth herein. See Margarian Decl. at See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 22.



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

F. Class Counsel’s Ongoing Efforts to Enforce the Settlement Terms

Following this Court’s order granting preliminary approval on October 16, 2019

and dissemination of the Class Notice, Class Counsel to date received over a four

hundred (400) calls and emails from Class Members inquiring as to how they can

participate in the class action settlement. See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 17. Class Members

also had questions as to the scope of the benefits. Id. Class Counsel answered Class

Members’ questions, included following up when needed, and is continuing to monitor

the response of Class Members to the Settlement. Class Counsel expects to field many

more calls and emails from Class Members in the ensuing months. Id. As part of their

service to Class Members, Class Counsel researched the laws in different states regarding

the obligations of automobile repair businesses to maintain purchase and repair records so

as to better advise Class Members who have lost or misplaced their repair documentation.

Id.

Moreover, Class Counsel called Service Centers across all fifty (50) states as well

as Puerto Rico to confirm that Defendants have advised them of the Class Action

Settlement and that they are aware of their obligations under that Settlement. See

Margarian Decl. at See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 18. Class Counsel personally spoke to either

the Service Manager or the Service Advisors at numerous Service Centers where Class

Counsel would determine if the AHM personnel understands the terms and conditions of

the Settlement. Id. In the course of these conversations, Class Counsel also learned that

most Service Centers that were contacted have already performed numerous repairs under

the program. Id. Based on this rigorous enforcement effort, Class Counsel is satisfied

that Defendants are complying with their duty to fully advise AHM dealerships and

service centers of their obligation to provide Service Adjustments to Class Members.

Class Counsel has also identified AHM authorized dealerships which appear to be

uncertain about the terms of the Settlement. Class Counsel is presently coordinating



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

efforts with AHM to rectify this inconsistency and to ensure that all AHM authorized

dealerships are acting in compliance with the terms of the Settlement and that all Class

Members know of their exact rights under the Settlement. Id. Class Counsel will

continue to monitor and encourage AHM dealerships to keep up with the terms of the

Class Action Settlement. Id.

G. The Enhancement Award

Plaintiff Armen Kojikian is the sole owner of Time Traders, Inc., the corporate co-

plaintiff in this case. Mr. Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc. are the co-purchasers of their

Class Vehicle, which is why both were named as plaintiffs in this case. See Decls. of

Margarian at ¶ 22 and Kojikian at ¶ 3. The parties agreed to a proposed enhancement of

$5,000 total for the proposed class representative(s). See Settlement Agreement at § IX

(B) at Page 22. This total proposed enhancement amount would have been the same if

only a single class representative (Armen Kojikian) had filed this suit. That is, the

proposed enhancement award here is not higher because two, rather than one, class

representatives are included. In this case, the parties have agreed that to the extent the

Court is inclined to award any enhancement award to the representative plaintiff, Honda

would not oppose an enhancement that does not exceed $5,000 combined total for the

two plaintiffs or $5,000 to a single plaintiff – Armen Kojikian. See Decl. of Margarian at

¶ 22.

III. ARGUMENT

Here, Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and service awards pursuant

to the Parties’ Agreement. Plaintiffs contend that such award is appropriate for several

reasons. This is so, primary because the outcome was an excellent result for Class

Members and because Plaintiffs’ counsel cut the Firm’s fees in half in the interest of the

Class Members in order to resolve the matter and move forward in a manner that

protected them from further damage.



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

A. The Settlement is an Excellent Result for Class Members

The instant Settlement provides substantial benefits for past and current owners

and/or lessees of approximately 339,142 Settlement Class Vehicles. This translates into

more than 339,142 individual Class Members who will receive the benefits. These

benefits are estimated to be valued approximately $25,000,000 based on a reasonable

estimate of the number of repairs and/or reimbursements anticipated from Class

Members. On the extreme end of the projection, if claims for reimbursement or requests

for repairs under the extended warranty are made at least once for all 339,142 Class

Vehicles, the aggregate cost of such repairs will exceed $1.4 billion since the repair costs

are estimated to range from $4,200 to $4,500 per vehicle. From an alternate perspective,

if the value of a warranty that covers a $4,200 to $4,500 repair is 5% of that cost, then

that amounts to $210 per Class Vehicle. As such, $210 times 339,142 totals $71 million

dollars in benefits.

Indeed, the proposed settlement offers full relief in the form of recovery of both

past out-of-pocket costs and future protection against possible oil consumption

complaints by way of a lengthy warranty extension. The predominant relief sought in the

First Amended Complaint is a “declaration that Defendants are financially responsible for

notifying all class members about the defective nature of the Subject Vehicles and to

offer repair and remedy the J37 engine as alleged herein.” The instant settlement, which

offers a generous warranty extension, provides this precise relief.

