Harvey

Harvey v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 10, 20243:18-cv-02835California1,689 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 BRANDON HARVEY, Case No. 18-cv-02835-WHO

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. DENIAL AND DISGORGEMENT

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY Re: Dkt. No. 171

LLC,

11 Defendant.

12 Matthew Lucadano and Tracy Chen were objectors and proposed intervenors to the 13 settlement agreement for which I granted final approval and that was affirmed on most material 14 terms by the Ninth Circuit. All of the arguments raised by Lucadano and Chen were rejected 15 except ones that led to a slight narrowing of the certified-for-settlement class. The settlement 16 agreement is final and all initial and subsequent distributions have been paid to class members. 17 See Dkt. No. 179. 18 Nonetheless, Lucadano and Chen filed another heated motion to vacate my award of 19 attorney fees to plaintiff Harvey’s counsel for efforts in securing the settlement, to deny further 20 distributions of attorney fees to Harvey’s counsel from the settlement fund, and to disgorge past payments of attorney fees made to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.