Krist v. TUT Systems, Inc.

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Bruce Murphy’s request for a share of class counsel’s attorneys’ fees in an underlying securities fraud class action. The court held that Murphy had not shown that his client referrals or pre-appointment work materially contributed to the class’s recovery, and it declined to alter the fee award. The disposition was nonprecedential.

Holdings

1. The district court acted within its discretion in declining to award Murphy fees based on his referral of clients because Murphy did not establish that his efforts were pivotal to the class action's success.
2. Murphy was not entitled to an award of attorneys' fees for his alleged early work because he presented insufficient evidence that his actions created, increased, or preserved the class's ultimate recovery; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Murphy was entitled to attorneys' fees based on referring clients to class counsel.
2. Whether Murphy was entitled to attorneys' fees for work performed before the appointment of lead plaintiffs because that work benefited the class.

Disposition

affirmed