United States District Court, N.D. California
IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates To: Dkt. No. 3195
ORDER DENYING MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING NON-CLASS COUNSEL'S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS'
CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 24, 2017, the Court denied 244 motions for
attorneys' fees and costs, filed by attorneys who were
not appointed as Class Counsel but who represent individual
members of the 2.0-liter settlement class. (Dkt. No.
3178.) The Court denied the motions because
Volkswagen did not agree to pay Non-Class Counsel's fees
as part of the settlement, and Non-Class Counsel did not
offer evidence that their services benefited the class as
opposed to their individual clients.
2, 2017, counsel at Morris Polich & Purdy LLP
(“MPP”) filed a motion under Local Rule 7-9 for
leave to move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(a), for reconsideration of the Court's April 24 order.
(Dkt. No. 3195.) MPP represents 2.0-liter class member
Christopher J. D'Angelo, and filed a complaint on his
behalf in the Central District of California that was later
transferred to this Court by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”). (Dkt. No. 1 at
4.) MPP filed one of the 244 motions for attorneys' fees
and costs that the Court denied on April 24. (See
Dkt. Nos. 2308; 3195 at 10.) In the instant motion, MPP
asserts that it did offer evidence in its prior
motion that its services benefited the class, which it
contends the Court may have missed through oversight. Having
considered MPP's arguments, as well as Class
Counsel's response, the Court DENIES the motion. Before
issuing its April 24 order, the Court considered MPP's
evidence and concluded that the work it performed did not
substantially benefit the class and therefore did not warrant
an award of attorneys' fees or costs.
addressing MPP's arguments, it is necessary to discuss
the rule that governs the firm's request for relief. MPP
filed its motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, seeking leave to
file a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(a). However, neither Local Rule 7-9 nor Rule
Local Rule 7-9
Civil Rule 7-9 provides that:
Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims
and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case,
any party may make a motion before a Judge requesting that
the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of any interlocutory order on any
ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9(b). No party may notice a
motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of
Court to file the motion.
N.D. Cal. L.R. Civil 7-9 (Jan. 17, 2017) (emphasis added).
Local Rule 7-9(b), to obtain leave the moving party must
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material
difference in fact or law exists from that which was
presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory
order for which reconsideration is sought. . .; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material
facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to
the Court ...