
    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.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2010.
    
    Filed June 25, 2010.
    Joseph W. Cotchett, Frank Mario Pitre, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, Burlingame, CA, Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, Alexandria, LA, Don Barrett, Don Barrett, P.A., Lexington, MS, Steve Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA, Peter Burg, Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., Englewood, CO, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Nimish R. Desai, Scott P. Nealey, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Thomas P. Cartmell, Was-taff & Cartmell LLP, Kansas City, MO, Michael A. Galpern, Locks Law Firm PLLC, Cherry Hill, NJ, Tina B. Nieves, Esquire, Gancedo & Nieves, Pasadena, CA, Kristian W. Rassmussen, Corey Watson Croweder & DeGrais PC, Birmingham, AL, Mark P. Robinson, Esquire, Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson, Newport Beach, CA, Christopher Seeger, Seeger Weiss, LLP, New York, NY, Paul Size-more, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Reserve, LA, pro se.
    Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Law Offices of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Reserve, LA, for Appellant Becnel Law Firm, L.L.C.
    Before: TASHIMA and BEA, Circuit Judges, and READE, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief United States District Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
     