In addition, the First Amended Complaint asserts claims for disgorgement of

profits and exemplary damages. In assessing the case, Plaintiffs recognized the potential

damages amount had to be discounted due to Honda’s defenses to each claim and the

likelihood of prevailing on Plaintiffs’ claims for disgorgement of profits and exemplary

damages. Although Plaintiffs asserted these claims in good faith, they were cognizant



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

that, in light of Honda’s defenses and their analysis of the facts, Plaintiffs’ likelihood of

success was greater on their claims for warranty coverage and for reimbursement of out-

of-pocket costs. Thus, Plaintiffs were aware that some of their claims faced considerable

uncertainty. Where, as here, uncertainty exists, the attendant risks favor settlement. See

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corporation, 150 F.3d 1011, at 1026 (1998). This is so even if “the

relief afforded by the proposed settlement is substantially narrower than it would be if the

suits were to be successfully litigated” since “the public interest may indeed be served by

a voluntary settlement in which each side gives ground in the interest of avoiding

litigation.” See Wershba v. Apple Computer, 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, at 250 (2001).

The Settlement also includes an agreement that AHM shall pay the cost of mailing

all notices to Class Members. With 339,142 Settlement Class Vehicles, the estimated cost

of these notices shall exceed $339,142. This too constitutes a substantial benefit for the

Class since AHM and not Class Members are responsible for this cost.

B. The Settlement Resulted from Arm’s-Length Negotiations

In class actions, the parties may properly negotiate not only the settlement of the

action itself, but also the payment of attorneys’ fees. See Richard M. Peal, California

Attorney Fee Awards (3d ed. Cal CEB 2013) (“Pearl Fee Awards”), Court Approval of

Fee Settlements Section 11.17(c). Plaintiffs’ claim to attorneys’ fees and costs is also

authorized under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code section

1780(e), and the Private Attorney General Statute, California Civil Procedure section

1021.5.

As stated earlier, this is in keeping with the powerful public policy of encouraging

and approving non-collusive settlements, including those in class actions. In re Cellphone

Termination Fee Cases, 180 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1118 (2009) (“‘Public policy generally

favors the compromise of complex class action litigation.’”) (citing In re Microsoft I-V



22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cases, 135 Cal. App. 4th 706, 723, n.14 (2006) and 7-Eleven Owners for Fair

Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1151 (2000)).

When considering whether an agreed-upon fee was negotiated at arm’s-length, the

court may apply different levels of scrutiny. “[S]ince the proper amount of fees is often

open to dispute and the parties are compromising precisely to avoid litigation, the court

need not inquire into the reasonableness of the fees even at the high end with precisely

the same level of scrutiny as when the fee amount is litigated.” Staton, 327 F.3d at 966.

Here, the Parties have negotiated an amount of attorneys’ fees after resolving the class

benefits, following intense and thorough arm’s-length negotiations between the parties,

conducted by experienced counsel who, by having conducted extensive investigation,

research, and discovery, were well-informed of the case’s strengths and weaknesses.

Furthermore, the negotiations were conducted with the guidance and assistance of

the Hon. Howard B. Wiener. Moreover, any fee not awarded will revert to Defendants

and not benefit the Class, for whom their attorneys have achieved tremendous benefits.

Therefore, at the outset, the Court should apply the appropriate level of scrutiny.

Here, after negotiations, the Parties ultimately agreed that, subject to Court

approval, Defendants would pay Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs up to

$644,750.00. See Settlement Agreement § IX (A) at Page 21. The Parties also agreed to

an aggregate Service Award to either a single or two both Class Representatives not to

exceed $5,000. Id. § IX (B) at . Although a much higher amount would be

reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding the case, Plaintiffs are not seeking

fees in excess of the agreed upon sum which represents a significant reduction of the

actual lodestar. Thus, there is no need for additional fee shifting or equitable doctrine

analysis in order for the Court to award fees.



23

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

It is proper, well-recognized, and encouraged to award fees pursuant to the parties’

Agreement, especially in cases where the fees are paid in addition to the benefits to the

class members. See Richard M. Pearl, California Attorney Fee Awards (3d ed. Cal CEB

2013 (“Pearl, Fee Awards”) Court Approval of Fee Settlements § 11.7(c) [citing, among

others, In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2009), 177 Cal. App. 4th 734, 744

(affirming fee under “clear sailing” provision)]. In addition, California Civil Code

Section 1717 applies to settlement agreements, in this case through which AHM has

agreed to pay up to a specified amount to Plaintiffs’ Counsel, subject to this Court’s

review.

Moreover, the Settlement Agreement’s provision on fees and expenses is

reasonable and does not reflect a collusive settlement that places the interests of counsel

above the interests of the Class. Here, the parties carefully separated their negotiations

for class recovery from their negotiation for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and the

Plaintiffs’ service award and negotiations were handled with the assistance of the Hon.

Howard Weiner during two full day mediation sessions. As such there was no possibility

of collusion. Moreover, the amount the parties agreed upon is reasonable under either the

percentage-of-the-award or lodestar/multiplier methods for calculating an appropriate fee

award.

