Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00658/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00658-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

-1-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA LITTLEJOHN, on behalf of 

herself, all others similarly situated, and 

the general public, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FERRARA CANDY COMPANY, an

Illinois Corporation, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

CLASS ACTION

FINAL JUDGMENT AND

ORDER: (1) APPROVING

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT,

(2) AWARDING CLASS

COUNSEL FEES AND

EXPENSES, (3) AWARDING

CLASS REPRESENTATIVE

INCENTIVE AWARD, AND (4)

DISMISSING ACTION WITH

PREJUDICE

Judge: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 18
-1-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Jessica Littlejohn filed this Action against Defendant Ferrara Candy 

Company (together, the “Parties”), styled Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, No. 

3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (the “Litigation”), bringing claims for fraud 

by omission (Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710), negligent misrepresentation (Civ. Code §§ 

1709-1710), violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (Civ. Code § 

1750, et seq. [“CLRA”]), violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. 

& Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. [“UCL”]), violations of California’s False Advertising 

Law (id. § 17500, et seq. [“FAL”]), and Breach of Express and Implied Warranties 

relating to various SweeTARTS candy products (Dkt. No. 12). Defendant 

manufactures, markets and sells in the United States a variety of sweet and tart 

flavored candy products at issue in this Settlement. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 

labeling and marketing of SweeTARTS® Products is false and misleading.

After arm’s-length settlement discussions, the Parties have entered into a 

Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), which, if approved, would resolve this 

putative class action. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ 

Fees and Incentive Award for the Class Representative. 

After consideration of the Parties’ briefs, the Court hereby GRANTS Final 

Approval of the Settlement. 

On February 28, 2019, the Court entered its Order (1) Preliminarily 

Approving Class Action Settlement, (2) Certifying the Class, (3) Appointing Class 

Representative and Class Counsel, (4) Approving the Notice Plan, and (5) Setting 

Final Approval Hearing (“Preliminary Approval Order”), in which it preliminarily 

approved the Settlement. The Court also scheduled a hearing to determine whether 

the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, in the best interest of the Class, and free 

from collusion, such that the Court should grant Final Approval of the Settlement, 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 18
-2-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

and to consider Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation 

expenses, and an incentive award for the Class Representative (“Fairness Hearing”). 

The Court has considered: 

• the points and authorities submitted by Plaintiff in support of the motion for 

final approval of the Settlement (“Final Approval Motion”); 

• the points and authorities submitted by Plaintiff in support of the motion for 

an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, and approval of an 

incentive award for the Class Representative (“Fee Motion”); 

• the declarations and exhibits submitted in support of said motions; 

• the Settlement Agreement; 

• the entire record in this proceeding, including but not limited to the points and 

authorities, declarations, and exhibits submitted in support of preliminary 

approval of the Settlement, filed December 21, 2018; 

• the Notice Plan, providing full and fair notice to the Class; 

• the existence of two objections to and five exclusions from the Settlement, 

and the substance of those objections; 

• the absence of any objection or response by any official after the provision of 

all notices required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 

§1715; 

• the oral presentations of Class Counsel, Counsel for Defendant, and 

objector(s) at the Fairness Hearing; 

• this Court’s experiences and observations while presiding over this matter, 

and the Court’s file herein; and 

• the relevant law.

Based upon these considerations and the Court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and in this Final 

Judgment and Order (1) Approving Class Action Settlement, (2) Awarding Class 

Counsel Fees and Expenses, (3) Awarding Class Representative Incentive Award, 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 18
-3-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

(4) Permanently Enjoining Parallel Proceedings, and (5) Dismissing Action with 

Prejudice (“Final Approval Order”), and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED AND DECREED:

1. Definitions. The capitalized terms used in this Final Approval Order 

shall have the meanings and/or definitions given to them in the Settlement 

Agreement or, if not defined therein, the meanings and/or definitions given to them 

in this Final Approval Order.

2. Incorporation of Documents. This Final Approval Order incorporates 

the Settlement Agreement, filed as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Ronald A. Marron 

in support of preliminary settlement approval on December 21, 2018, including all 

exhibits thereto, and the Court’s findings and conclusions contained in its 

Preliminary Approval Order.

