Reena B. Frailich, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; v. Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, Llp

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REENA B. FRAILICH, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; et
al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER &
ZWERLING, LLP,
Appellant.
No. 10-55372
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP argues that the district court abused
its discretion in declining to add a risk multiplier to the firm’s award of attorneys’
fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
AUG 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
In Fischel v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 307 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.
2002), we held that a district court abuses its discretion in failing to apply a risk
multiplier “when (1) attorneys take a case with the expectation that they will
receive a risk enhancement if they prevail, (2) their hourly rate does not reflect that
risk, and (3) there is evidence that the case was risky.” Id. at 1008; see also In re
Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1299–1304 (9th Cir.
1994). Applied here, Fischel does not compel us to find an abuse of discretion.
Although the district court made factual findings that the case (prior to settlement)
was risky, there is no indication in the record that Zwerling Schachter took the case
with the expectation that the firm would receive a risk enhancement or that the
firm’s hourly rate did not reflect the risk. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that a risk multiplier was not warranted in light of the
“excessive fees and noncompensable work, including work done to preserve the
award of attorneys’ fees, work done in connection with the Park litigation, and
other work performed that conferred no benefits on the Class.” Indeed, more than
two-thirds of the attorneys’ fees sought by and awarded (without a risk multiplier)
to Zwerling Schachter were for efforts on appeal, at which time the case was no
longer fraught with risk.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --