15 Cited authorities

Jones v. GN Netcom, Inc.
654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 1,471 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts should "award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained," even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award
Resnick v. Frank
779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 461 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that awards cumulatively representing 0.17% of the settlement fund were reasonable
Redman v. Radioshack Corp.
768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) Cited 155 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that class counsel's filing of an attorneys’-fee motion "after the deadline set by the court for objections to the settlement had expired" violated Rule 23(h) and stating that "[t]here was no excuse for permitting so irregular, indeed unlawful, a procedure"
Ciolino v. Frank
716 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 146 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "in a case where the class receives only coupon relief," attorney's fees must "be calculated using the redemption value of the coupons"
True v. American Honda Motor Co.
749 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (C.D. Cal. 2010) Cited 96 times
Finding that "discovery ha[d] been sufficient to permit the parties to enter into a well-informed settlement, and this factor weighs in favor of approval"
Pearson v. NBTY, Inc.
772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014) Cited 76 times 9 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the claims process of a consumer class action settlement appeared to have been designed "with an eye toward discouraging the filing of claims"
Shames v. Hertz Corp.
CASE NO. 07-CV-2174-MMA(WMC) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012) Cited 24 times
Holding that such a "clear sailing" provision was not collusive because attorneys' fees were separately negotiated and did not impact the benefits made available to the class
In re Merck Co., Inc. Vytorin Erisa Litigation
Civil Action No. 08-CV-285 (DMC) (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2010) Cited 25 times
Finding hours expended by counsel to be reasonable and noting that "the time dedicated and expenditures incurred do not include costs that will arise immediately in the future, such as the settlement hearing conducted before this Court"
Rigo v. Kason Indus., Inc.
NO. 11-CV-64-MMA(DHB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2013) Cited 9 times
Finding $2,500 incentive award for more than two years of service well within the acceptable range
CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC v. Weiss & Associates, PC
465 F. App'x 617 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 10 times
Finding cash equivalent voucher was "not a 'coupon settlement'"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,135 times 1237 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,250 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 1712 - Coupon settlements
28 U.S.C. § 1712 Cited 147 times 18 Legal Analyses
Providing that "the portion of any attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members of the coupons that are redeemed"

Lee v. Enterprise Leasing Company-West, LLC

15 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts should "award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained," even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award

Holding that awards cumulatively representing 0.17% of the settlement fund were reasonable

Holding that class counsel's filing of an attorneys’-fee motion "after the deadline set by the court for objections to the settlement had expired" violated Rule 23(h) and stating that "[t]here was no excuse for permitting so irregular, indeed unlawful, a procedure"

Holding that "in a case where the class receives only coupon relief," attorney's fees must "be calculated using the redemption value of the coupons"

Finding that "discovery ha[d] been sufficient to permit the parties to enter into a well-informed settlement, and this factor weighs in favor of approval"

Concluding that the claims process of a consumer class action settlement appeared to have been designed "with an eye toward discouraging the filing of claims"

Holding that such a "clear sailing" provision was not collusive because attorneys' fees were separately negotiated and did not impact the benefits made available to the class

Finding hours expended by counsel to be reasonable and noting that "the time dedicated and expenditures incurred do not include costs that will arise immediately in the future, such as the settlement hearing conducted before this Court"

Finding $2,500 incentive award for more than two years of service well within the acceptable range

Finding cash equivalent voucher was "not a 'coupon settlement'"

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Providing that "the portion of any attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members of the coupons that are redeemed"