3. Jurisdiction. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties, the 

Class Members, including objectors, and Defendant. The Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action, including, without limitation, jurisdiction to approve 

the Settlement, to settle and release all claims alleged in the action and all claims 

released by the Settlement, including the Released Claims, to adjudicate any 

objections submitted to the proposed Settlement, and to dismiss this action with 

prejudice. All Class Members who did not exclude themselves according to the 

Court’s prior orders and the terms of the Class Notices have consented to the 

jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of this action and the Settlement of this action.

Findings and Conclusions

4. Definition of the Class and Class Members. The Court’s Preliminary 

Approval Order defines the “Class,” which is comprised of the “Class Members,” as 

follows:

All United States consumers who purchased SweeTARTS® Products, 

including those listed below, for household or personal use and not for resale, 

from January 1, 2012 until the Class is certified (the “Class Period”):

• SweeTARTS Original

• SweeTARTS Mini Chewy 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 18
-4-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

• SweeTARTS Giant Chewy 

• SweeTARTS Chews

• SweeTARTS Extreme Sour Chewy

• SweeTARTS Chewy Sours

• SweeTARTS Sour Gummies

• SweeTARTS Gummies

• SweeTARTS Whipped & Tangy

• SweeTARTS Cherry Punch Soft & Chewy Ropes

• SweeTARTS Tangy Strawberry Soft & Chewy Ropes

• SweeTARTS Jelly Beans

Excluded from the Class are (1) any judicial officer presiding over Littlejohn; 

(2) the Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, 

predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a 

controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and 

employees; (3) legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such 

excluded person; and (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely 

request for exclusion.

The Court affirms its certification of the Class, as set forth in the Preliminary 

Approval Order. All Class Members are subject to this Final Approval Order and 

the Final Judgment to be entered by the Clerk of Court in accordance herewith.

5. Class Certifications (Rule 23)

A. Numerosity

Defendant’s sales in the United States number in the hundreds of thousands 

annually. For the purposes of this Settlement, no party or objector contests 

numerosity. The Court finds that the Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of 

all class claims is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). 

B. Commonality

The Court finds that there are questions of law and fact common to the Class, 

as to whether Defendant made false or deceptive marketing claims about its 

Products. All Class Members allege the same injury: loss of money spent purchasing 

the allegedly deceptive-labeled Products. All Class Members were exposed to the 

same or substantially similar contested labeling claims of the Products. Resolution 

of the common questions about whether Defendant’s labeling claims were deceptive 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 18
-5-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

would resolve questions relevant to all of the claims in one stroke. Accordingly, the 

Court affirms its prior ruling under Rule 23(a)(2).

C. Typicality

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are reasonably co-extensive with those 

of the other Class Members so as to meet Rule 23(a)(3)’s requirements. Typicality 

is a “permissive” standard under which “representative claims are ‘typical’ if they 

are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be 

substantially identical.” Hanlon v. v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 

1998). The Class does not lack typicality. The Court therefore affirms its prior order, 

finding that the Plaintiff’s claims are reasonably coextensive with those of the Class. 

D. Adequacy of Class Representative

Having considered the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1), the Court finds that 

Plaintiff is an adequate class representative and Class Counsel are adequate to 

represent the Class. Class Counsel has fully and competently prosecuted all causes 

of action, claims, theories of liability, and remedies reasonably available to the Class 

Members. The Court hereby affirms its appointment of the Law Offices of Ronald 

A. Marron, APLC as Class Counsel. The Court also affirms its appointment of 

Jessica Littlejohn as the Class Representative, finding that she possesses no interests 

adverse to the Class and is adequate to represent the Class. 

E. Rule 23(b) Has Been Satisfied

For the purposes of this Settlement, the Parties contend that the elements of 

Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) have been met. The Court finds that Defendant has acted 

or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive 

relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); and 

that questions of law and fact as to whether a reasonable consumer would find the 

Products’ packaging deceptive predominate over individual questions. Plaintiff 

alleges a common injury on behalf of the Class, specifically the loss of the purchase 

price of the Products, and the Products’ respective packaging was standard across 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 18
-6-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

the United States. The Court also finds that resolution on a class-wide basis is 

superior for purposes of judicial efficiency and to provide a forum for absent Class 

members, who are unlikely to bring individual suits to recover. The Court therefore 

affirms its prior ruling that the Class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3). The Court also affirms 

its prior ruling that the Class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2). The primary relief in this claim 

was injunctive relief in the form of labeling changes to the Products’ labels.