Even without AHM’s agreement to pay, a fee award would be proper under

equitable theories and the private attorney general doctrine as explained more fully

herein.

C. According to any Accepted Method of Calculation, Plaintiffs’ Fees Are

Reasonable

Under California and federal law, “courts possess the ‘discretion to apply either a

lodestar method or the percentage-of-the-fund method in calculating a fee award.’”



24

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

Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 2013 WL 4516806, *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013) (quoting

Fischel v. Equitable Life. Assur. Soc’y, 307 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002)); Wershba v.

Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, 254 (2001) (courts may use “percentage of

recovery method” or “lodestar/ multiplier method” to calculate attorney fees in civil class

actions). California courts specifically note the advantages of using the percentage-of-

the-award method over the lodestar/multiplier method. See, e.g., Lafitte v. Robert Half

Int’l Inc., 231 Cal. App. 4th 860, 878 (2014) (noting application of the percentage

method in California cases); Lealao v. Beneficial Calif., 82 Cal. App. 4th 19, 50-51

(2000) (analyzing fee request under the percentage method of the maximum payout even

“though the settlement did not create a common fund out of which fees are to be paid”).

Whether the percentage or lodestar method is used, “the critical inquiry is whether

the ‘fees and expenses ultimately awarded [are] reasonable in relation to what the

plaintiffs recovered.’” See Koumoulis v. LPL Fin. Corp., No. 09CV1973-DMS BLM,

2010 WL 4868044, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting

Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1258 (9th Cir. 2000)).

1. Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorneys’ Fees is Reasonable in Light of a

Lodestar Cross-Check

The lodestar/multiplier method is a two-step process of fee calculation under which

the Court first determines a lodestar value for the fees by multiplying the time reasonably

spent by counsel on the case by a reasonable hourly rate. In re Consumer Privacy Cases,

175 Cal. App. 4th 545 at 556-57 (2009). The Court may then enhance the lodestar by

applying a multiplier to take into account the contingent nature and risk associated with

the action, as well as other factors, including the degree of skill required and the results

achieved for the class. Id.; Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1130, 1137 (2001).



25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The lodestar approach is used mainly in cases where, unlike here, “there is no way

to gauge the net value of the settlement or any percentage thereof.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at

1029; see also In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability, 654 F.3d 935 (2011) at 941,

942 (lodestar method appropriate when relief obtained “is primarily injunctive in nature

and thus not easily monetized,” whereas in common-fund cases “the benefit to the class is

easily quantified”); 4 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions

§14.7 (4th ed. 2002; Supp. 2013) (hereafter “Newberg on Class Actions”) (“[T]he

lodestar method is often employed precisely because there is no common fund or because

the monetary outcome of the lawsuit is not the key component of the plaintiff’s

recovery.”). Nevertheless, using the lodestar/multiplier method is useful as a “cross-

check” in confirming the value of a fee award calculated according to the percentage-of-

the-award method. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft, 290 F.3d 1043, at 1050 (9th. Cir. 2002); In

re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 109 F.3d 602,

607 (9th Cir. 1997) (“It is reasonable for the district court to compare the lodestar fee, or

sum of lodestar fees, to the 25% benchmark, as one measure of the reasonableness of the

attorneys’ hours and rates.”); Kakani v. Oracle Corp., No. C 06- 06493 WHA, 2007 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 95496, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2007).

As explained below, applying the lodestar/multiplier cross-check to this case

confirms that the fee award negotiated by the parties is reasonable.

(a) Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Lodestar Calculation

The lodestar value of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s services is calculated by multiplying

their time spent by reasonable hourly rates for attorneys of similar skill and experience.

In re Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th 545 at 556 (2009). Plaintiffs’ Counsel

devoted a significant amount of their time to this matter over the course of over five (5)

years, generating a total lodestar of $1,235,037.50 to date of settlement, which is based

on over 2,041.9 hours of attorney time at their customary hourly rates. See Decl. of



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

Margarian at ¶ 15. “Testimony of an attorney as to the number of hours worked on a

particular case is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the

absence of detailed time records.” See Martino v. Denevi, 182 Cal. App. 3d 553, 558

(1986)); see also Lobatz v. U.S. West Cellular of California, Inc., 222 F. 3d 1142, 1148

(9th Cir. 2000) (detailed timesheets not required where fees were agreed upon in

settlement agreement).

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s hourly rates, which vary based on the experience and skill of

the attorney performing the work, are fully set forth in the Margarian Decl. at ¶ 15.

Upon negotiating the class benefits, Defendant refused to pay Class Counsel’s

request for payment of the lodestar plus a 1.3 multiplier. Class Counsel proposed that the

attorney’s fees and costs be determined by a fee motion to the Court. Defendant refused

and declared that an agreement regarding the attorney’s fees and costs was a condition of

AHM honoring the terms agreed upon for the benefit of the Class. Alternatively,

Defendant was to withdraw the terms negotiated for the Class and force the case to be

litigated further. Class Counsel, effectively forced to choose between their own benefit

and that of the Class had limited bargaining power against Defendant. The negotiated

benefit for the Class was too good to be jeopardized for the sake of attorney’s fees and

costs. As a result of this, Class Counsel negotiated down from the lodestar and agreed to

accept a sum of $644,750 merely so as to protect the settlement that had been reached for

the Class. Essentially, in light of the above analysis, Plaintiff’s counsels’ fees are

reasonable because they essentially cut their fees in half for the benefit of the Class

members in an effort to resolve this matter efficiently and in a manner that would cut

off further damage to Class Members.

Finally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s hourly rates have recently been paid as reasonable in

hundreds of individual cases and in other class action cases such as Asghari v.



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

Volkswagen Group of American Inc., et al (2:13-cv-02529) (C.D. Cal.) (4/10/2013) and

Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell et al. v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., et al (5:17-cv-04435) (N.D.

Cal.) (8/4/2017). See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 5.

(b) While An Enhancer/Multiplier to the Lodestar is Justified, the

Discount Reflected in the Instant Settlement Agreement Makes the Fee

Request Even More Reasonable

The requested fees of $644,750.00 represent a discount of 48% on Plaintiffs’

Counsel’s $1,235,037.50 lodestar. This significant discount is even more reasonable in

light of the range of multipliers typically applied by California courts, demonstrating that

the parties negotiated at arm’s-length and reached agreement on a reasonable fee to be

paid Plaintiffs’ Counsel. See, e.g., Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th 545, 551

(2009) (affirming a 1.75 multiplier); Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal. App. 4th

224, 255 (2001) (“Multipliers can range from 2 to 4 or even higher.”); Parkinson, 796 F.

Supp. 2d at 1171 (applying lodestar/multiplier analysis pursuant to fee-shifting provisions

of the CLRA and Private Attorney General statute); Sadowska, (Case No: 2:11-cv-00665)

(01/21/2011) (C.D. Cal.); 2013 WL 9600948, at *9 (applying a multiplier of 1.37 and

awarding $2.2 million in fees to counsel, who obtained a new warranty for transmission

parts for the class); Browne v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. CV 09-06750 (C.D.

Cal. 2010) (applying multiplier of 1.5 and awarding $2 million in fees for settlement

authorizing partial reimbursement to class members for costs of replacing brake pads).

Awarding Plaintiffs’ Counsel an effective discount of 48% is shows the extreme

priority Plaintiffs’ Counsel placed upon the Class despite the financial disadvantages of

proceeding with the Settlement despite the various factors courts consider in favor of

awarding higher fees when assigning a multiplier, which may include the: (1) risks

presented by the litigation; (2) results obtained on behalf of the class; (3) skill exhibited

by counsel; (4) continuing obligation to devote time and effort to the litigation; and (5)



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

extent to which the litigation precluded other employment by attorneys. See, e.g., In re

Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th at 556; Natural Gas Anti- Trust Cases I, II,

III & IV, 2006 WL 5377849, at *3 (Cal. Super. 2006).

(c) Class Counsel Faced Considerable Risks in Taking this Case

Attorneys are entitled to a fee larger than just their lodestar when their

compensation is contingent in nature. That is how the legal marketplace works – those

who take the risk of earning nothing do not earn a windfall when they receive attorneys’

fees. Rather, they are receiving earned compensation after many years of going without.

Specifically, as attorneys pursuing claims on contingency will sometimes lose after

expending thousands of hours, and often advancing tens of thousands in expenses, despite

litigating diligently and expertly, an enhancement ensures that the risks of contingency

representation do not outstrip the incentives to pursue claims on behalf of consumers or

employees. Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1333 (2001) (““A lawyer who both

bears the risk of not being paid and provides legal services is not receiving the fair market

value of his work if he is paid only for the second of these functions. If he is paid no

more, competent counsel will be reluctant to accept fee award cases.”).

Plaintiffs’ Counsel also knowingly assumed a significant financial risk when they

filed this case. In addition to the 2,041.9 hours of time spent prosecuting this action,

Plaintiffs’ Counsel spent $29,713.57 in costs, which they would not have recovered in the

event of no recovery on behalf of the Class. See Decl. of Margarian at ¶ 21 (and attached

Exhibit detailing costs). Court-awarded fees that address that risk of loss simply confirm

the realities of the legal marketplace. Ketchum, at 1132-33. That view was confirmed by

the California Supreme Court in Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 533, 579

(2004) as well as by the Second District Court of Appeal in cases including Building a

Better Redondo Beach, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach, 203 Cal. App. 4th 852, 874 (2012)

and Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1251 (2014). For these



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

reasons, a significant lodestar enhancement for contingent risk is necessary to reflect the

true and full market of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ work – even in the absence of the

Settlement Agreement already agreeing to such award. Here, Class Counsel are willingly

setting aside their financial interests in order to effectuate a Settlement which they deem

to tremendously benefit the Class. Many of the Class Vehicles are nearing the ten (10)

year mark. Prolonging the litigation would be devastating to the Class Members.

