FAITH S. HOCHBERG, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Special Master Douglas K. Wolfson's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") regarding Nagel Rice LLP's ("Nagel Rice") lodestar, filed on April 5, 2012.
Special Master Wolfson recommends a lodestar amount of fees and expenses of $1,681,491.79, comprising a recommended adjusted lodestar of $1,568,986.05 and a recommended allowance for expenses of $112,505.74. In reaching this recommendation, Special Master Wolfson excludes $73,405.25 in billed time from the time and expense reports submitted to the Court by Nagel Rice. This exclusion comprises $42,065.25 in fees which Nagel Rice acknowledged were excludable and $31,340 in fees which Special Master Wolfson found to be excludable because that billable time was either related to the side battle with Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC or was duplicative and unnecessary.
On April 9, 2012, the Court ordered the parties to file any responses to Special Master Wolfson's R&R by April 19, 2012. Bruce Nagel, Esq. of Nagel Rice LLP filed the only response, in which he stated that Nagel Rice LLP has no objection to the R&R. No response was filed by any other party. Therefore, the Court will adopt Special Master Wolfson's R&R.
In its response, Nagel Rice seeks a lodestar multiplier of 1.4. If the Court were to grant a multiplier of 1.4 to the recommended lodestar of $1,568,986.05, it would result in a total fee award of $2,196,580.47. After adding the recommended allowance for expenses of $112,505.74, the total award of fees and costs to Nagel Rice would be $2,309,086.21.
In the Settlement approved by this Court on May 29, 2009, Defendants agreed not to object to an award of attorneys' fees and costs of up to $2,450,000. The upward multiplier of 1.4 requested by Nagel Rice, which results in a total award within those parameters, is reasonable given the significance and complexity of this action as well as the substantial relief obtained for the Class. See e.g., In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 Fed. Appx. 815, 818-19 (3d Cir. 2010) (finding a lodestar of 1.52 to be "well within the range of attorneys' fees awarded and approved by [the Third Circuit]"); In re Cendant PRIDES Litig., 243 F.3d 722, 742 (3d Cir. 2001) (suggesting a multiplier of 3 as a ceiling); McCoy v. Health Net, Inc., 569 F.Supp.2d 448, 479 (D.N.J. 2008) (finding a multiplier of almost 2.3 to be reasonable); In re Remeron Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 03-0085, 2005 WL 3008808, at *17 (D.N.J. Nov. 9, 2005) (approving a multiplier of 1.8 and noting that "[a]n examination of recently approved multipliers reveals" that multiplier to be "on the low end of the spectrum") (internal quotation marks omitted).
For the reasons stated above,