6. The Settlement. The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, 

and adequate to the Class, in light of the complexity, expense, and likely duration of 

the litigation (including appellate proceedings), and the risks involved in 

establishing liability, damages, and in maintaining the action as a class action, 

through trial and appeal. See Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 963 

(9th Cir. 2009). The Settlement is the result of arm’s-length negotiation and there is 

no evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest between Plaintiff, Class 

Counsel and the Class. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 

946 (9th Cir. 2011). 

A. The Parties reached the proposed Settlement only after extensive 

investigation into the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, and was the result of arm’s-length 

negotiations conducted by the Parties in good faith and after consultation with 

competent legal counsel, and with the extensive assistance of an independent, neutral 

mediator, Judge Jay C. Gandhi (Ret.) of JAMS. The Litigation was filed in good 

faith, was not frivolous and was in compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Based on the negotiations between counsel for the Parties, the 

Parties fully understood the nature, strength, and weaknesses of each other’s claims 

and defenses. 

Plaintiff and Class Counsel maintain that the Litigation and the claims 

asserted therein are meritorious and that Plaintiff and the Class would have prevailed 

at trial. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff and Class Counsel have agreed to settle the 

Litigation pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement, after considering, among 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 18
-7-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

other things: (i) the expense and length of continued proceedings that would be 

necessary to prosecute the Litigation through trial and appeals; (ii) the uncertain 

outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex actions such as this 

Litigation, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation; (iii) the 

inherent problems of proof under the claims and possible defenses to the claims 

asserted in the Litigation; (iv) the substantial benefits to Plaintiff and the Class under 

the terms of this Agreement; and (v) the desirability of consummating this 

Settlement promptly in order to provide effective relief to Plaintiff and the Class. 

Plaintiff and Class Counsel agree that this Agreement is fair, reasonable and 

adequate because it provides substantial benefit to the Class, is in the best interests 

of the Class, and fairly resolves the claims alleged in this Litigation.

Defendant expressly denies any wrongdoing alleged in the pleadings in the 

Litigation, and does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, 

or liability in connection with any facts or claims which have been or could have 

been alleged against it in the Litigation. Defendant nonetheless considers it desirable 

for the Litigation to be settled and dismissed, because the proposed settlement will: 

(i) avoid further expense, burden and disruption of the management and operation 

of Defendant’s business due to the pendency and defense of the Litigation; and (ii) 

finally put Plaintiff’s and the Class’ claims and the underlying matters to rest.

Plaintiff and Defendant were fully informed of the legal bases for the claims 

and defenses herein, and are capable of balancing the risks of continued litigation 

and the benefits of the Settlement. Class Counsel and Defendant’s counsel are 

highly experienced civil litigation lawyers with specialized knowledge in food 

labeling issues, and complex class action litigation generally. Class Counsel and 

Defendant’s counsel are capable of properly assessing the risks, expenses, and 

duration of continued litigation. 

B. The Settlement affords meaningful injunctive relief. First, Defendant 

will remove the phrase “No Artificial Flavors” from the SweeTARTS Product 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 18
-8-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

packaging and promotional materials (unless any such Product ceases to contain dlmalic acid as an ingredient). In addition, Defendant will identify “dl-malic acid” as 

an ingredient on the SweeTARTS Product packaging and promotional materials (for 

every Product that includes dl-malic acid as an ingredient). Defendant shall 

implement the injunctive relief described above on SweeTARTS Product packaging 

and promotional and marketing material by December 31, 2019, and must 

implement the modifications for a period of two years following the date of final 

approval.

The Court has considered the realistic range of outcomes in this matter, 

including the amount Plaintiff might receive if she prevailed at trial, the strength and 

weaknesses of the case, the novelty and number of the complex legal issues involved, 

and the risk that Plaintiff and the Class would receive less than the Settlement relief 

or take nothing at trial. The relief offered by the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate in view of these factors.

C. The Court has found no evidence of collusion between Plaintiff and 

Defendant or their respective counsel. The Settlement resulted from extensive 

arm’s-length, adversarial negotiation. Further, the Court has evaluated the factors 

set forth by the Ninth Circuit and determined that there was no collusion. See In re 

Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011) (the three 

factors are: “(1) when counsel receive a disproportionate distribution of the 

settlement, . . . (2) when the parties negotiate a ‘clear sailing’ arrangement providing 

for the payment of attorneys' fees separate and apart from class funds, . . . and (3) 

when the parties arrange for fees not awarded to revert to defendants . . .”). 

Defendant has agreed to pay Class Counsel $272,000, which represents their lodestar 

plus a modest ___ multiplier, well within the range courts have allowed in the Ninth 

Circuit. Id. The Parties also agreed to the terms of the Settlement before discussing 

attorneys’ fees, another factor which weighs against a finding of collusion. See, e.g. 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 18
-9-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

Weeks v. Kellogg Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155472, at *83 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 

2011).

D. The response of the Class to this action, the certification of a class, and 

the Settlement, including Class Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ 

fees, litigation expenses, and the Class Representative’s incentive award, after full, 

fair, and effective notice thereof, strongly favors final approval of the Settlement. 

Out of the estimated millions who received Notice, only four class members 

submitted valid requests for exclusion. Moreover, only two objections were filed, 

which the Court has considered. 

7. Notice to the Class. The Class has received the best practicable notice 

in light of the fact that Defendant does not collect or maintain information sufficient 

to identify Class Members. The Parties’ selection and retention of Classaura LLC

as the Notice Administrator was reasonable and appropriate. Based on the 

Declaration of Gajan Retnasaba, the Court hereby finds that the Settlement Notices 

were published to the Class Members substantially in the form and manner approved 

by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order. The Settlement Notices provided 

fair, effective and the best practicable notice to the Class of the Settlement and the 

terms thereof. The Notices also informed the Class of Plaintiff’s intent to seek 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive payments, and set forth the date, time, and place 

of the Fairness Hearing and Class Members’ rights to object to the Settlement or Fee 

Motion and to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The Court further finds that the 

Settlement afforded Class members a reasonable period of time to exercise such 

rights. See Weeks v. Kellogg Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155472, at *82 (C.D. Cal. 

Nov. 23, 2011) (class members’ deadline to object or opt out must arise after class 

counsel’s fee motion is filed); In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Secs. Litig., 618 F.3d 

988, 994 (9th Cir. 2010) (same). The Settlement Notices fully satisfied all notice 

requirements under the law, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 18
-10-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

requirements of the California Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1781, and all 

due process rights under the U.S. Constitution and California Constitutions.

8. Notices Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715. The Court finds that Defendant 

has satisfied all notice requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 

(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, as attested to by the Retnasaba Declaration. On 

December 27, 2018, at Defendant’s direction, Classaura LLC served the notices 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), which included a copy of the Settlement 

Agreement and other required documents, as well as notice of the date, time, and 

place of the Fairness Hearing. The Court has received no objection or response to 

the Settlement agreement by any federal or state official, including any recipient of 

the foregoing notices. This fact further supports the fairness of the Settlement.

9. Implementation of Settlement. The Parties are directed to implement 

the Settlement according to its terms and conditions. 

10. Appeal after Implementation. Any Class Member who failed timely 

and validly to object to the Settlement has waived any objection. Any Class Member 

seeking to appeal the Court’s rulings must: (a) move to intervene upon a 

representation of inadequacy of counsel (if they did not object to the proposed 

Settlement under the terms of the Settlement); (b) request a stay of implementation 

of the Settlement; and (c) post an appropriate bond. Absent satisfaction of all three 

requirements, Defendant is authorized, at its sole option and in its sole discretion, to 

proceed with the implementation of the Settlement, including before the Effective 

Date, even if such implementation would moot any appeal.

11. Release. The Release set forth in the Settlement Agreement is 

expressly incorporated herein in all respects, is effective as of the date of the entry 

of this Final Order, and forever discharges the Released Parties from any claims or 

liabilities released by the Settlement, including the Released Claims, and including 

without limitation a waiver of all rights under Section 1542 of the California Civil 

Code. This Release covers, without limitation, any and all claims for attorneys’ fees 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 18
-11-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

and expenses, costs or disbursements incurred by Class Counsel, the Settlement of 

this Action, the administration of such Settlement, and the Released Claims, except 

to the extent otherwise specified in this Order and the Settlement Agreement.

12. Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses. The Court orders that Class 

Counsel is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses incurred in 

connection with the action and in reaching this Settlement in the amount of 

$272,000, to be paid at the time and in the manner provided in the Settlement 

Agreement. The fee award sought in the present case is reasonable when judged by 

the standards of this circuit. Defendant has agreed to pay Class Counsel $275,000, 

which represents the costs of notice to the class, the Class Representative’s incentive 

award, and Class Counsel’s lodestar plus a modest 1.489 multiplier, well within the 

range Courts have allowed in the Ninth Circuit. Id. 

A multiplier of 1.489 is justified here, based on the excellent results obtained, 

the experience and skill of Counsel, the complexity of issues, the risk of nonpayment and preclusion of other work, and the reaction of the Class. The fee award 

requested is also reasonable in light of similar lodestar awards, as set forth in the Fee 

Motion. Courts have approved multipliers ranging from 2-4 (and higher) in 

comparably complex litigation and under such circumstances. See, e.g., Wershba v. 

Apple Computer, 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, 255 (2001); Behrens v. Wometco Enters., 

Inc., 118 F.R.D. 534, 549 (S.D. Fla. 1988). As reflected in these cases, the requested 

fee multiplier falls on the low end of the reasonable range, based on typical 

multipliers approved in comparable litigation. The Court also finds that an award of 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses is appropriate based on the private 

attorney general doctrine and Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, and the Court’s 

equitable powers under California law. 

No Named Plaintiff, or any other Class Member, shall have any obligation to 

pay Class Counsel any further amounts for attorneys’ fees, costs, or litigation 

expenses in the Litigation. As none of the objections were sustained, the Court 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 18
-12-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

further finds that no Class Member is entitled to seek or receive any further payment 

of attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses in connection with the action. 

The time declared to have been expended by Class Counsel is reasonable in 

amount in view of the complexity and subject matter of this Litigation, the skill and 

diligence with which it has been prosecuted and defended, and the quality of the 

result obtained for the Class. 

Based on the declaration of Class Counsel submitted in support of the Fee 

Motion, the Court finds that Class Counsel have incurred out-of-pocket litigation 

expenses (paid and un-reimbursed, or currently due) in the amount of $36,000.02

that said expenses were of a nature typically billed to fee-paying clients, and that 

said expenses are recoverable or were reasonable and necessary to the prosecution 

of this action in light of the extent of proceedings both on and off the Court’s docket,

the complexity of the legal and factual issues in the case, the amount at stake in this 

litigation, and the vigorous efforts of counsel for all Parties herein. The Court finds 

these expenses are reasonable in this case, and shall be included as part of the 

$272,000 awarded to Class Counsel, to be paid by Defendant in the time and manner 

provided in the Settlement Agreement.

13. Class Representative’s Incentive. The named Plaintiff in this action, 

which the Court appointed Class Representative in its Preliminary Approval Order, 

has actively participated in and assisted Class Counsel with this litigation for the 

substantial benefit of the Class despite facing significant personal limitations. Ms. 

Littlejohn waived her right to pursue potential individual claims or relief in the 

Action. Apart from the requested incentive, Ms. Littlejohn will receive no 

settlement payments or benefits of any nature, other than the injunctive relief 

available to the Class generally. The Court hereby approves an incentive award for 

Ms. Littlejohn, to be paid by Defendant at the time and in the manner provided in 

the Settlement Agreement. The amount of the incentive award shall be $3,000 for 

Ms. Littlejohn as Class Representative. Ms. Littlejohn was actively involved 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 18
-13-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

throughout the Litigation and contributed significant time and expense in seeing this 

action to fruition. The Court approves this incentive payment to compensate the 

Class Representative for the burdens of her active involvement in the Litigation and 

her commitment and effort on behalf of the Class. 

14. Class Member Objections. Having considered the two written 

objections, oral argument at the Fairness Hearing, the Parties’ written and oral 

response to these objections, and the documents and record on file in this Litigation, 

the Court overrules all objections. 

The Court finds no evidence of collusion. Likewise, the Objectors have raised 

no valid concerns regarding the adequacy of the relief the Settlement provides, 

taking into account the weaknesses in Plaintiff’s case along with the strengths of 

Defendant’s defenses and the obstacles to class-wide recovery. Further, Defendant’s 

agreement to modify the Products’ label and packaging, which adequately addresses 

the very claims raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint, provides value to the Class.