(d) The Results Obtained on Behalf of the Class were Significant

As explained above, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s efforts resulted in an excellent

Settlement, including making available to Class Members reimbursement for past repairs

and a warranty extension. This provides Class Members with relief similar to what each

might have achieved were the Class to have prevailed at trial. Nevertheless, if Plaintiffs

had litigated this action through trial and ultimately obtained a judgment against

Defendants, there is no guarantee that the judgment would be superior to the Settlement.

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Counsel should be rewarded for resolving the Class Action

expeditiously. The efficiency of the resolution improves the quality of the Settlement

because the parties can locate Class Members with greater ease and distribute benefits

more readily than if the case had dragged on. Conversely, awarding a lower amount

because Plaintiffs’ Counsel settled the matter relatively quickly would distort financial

incentives by encouraging counsel to needlessly prolong litigation. It is for this reason

that courts reject awarding a lower fee when a case is resolved early. See, e.g., In re

Vitamin Cases, 2004 WL 5137597, at *12 (San Francisco Sup. Ct., 2004) (holding that

limiting fees because the action settled early would “create a perverse financial incentive

where, as here, Plaintiffs’ Counsel negotiated an outstanding recovery without subjecting

their clients to the uncertainties of class certification or trial.”).

//



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

(e) Class Counsel Expertly Handled the Difficult Issues Present in

this Litigation

As set forth in detail above, Plaintiffs’ Counsel used great skill and effort in

achieving the excellent Settlement, which provides Class Members with relief roughly

equal to what each might have achieved were the Class to have prevailed at trial,

including a warranty extension and reimbursement program for 100% for covered repairs.

(f) Preclusion of Other Employment

Plaintiffs’ Counsel were required to commit a significant number of hours to

investigate and resolve the claims of the Class. See Margarian at ¶¶ 19-20. The case was

staffed primarily by four attorneys from one law firm, and required a significant

commitment by those attorneys, making them unavailable to pursue other opportunities.

Since three (3) of the attorney’s were employees, lead Class Counsel Hovanes Margarian

expended significant resourced on salaries in order to litigate this matter.

(g) The Requested Fee Is Modest When Compared to Fees Awarded

in Comparable Lawsuits

By any conventional metric—whether it be calculated as a lodestar or a percentage

of the award—Plaintiffs’ fee request is reasonable when compared to other automobile

defect consumer class actions. See, e.g., In re: Volkswagen and Audi Warranty Extension

Litigation, No. 07-01790 (D. Mass.) ($15,468,000 in attorneys’ fees costs awarded);

Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 10-09508 (C.D. Cal.) ($2,853,585.35 in

attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses awarded); Sadowska, 2013 WL 9600948, at **9-10

($2,375,000 in attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs approved); Aarons v. BMW of North

America, No. 11-7667, 2014 WL 4090564, at *18 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2014) ($1,992,500

in attorneys’ fees and costs awarded); Browne v. American Honda Motor Co., 2010 WL

9499073, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2010) ($2 million in attorneys’ fees and costs



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

approved); Alin v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., No. 08-4825, 2012 WL 8751045, at *23

(D.N.J. Apr. 13, 2012) ($2,525,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses approved); Zwicker v.

General Motors Corp., No. C07-291 JCC (W.D. Wash. 2008) ($2,372,000 in attorneys’

fees and costs approved); Henderson v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, No. CIV.A. 09-4146

CCC, 2013 WL 1192479, at *19 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2013), appeal dismissed (May 30,

2013) ($3 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses approved); Parkinson v. Hyundai

Motor America, 796 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1177 (C.D Cal. 2010) ($3.7 million in attorneys’

fees approved).

It is worth reviewing comparable cases against AHM, which make it evident that

the instant Settlement Agreement is more than reasonable:

Zakskorn et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al (2:11-cv-02610-KJM-KJN)

(E.D. Cal.) (Filed: 10/04/2011) (Final Approval: 06/09/2015)

• 4 years case length

• 1 complaint amendment (FAC)

• No demurrer/motion to dismiss

• No motion to strike

• Light written discovery

• $850,000.00 in fees

• Thus less involved than the present case and yet with a much higher attorney’s fee

award.

//

//

//

//

//



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

Soto et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (3:12-cv-01377-SI) (N.D. Cal.) (Filed:

03/19/2012) (Final Approval: 03/27/2014)


• 2 complaint amendment (SAC)

• 1 motion to compel arbitration

• No demurrer/motion to dismiss

• No motion to strike

• $800,000 in fees

• Most comparable to the present case and yet with a much higher attorney’s fee

award.

