In re: BEXTRA AND CELEBREX MARKETING SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION v. Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BEXTRA AND CELEBREX
MARKETING SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION,
PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING
COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR.; et al.,
Appellants.
No. 09-16928
DC No. M 05-1699 CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2010**
San Francisco, California
FILED
JUN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief United States District Judge,***
Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
-2-
Before: TASHIMA and BEA, Circuit Judges, and READE, District Judge.***
Appellants Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., and the Becnel Law Firm, L.L.C. (together,
“Becnel”), appeal the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees in this multidistrict
litigation (“MDL”). We review the district court’s fee award for abuse of
discretion. In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1296-97
(9th Cir. 1994). Because we see no such abuse here, we affirm.
1. The district court’s decision to strike the $17,400 in fees recommended
by the Special Master for the time billed by Ruche Marino was justified by
Becnel’s failure to provide the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee with Marino’s time
records in a timely fashion.
2. We further agree that the negative multiplier applied to Becnel’s lodestar
fee was appropriate in light of Becnel’s failure to identify any common-benefit
work product that the firm produced over the course of this litigation.
3. Finally, the district court acted within its discretion when it declined to
compensate Becnel for time spent on Bextra and Celebrex matters prior to the
commencement of the MDL. Becnel’s fee request included only a minimal amount
of hours that predated the MDL. Given that the district court consistently applied a

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
pre-MDL cutoff to the fee requests of all firms, its decision was not an abuse of
discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order awarding common-
benefit attorneys’ fees is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --