NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHAD M. CARLSEN; SHASTA L.

CARLSEN; CARL POPHAM; MARY

POPHAM, husbands and wives,

individually and on behalf of a class of

similarly situated Washington families,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

GLOBAL CLIENT SOLUTIONS,

LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability

company; ROCKY MOUNTAIN

BANK & TRUST, a Colorado

financial institution,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 12-35571

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00246-LRS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Honorable Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 9, 2013**

Seattle, Washington

FILED

OCT 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BURY, District Judge.***

Global Client Solutions, LLC, and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust

(Appellants) appeal the district court’s order granting the Class (Appellees) motion

for approval of attorney fees and costs pursuant to the terms of the Settlement

Agreement. We affirm. 

On August 2, 2009, Appellees filed a class action alleging violations of

Washington’s Debt Adjusting Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 18.28, and Washington’s

Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 19.86. On January 31, 2012, a

Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release was filed. Appellees filed a

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The parties

negotiated a Settlement Agreement on the merits which involved a full refund of

all fees collected by Appellants to the members of the Appellee class, as well as

payment of the class administration expenses. Appellees also filed a Motion to

Appoint Special Master to Determine Reasonable Attorney Fees under Rule

54(d)(2)(D). The court entered an Order preliminarily approving the class

settlement, issued a class notice, set a fairness hearing, and entered an Order

appointing a special master to determine reasonable attorney fees. The Special

Master entered a fee award based on the Appellees’ lodestar calculation of

*** The Honorable David C. Bury, United States Senior District Judge for

the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

2
$1,092,098.10. The Special Master recommended a multiplier of 1.65, resulting in

a final award of $1,831.015.04. Appellants filed objections to the Special Master’s

report (Report). Based on the Report and the Settlement Agreement, Appellees

filed a motion for attorney fees and costs. The court entered a final order and

judgment approving the class settlement. The court also entered an order granting

and approving attorney fees as recommended by the Report. 

The district court properly conducted a de novo review of the Appellants’

objections to the conclusions of law derived from the factual findings in the

Report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(4). The objections preserved Appellants’ right to

appeal. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the

application of the 1.65 multiplier was warranted under Washington law because of

the unusually high risks of the case and the quality of work in an exceptional case.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that

the risk was not eliminated until the Settlement Agreement was signed and

approved by the court.

AFFIRMED.

3