The Court has found that the Notice was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and 

provided the best practicable notice to the class in compliance with all applicable 

laws. The fact that the chosen Notice Administrator could effectuate notice in a 

manner widely approved for classes such as this one, where names of individual 

class members are unknown, for a cost less than other more expensive 

administrators, is a benefit to the Class, and not objectionable. The Notice in this 

case also included statutory newspaper publication within the State of California 

pursuant to California Civil Code § 1781. 

The Court also considered objections concerning the Fee Motion. The 

objections are refuted by the lodestar analysis and the exceptional results achieved 

on behalf of the Class. The Court therefore overrules the objections as to the Fee 

Motion.

15. Modification of Settlement Agreement. The Parties are hereby 

authorized, without needing further approval from the Court, to agree to and adopt 

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 18
-14-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

such amendments to, and modifications and expansions of, the Settlement 

Agreement, if such changes are consistent with this Order and do not limit the rights 

of any person or Class Member entitled to relief under this Agreement. 

16. Enforcement of Settlement. Nothing in this Final Order shall preclude 

any action to enforce or interpret the terms of the Settlement. Any action to enforce 

or interpret the terms of the Settlement shall be brought solely in this Court.

17. Retention of Jurisdiction. The Court expressly retains continuing 

jurisdiction as to all matters relating to the Settlement, and this Final Order, and for 

any other necessary and appropriate purpose. Without limiting the foregoing, the 

Court retains continuing jurisdiction over all aspects of this case including but not 

limited to any modification, interpretation, administration, implementation, 

effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement, the administration of the Settlement 

and Settlement relief, including notices, payments, and benefits thereunder, the 

Settlement Notice and sufficiency thereof, any objection to the Settlement, any 

request for exclusion from the certified Class, the adequacy of representation by 

Class Counsel and/or the Class Representative, the amount of attorneys’ fees and 

litigation expenses to be awarded Class Counsel, the amount of any incentive to be 

paid to the Class Representative, any claim by any person or entity relating to the 

representation of the Class by Class Counsel, to enforce the release and injunction 

provisions of the Settlement and of this Order, any remand after appeal or denial of 

any appellate challenge, any collateral challenge made regarding any matter related 

to this litigation or this Settlement or the conduct of any party or counsel relating to 

this litigation or this Settlement, and all other issues related to this action and 

Settlement. Further, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction to enter any other 

necessary or appropriate orders to protect and effectuate the Court’s retention of 

continuing jurisdiction provided that nothing in this paragraph is intended to restrict 

the ability of the Parties to exercise their rights under the Settlement Agreement.

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 18
-15-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

18. No Admissions. This Final Order and Judgment and the Settlement, 

all provisions herein or therein, all other documents referred to herein or therein, any 

actions taken to carry out this Final Order and Judgment and the Settlement, and any 

negotiations, statements, or proceedings relating to them in any way shall not be 

construed as, offered as, received as, used as, or deemed to be evidence of any kind, 

including in this Litigation, any other action, or in any other judicial, administrative, 

regulatory, or other proceeding, except for purposes of obtaining approval of the 

Settlement and the entry of judgment in the Litigation, enforcement or 

implementation of the Settlement, or to support any defense by Defendant based on 

principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, waiver, good-faith settlement, 

judgment bar or reduction, full faith and credit, setoff, or any other theory of claim 

preclusion, issue preclusion, release, injunction, or similar defense or counterclaim 

to the extent allowed by law. Neither the Settlement Agreement nor any related 

negotiations, statements, mediation positions, notes, drafts, outlines, memoranda of 

understanding, or Court filings or proceedings relating to the Settlement or 

Settlement approval, shall be construed as, offered as, received as, used as, or 

deemed to be evidence or an admission or concession by any person, including but 

not limited to, of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of Defendant 

or any Released Peron or as a waiver by Defendant or any Released Person of any 

applicable defense, including without limitation any applicable statute of limitation. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 18
-16-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

19. Dismissal of Action. Except for the individual claims of those who 

duly opted-out of the Settlement Class (identified in Exhibit 1 to the Final Approval 

Order), this action, including all individual and Class claims resolved in it, shall be 

dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, without an award of attorneys’ fees or 

costs to any party except as provided in this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 18
-1-

Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

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

EXHIBIT 1

Treetis Ebben

Webster, Wisconsin

Ebbens Stevens

Siren, Wisconsin 

Laurel Greenstein

Van Nuys, California

Willis Johnson

Lithonia, Georgia

Marshall Ray Partain

Henderson, Texas

Case 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG Document 47 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 18