Kevin Davitt et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2:13-cv-00381-MCA-JBC)

(D.N.J.) (Filed: 01/18/2013) (Final Approval: 05/08/15)


• 1 complaint amendment (FAC)

• 1 Motion to Dismiss

• $1,400,000.00 in fees

• Most comparable to the present case and yet with an attorney’s fee award of more

than double.

(h) The Parties’ Negotiated Amount Includes Reimbursement for

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Litigation Expenses

In settling Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s claims to attorneys’ fees, the parties also settled

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s claims for reimbursement of their litigation costs and expenses,

which are $29,713.57 (as set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Margarian), but

have been included in the $644,750.00 and thus essentially been waived.



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

(i) Plaintiffs’ Requested Incentive Awards Are Reasonable

California law approves incentive awards to representative plaintiffs in class

actions consistent with the nature and extent of their participation. Clark v. American

Residential Services LLC, 175 Cal. App. 4th 785, 804-07 (2009). A modest incentive

payment of $5,000 in aggregate to the named Plaintiffs is fair and reasonable given their

invaluable contributions to this action. Plaintiff Armen Kojikian experienced the oil

consumption problem and agreed to participate in a class action as a class representative

to benefit the class. And to help Class Counsel in the prosecution of the class action,

Plaintiff Armen Kojikian supplied his experiences and their relevant documents to Class

Counsel. He also reviewed the Settlement, individually conferring with his attorneys

before agreeing to the Settlement terms. See Margarian Decl. at ¶ 22. Given the duration

of the litigation (5 years to date), and the effort expended as Class Representative, the

lack of other personal benefit enjoyed by him as a result of the litigation, a modest

amount of $5,000 in aggregate for service is appropriate.


Comparison to the Benefit

As discussed above, the estimated cost of repairs and reimbursement claims

in this matter is approximately $25,000.000. The fees sought through this motion are

$644,750, ignoring all costs and expenses. Notably, the fees sought constitute 2.58% of

the anticipated costs of repairs and reimbursement claims. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requested

amount is indeed reasonable.

//

//

//

DECL. OF KOJIKIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

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

THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM HOVANES MARGARIAN (SBN: 246359) SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN (SBN: 318617) 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 553-1000 Facsimile: (818) 553-1005 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN TIME TRADERS, INC.



ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public; TIME TRADERS, INC., a California corporation, on behalf of itself, all others similarly situated, and the general public Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendan

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: BC606392 Class Action Hon. Daniel J. Buckley DECLARATION ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARDS FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES Date: May 28, 2020 Time: 10:30 a.m. Place: Department 1 Complaint Filed: January 8, 2016 Trial Date: None set


DECL. OF KOJIKIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

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

I, ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, declare as follows:

1. I am an individual over the age of 18. I am a Class Representative for the

Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth

below and if called to testify, I could and would do so competently.

2. This declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’

Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Service Award for Class Representatives.

3. I am the sole owner of Time Traders, Inc., the corporate co-plaintiff in this

case. My company and I are the co-purchasers of AHM’s Class Vehicle. After I began

experiencing problems with AHM’s engines that resulted in excessive oil consumption, I

contacted my AHM dealership but was unable to obtain assistance. Ultimately, I decided

to file a class action lawsuit, with my company as a co-Plaintiff.

4. I have assisted Class Counsel in the prosecution of the class action. I

consulted with Class Counsel, providing my experience and relevant documents. I also

reviewed the Settlement, individually conferring with my attorneys before agreeing to the

Settlement terms.

5. Over the course of this litigation, I have expended energy and time as a

Class Representative for approximately five (5) years, which distracted me from other

endeavors.

6. I have often consulted with Class Counsel and had several meetings with

Hovanes Margarian in person, discussing and strategizing regarding the various aspects

of the case.

7. I was also involved in the negotiation of the settlement terms and believe the

outcome to be extremely fair and adequate for the class members.

8. I also attest to how vigorously Hovanes Margarian fought to secure the

DECL. OF MARGARIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

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

THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM HOVANES MARGARIAN (SBN: 246359) SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN (SBN: 318617) 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 553-1000 Facsimile: (818) 553-1005 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN TIME TRADERS, INC.



ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public; TIME TRADERS, INC., a California corporation, on behalf of itself, all others similarly situated, and the general public Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendan

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: BC606392 Class Action Hon. Daniel J. Buckley DECLARATION OF HOVANES MARGARIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARDS FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES Date: May 28, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Department 1 Complaint Filed: January 8, 2016 Trial Date: None set



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

I, HOVANES MARGARIAN, declare as follows:

1. I am an individual over the age of 18. I am Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs

in the above-referenced action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below

and if called to testify, I could and would do so competently.

2. This declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’

Fees, Expenses and Costs.

