NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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 sim ilarly situated Washington fam ilies,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. GLOBAL CLIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Oklahom a limited liability com pany; ROCKY MOUNTAIN BANK & TRUST, a Colorado financial institution,

Defendants-Appellants. No. 12-35571 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00246-LRS MEMORANDUM *

Appeal fromthe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Honorable Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding

Subm itted October 9, 2013 * * Seattle, Washington 

# FILED
OCT 16 2013 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication an d i s not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

* * The panel unan i mo usly concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum ent. 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) m otion for approval of attorney fees and costs pursuant to the term s of the Settlem ent Agreem ent. 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 Consum er Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 19.86. On January 31, 2012, a Class Action Settlem ent Agreem ent and Release was filed. Appellees filed a Motion for Prelim inary Approval of Class Action Settlem ent. The parties negotiated a Settlem ent Agreem ent on the m erits which involved a full refund of all fees collected by Appellants to the m em bers of the Appellee class, as well as paym ent of the class adm inistration expenses. Appellees also filed a Motion to Appoint Special Master to Determ ine Reasonable Attorney Fees under Rule 54(d)(2)(D). The court entered an Order prelim inarily approving the class settlem ent, issued a class notice, set a fairness hearing, and entered an Order appointing a special m aster to determ ine reasonable attorney fees. The Special Master entered a fee award based on the Appellees’ lodestar calculation of

* * * The Honor ab l e David C. B ury, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 2$1,092,098.10. The Special Master recomm ended a m ultiplier 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 Settlem ent Agreem ent, Appellees filed a m otion for attorney fees and costs. The court entered a final order and judgm ent approving the class settlem ent. The court also entered an order granting and approving attorney fees as recomm ended by the Report. The district court properly conducted a de novo review of the Appellants’ objections to the conclusions of law derived fromthe 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 determ ined 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 determ ining that the risk was not elim inated until the Settlem ent Agreem ent was signed and approved by the court. AFFIRMED.

3