Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02570/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02570-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD

338558.1 CJFOODS Case No. 14-CV-2570 DMS JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS PETERSEN, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CJ AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-2570 DMS JLB

 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’

FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE 

AWARD

Date: September 30, 2016

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw

Courtroom: 13A

Case 3:14-cv-02570-DMS-JLB Document 58 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 4
1

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD

Case No. 14-CV-2570 DMS JLB

338558.1 CJFOODS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1. This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of 

Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award. By separate order, the Court has 

determined that the proposed class action settlement reached by the Parties embodied in 

the Superseding Stipulation of Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and is finally 

approved.

2. The Court exercises diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 571 

(2005) (“CAFA confers federal diversity jurisdiction over class actions . . . [.]”). In 

diversity actions, “state law governs both the right to recover attorney’s fees and the 

computation of their amount.” Collado v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 550 Fed. 

Appx. 368, 369 (9th Cir. 2013); Gezalyan v. BMW of North America, LLC, 697 F. Supp. 

2d 1168, 1169 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Mangold v. California Public Utilities 

Commission, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995)). As Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit 

are for alleged violations of California’s consumer protection statutes, including the 

Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition 

Law, California state law has governed Plaintiff’s claims in this action and thus applies to 

Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 

F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because Washington law governed the claim, it also 

governs the award of fees.”).

3. Since the Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party, has obtained 

meaningful monetary and injunctive relief for the Class and the public, the Court finds 

that Finkelstein Thompson LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Class Counsel, are

entitled to a fee award in the amount of $375,000.00. 

4. The Court applies the percentage of the fund method for calculating fees to 

be awarded to Class Counsel. Schiller v. David’s Bridal, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

80776, at *43 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2012) (“California courts employ two methods when 

calculating a reasonable award of attorneys’ fees in common fund actions,” either the 

Case 3:14-cv-02570-DMS-JLB Document 58 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 4
2

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD

Case No. 14-CV-2570 DMS JLB

338558.1 CJFOODS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

calculation is based on a percentage of the common fund or it is based on the lodestar 

method.) Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s request for 25 percent of the 

Settlement Fund is the benchmark and appropriate here. See, e.g., Jones v. Bath & Body 

Works, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89681, at *23 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2016) “California 

has recognized that most fee awards based on either a lodestar or percentage calculation 

are 33 percent and has endorsed the federal benchmark of 25 percent.” Additionally, the 

Court recognizes that a lodestar cross-check further establishes the reasonableness of 

Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees. I have reviewed the sworn testimony of Rosemary 

M. Rivas and Marc L. Godino as to the work conducted by Class Counsel, the hourly 

rates and the lodestar and find they are reasonable. Here, 25% of the Settlement Fund 

represents a small multiplier of approximately 1.12 to Class Counsels’ collective lodestar 

of $334,433.75. This is well within the acceptable range of multipliers awarded in 

complex cases of this type. See, e.g.,Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1051-

54 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding a 28% fee award that constituted a 3.65 lodestar multiplier, 

and noting that the majority of fee awards in the district courts in the Ninth Circuit are 1.5 

to 3 times higher than lodestar); Roberti v. OSI Sys., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164312, at 

*20 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2015) (granting a fee award amounting to approximately a 2.2 

multiplier). Therefore, the Court finds that the requested fee award is reasonable.

5. The Court also finds that the request for reimbursement of expenses in the 

amount of $3,836.61 is reasonable as mandatory and discretionary costs pursuant to Cal. 

Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5 and should be awarded. Accordingly, pursuant to Paragraph 54

of the Superseding Stipulation of Settlement, Class Counsel shall be paid by Defendant 

through the Settlement Fund a total of $338,270.36 for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

6. Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for an Incentive Award

of $5,000 is appropriate. The Court has the discretion to award the class representative, 

Mr. Dennis Petersen, a service payment for work he did on behalf of the Class and the 

amount Plaintiff requests is within range of what has been approved. See Rodriguez v. 

Case 3:14-cv-02570-DMS-JLB Document 58 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 4
3

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD

Case No. 14-CV-2570 DMS JLB

338558.1 CJFOODS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

West Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Incentive awards are 

fairly typical in class action cases.”); see, e.g., Hopson v. Hanesbrands Inc., Case No. 

CV-08-0844 EDL, 2009 WL 928133, *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2009) (“In general, courts 

have found that $5,000 incentive payments are reasonable.”); Carter v. Anderson 

Merchandisers, LP, Case No. EDCV 08-0025-VAP OPX, 2010 WL 1946757, *4 (C.D. 

Cal. May 11, 2010) (“Given the relatively small size of the proposed [$5,000] recognition 

payments, the Court thus approves the recognition payments requested for both Carter 

and Lanasa”).

I have reviewed Plaintiff’s declaration and find that he should be awarded $5,000

for his efforts. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016

Case 3:14-cv-02570-DMS-JLB Document 58 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 4