3. I am Founder and Lead Counsel at the Margarian Law Firm (“Firm”). The

Firm was founded in 2006 and prosecutes class actions and individual claims on behalf of

the general public. Over the course of thirteen (13) years, the Firm’s attorneys have

successfully handled over two thousand (2,000) cases involving automotive defects and

related consumer rights violations. I presently have over one hundred fifty (150) pending

such matters. My Firm practically exclusively handles consumer rights violations

involving breaches of written and implied warranties pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss

Warranty Act and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, negligent manufacture,

fraud and deceit, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and

Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500.

4. My Firm has handled consumer rights litigation against practically all major

automobile manufacturers, most major automobile financing and/or leasing lenders, and

hundreds of automobile retailing/distributing dealerships.

5. As a natural biproduct of the Firm’s individual claims litigation practice, the

Firm’s attorneys have handled various class actions, primarily involving automobile

defects, and have successfully litigated those cases. Over the course of my career, I have

been (and still am for some) co-class counsel on the following class action cases:

a. Ali Asghari, et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et

al, Case No. 2:13-cv-02529-MMM-VBK (C.D. Cal.). (We


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

certified a class of approximately 126,000 vehicle owners

whose Audi vehicles exhibited an engine oil

overconsumption defect much similar to the case at issue.)

b. Lilith Chakhalyan v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No.

BC443367. (We certified a class of approximately 8,000

City of Los Angeles residents who had been overcharged on

their Department of Water and Power waste disposal fees.

The resulting settlement provided an approximate

$8,000,000 refund to the class.)

c. Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell et al. v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., et

al, Case No. 5:17-cv-00564-NC (N.D. Cal.). (The case was

recently settled with a significant refund for the class and an

injunctive order to change the labeling of Canada Dry Giner

Ale to exclused the phrase “made with real giner”).

d. Dean Rollolazo, et al. v. BMW of North America, LLC et al.,

Case No. 8:16-cv-00966-TJH-SS. (This is a class action

regarding the defective range extender mechanism on BMW

i3RX vehicles. The case is up for class certification.)

6. I have the experience necessary to litigate such matters and have litigated the

present matter to the point of obtaining a Settlement Agreement that parallels the best

results obtained in similar cases.

7. I completed my Juris Doctor degree at the University of Southern California

Gould School of Law in 2006 and immediately founded The Margarian Law Firm,

focusing on automotive litigation.

8. I am a member of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles


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

(CAALA).

9. Both prior to and after filing this action, my Firm thoroughly investigated

and litigated this case. Among other things, the Firm fielded inquiries from prospective

Class Members; consulted and retained automotive experts; researched publicly available

materials and information provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (“NHTSA”) concerning consumer complaints about excessive oil

consumption; reviewed and researched consumer complaints and discussions of

excessive oil consumption in articles and forums online; reviewed various manuals and

technical service bulletins discussing the alleged defect; conducted research into the

various causes of actions; drafted three oppositions to motions to dismiss; and two

oppositions to motions to transfer.

10. My Firm successfully engaged in meet and confers with Defendants

regarding the originally filed Complaint, drafted and filed a First Amended Class Action

Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief, opposed a demurrer and a motion to strike.

11. My Firm also propounded discovery on Defendants. In response,

Defendants produced significant nationwide warranty claims data and voluminous

documents, including: owners’ manuals, maintenance and warranty manuals, design

documents (e.g., technical drawings), VIN Decoders, technical service bulletins, field

reports, customer comments detail reports, and other documents.

12. In addition to reviewing Defendant’s documents, my Firm also conducted

our own testing, which included, among other things, hiring experts, and conducting

extensive testing regarding the alleged oil consumption defect, which allowed us to

evaluate Defendants’ representations concerning the alleged excessive oil consumption

issue and repair solutions. My Firm prepared for and took the depositions of AHM’s

Person Most Knowledgeable designee, an out-of-state witness, who provided substantial

testimony and document production needed to effectively engage and secure a favorable


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

settlement for the Class. We also scrutinized the repair logs to understand the true extent

of the problem, including the mileage of the vehicles that were fixed, the geographic

locations, and whether there were accompanying repairs.

13. The proposed Settlement was the culmination of protracted discussions

between the Parties, extensive consultation with their experts, discovery, and thorough

analysis of the pertinent facts and law at issue. The Parties engaged in significant

negotiations through August and September 2017. After much back and forth regarding

fees and lodestar multipliers, the Parties decided it was most productive to negotiate

whole numbers.

14. Ultimately, the Parties engaged in two (2) full day mediation sessions with

the assistance of the Hon. Howard B. Wiener. The first session focuses solely on the

class benefits. Only after negotiating the class benefits did the Parties discuss Class

Counsel’s fees, costs and the Plaintiffs’ enhancement award. The final agreed upon

attorney’s fees sum was in fact below the sum suggested to the parties by the Hon.

Howard B. Wiener as a final compromise to settle.

