▁their ▁standing ▁to ▁assert ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract . 6 ▁C f ▁Johnson ▁v . ▁My ers , ▁ 2 0 1 4 ▁W L ▁ 2 2 1 4 0 4 5 , ▁at ▁* 2 ▁( N . D . Cal . ▁May ▁ 2 8 , ▁ 2 0 1 4 ) ▁(" it ▁would ▁be ▁in equ itable ▁to ▁limit ▁defend ants ' ▁att orney ' s ▁fe es ▁recovery ▁to ▁the ▁assets ▁of ▁a ▁single ▁pla int iff ▁when ▁every ▁lit ig ant ▁was ▁ ▁[ 4 7 ▁F . Supp . 3 d ▁ 9 6 5 ] ▁▁ <0x09> <0x09> <0x09> <0x09> <0x09> <0x09> inv ested ▁in ▁the ▁outcome ▁of ▁the ▁action ▁and ▁asp ired ▁to ▁win ▁money "). ▁If ▁Ban as ▁and ▁Cast ella ▁have ▁an ▁arrangement ▁with ▁other ▁former ▁Card io S pect ra ▁share hold ers , ▁or ▁the ▁dismiss ed ▁defend ants , ▁regarding ▁in dem n ification ▁for ▁att or ne ys ' ▁fe es , ▁that ▁is ▁their ▁business . ▁However , ▁there ▁is ▁no ▁question ▁that , ▁as ▁pla int iffs , ▁Ban as ▁and ▁Cast ella ▁are ▁li able ▁for ▁att or ne ys ' ▁fe es ▁in ▁the ▁first ▁instance .... " ▁▁ <0x09> <0x09> <0x09> <0x09> <0x09> ▁Ban as ▁and ▁Cast ella ▁then ▁appeal ..... and ▁file ▁an ▁aff id av it ▁of ▁in ability ▁to ▁pay . ▁ ▁.... ... Y et ▁they ▁say ▁nothing ▁about ▁any ▁efforts ▁they ▁have ▁made ▁in ▁rec ourse ▁to