Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Six plaintiffs identified by initials, acting through three guardians, are the settlement class representatives in this class action against Google LLC and AdMob Google, Inc. On January 13, 2026, they and Google entered a Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release that sets the terms for resolving the action, with dismissal with prejudice, and an $8,250,000 settlement fund. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
Settlement class counsel, Silver Golub & Teitell LLP and Lexington Law Group, then filed an unopposed motion for attorneys' fees and expenses and an application for service awards. Counsel requested $59,772.36 in expenses, including $18,318.82 in travel costs incurred by Silver Golub, whose lawyers traveled from Stamford, Connecticut. Counsel reported 1,651.8 hours worked on a contingent basis as of June 25, 2026. After a September 24, 2026 hearing, the court ordered a supplemental declaration explaining the travel expenses.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion in part. It awarded fees of $2,062,500, which is 25 percent of the $8,250,000 fund, under the percentage-of-the-recovery method, plus interest on that portion of the fund until payment. A lodestar cross-check yields a multiplier of 1.025. The court expressed some concern that Silver Golub's rates and hours were excessive, since lawyers with proposed rates above $1,000 per hour did most of the work. It concluded that 25 percent would remain supported even at a multiplier of 1.5 or 2.0, given the litigation risks, the settlement's benefits, and counsel's work. It cited novel legal issues, difficulties of proof, and Google's resources and aggressive approach as creating a meaningful risk of no recovery.
The court awarded $50,866.96 in expenses. It found court fees, printing and delivery, mediation, and expert costs reasonable, but concluded that some travel expenses were excessive. It assumed five airfares costing $1,800 to $3,200 each were first or business class, which, citing a Northern District decision, are not an expense ordinarily charged to a fee-paying client. It also questioned how two lawyers from one firm could each accrue $714.16 and $830.29 in ground transportation for a one-day mediation. Silver Golub's expenses were cut by $8,905.40, to $50,000, and Lexington's $866.96 was granted in full. The $8,905.40 will be added to the common fund for pro rata distribution to class members.
Service awards of $500 for each of the three guardians ad litem, $1,500 in total, were approved. The court relied on their work responding to discovery and assisting the case, and found the awards in line with or below comparable awards, at 0.0182 percent of the fund. The claims administrator must retain 10 percent of the fee award until the parties confirm distribution is complete, with a final accounting or status report due within six months. The court retained jurisdiction over administration and enforcement and said it will separately enter a final approval order and final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Fees were set by the percentage-of-the-recovery method, with the lodestar cross-check serving as confirmation, here a 1.025 multiplier.
- A court may voice concern about high billing rates and hours yet still approve a 25 percent award where the risks of the case and the results justify it.
- Expense reimbursement from a common fund is limited to costs normally charged to a fee-paying client, so apparent first-class airfare and heavy ground transportation charges were trimmed despite counsel's out-of-state travel.
- Expense reductions stay in the fund for class members, and holding back 10 percent of the fees until distribution is complete gives the court leverage over finishing administration.
Why It Matters
This order shows a Northern District of California judge approving a conventional 25 percent common-fund fee while still scrutinizing line-item expenses, even though the motion was unopposed. The court tested the fee through a lodestar cross-check and said the result would hold at a multiplier well above the 1.025 actually calculated, but it did not accept every charge. It is a district court order applying existing authority and is not binding precedent.
The order resolves only fees, expenses and service awards. Final approval of the settlement and entry of final judgment are to be addressed separately, and distribution to class members, including the redirected expense savings, has not yet occurred.