15. With respect to fees, the following sets forth the Firm’s members who

worked on this matter and their applicable billing rates. I primarily directed the case and

performed the most significant work with a billable rate of $650.00 per hour. As set forth

below, additional attorneys assisted me in my Firm. They are no longer employed at the

Firm at this time, but their educational backgrounds and rates while at my firm were as

follows:

a. Brian Miller (CA SBN 178134), Univ. of Cal. Hastings

College of Law, Admitted 12/4/1995. Rate: $725/hr.

b. Aleksey Sirotin (CA SBN 245081), Loyola Law School Los

Angeles, Admitted 12/1/2006. Rate: $650/hr.


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

c. Simon Stepanyan (CA SBN 304064), Univ. of So. Cal.

Gould School of Law, Admitted 6/24/2015. Rate $425/hr.

16. Throughout the duration of this litigation, my Firm has maintained

contemporaneous billing records for this case. The total number of hours worked for

which we are seeking reimbursement, as well as the lodestar computed at our effective

rates at the time of performance, is shown in the following table:

Timekeeper Hours The Firm Rate

Total

Hovanes Margarian 762.4 $650 $495,560.00

Bryan Miller 389.5 $725 $282,387.50

Aleksey Sirotin 350.4 $650 $227,760.00

Simon Stepanyan 539.6 $425 $229,330.00

TOTAL 198.0 $1,235.037.50

17. I decided to cut my Firm’s fee components for the benefit of the Class and to

reach the instant Settlement Agreement sooner for the benefit of the Class. As set forth

herein, my Firm’s fees at full value would have been warranted given the Firm’s

expertise and tenacity in this matter. The ultimate award sought pursuant to the

Settlement Agreement is practically half that amount.

18. Following this Court’s order granting preliminary approval on October 16,

2019 and dissemination of the Class Notice, my Firm to date received over a four

hundred (400) calls and emails from Class Members inquiring as to how they can

participate in the class action settlement. Class Members also had questions as to the

scope of the benefits. My Firm answered Class Members’ questions, included following

up when needed, and is continuing to monitor the response of Class Members to the

Settlement. My Firm expects to field many more calls and emails from Class Members


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 the ensuing months. As part of our service to Class Members, my Firm researched the

laws in different states regarding the obligations of automobile repair businesses to

maintain purchase and repair records so as to better advise Class Members who have lost

or misplaced their repair documentation.

19. Moreover, my Firm called Service Centers across all fifty (50) states as well

as Puerto Rico to confirm that Defendants have advised them of the Class Action

Settlement and that they are aware of their obligations under that Settlement. I personally

spoke to either the Service Manager or the Service Advisors at numerous Service Centers

where we would determine if the AHM personnel understands the terms and conditions

of the Settlement. In the course of these conversations, I also learned that most Service

Centers that were contacted have already performed numerous repairs under the program.

Based on this rigorous enforcement effort, Iam satisfied that Defendants are complying

with their duty to fully advise AHM dealerships and service centers of their obligation to

provide Service Adjustments to Class Members. I have also identified AHM authorized

dealerships which appear to be uncertain about the terms of the Settlement. I am

presently coordinating efforts with AHM to rectify this inconsistency and to ensure that

all AHM authorized dealerships are acting in compliance with the terms of the Settlement

and that all Class Members know of their exact rights under the Settlement. I will

continue to monitor and encourage AHM dealerships to keep up with the terms of the

Class Action Settlement.

20. My Firm also devoted a significant amount of time to this matter over the

course of over five (5) years, generating a total lodestar of $1,235,037.50 to date of

settlement, which is based on over 2,041.90 hours of attorney time at their customary

hourly rates.

21. My Firm was required to commit a significant number of hours to

investigate and resolve the claims of the Class. As set forth above, the case was staffed


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

primarily by me and three other attorneys from the Firm, and required a significant

commitment by those attorneys, making them unavailable to for other work. Since three

of the attorney’s were employees, I expended significant resources on salaries in order to

litigate this matter.

22. My Firm also spent $28,237.70 in costs, which would not have been

recoverable in the event of no recovery on behalf of the Class. The costs incurred in this

matter are also reasonable in light of the scope of litigation and are as follows:

Case Anywhere $2,007.00

Court Reporter $3,994.70

Electronic Research & Pacer Fees $100.00

Expert Fees $10,600.00

Filing & Attorney Service Fees $1,435.00

Mediation Fees $10,000.00

Parking Fees $101.00

TOTAL $28,237.70

23. Finally, Plaintiff Armen Kojikian is the sole owner of Time Traders, Inc.,

the corporate co-plaintiff in this case. Mr. Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc. are the co-

purchasers of their Class Vehicle, which is why both were named as plaintiffs in this

case. The parties agreed to a proposed enhancement of $5,000 total for the proposed

class representative(s). See Settlement Agreement at § IX (B) at Page 22. This total

proposed enhancement amount would have been the same if only a single class

1 the margarian law firm hovanes margarian (sbn: … · 2020. 2. 27. · hovanes margarian (sbn:...

Documents