### In the



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________________

No. 17

‐ 2086

C AMP D RUG S TORE

, I NCORPORATED

, Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v.

C OCHRAN W HOLESALE P HARMACEUTICAL

, I NCORPORATED

, Defendant

‐ Appellee

.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:16

‐ cv

‐ 00488

‐ SMY

‐ RJD

— Staci M. Yandle

, Judge

.

____________________

A RGUED N OVEMBER 9, 2017

— D ECIDED J ULY 27, 2018

____________________

Before R IPPLE

, M ANION

, and S YKES

, Circuit Judges

.

R IPPLE

, Circuit Judge

. Camp Drug Store, Inc., filed this ac

‐

tion, on its own behalf and as a representative of a proposed

class, against Cochran Wholesale Pharmaceutical, Inc.

(“Cochran”). Camp Drug Store alleged that Cochran had vio

‐

lated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA” or

“the Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by faxing unsolicited advertise

‐2 No. 17

‐ 2086

ments to the class members. The parties entered into early me

‐

diation and reached a settlement. The district court approved

the settlement on behalf of the class, but reduced the pro

‐ posed attorney fee and incentive awards.

Camp Drug Store appeals. It maintains that the settlement

created a common fund against which the reasonableness of

the attorney fee award should be assessed. It also notes that

the proposed incentive awards were commensurate with

other awards to named plaintiffs for claims under the TCPA.

We cannot accept Camp Drug Store’s characterization of

the settlement as a common fund. Neither our case law, nor

that of the Supreme Court, supports that characterization.

Moreover, given the early stage at which this litigation was

settled, the reductions in the attorney fee and incentive

awards were not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm

the district court’s judgment.

I

BACKGROUND

Cochran, a small pharmaceutical distribution company in

Monroe, Georgia, obtained a list of approximately 17,000

pharmacies. Using the list, it then sent faxes to prospective

customers. It did not have permission from those to whom it

sent faxes. Camp Drug Store was one of the recipients of the

faxes and brought this class action under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.

§ 227. Section 227(b)(1)(C) of Title 47 generally prohibits the

sending of unsolicited advertisements by facsimile. Its com

‐ plaint was filed on May 2, 2016.No. 17

‐ 2086 3

Before an answer was filed, the parties moved to stay the

litigation for ninety days to explore settlement. In mid

‐ Octo

‐

ber, the parties engaged in mediation, which produced a pro

‐ posed settlement. According to the agreement, Cochran

would “make up to $700,000.00 available to settle” the case,

but was not required to create a separate account to hold the

funds or to deposit them with the court. 1 Each class member

could submit a claim for $125; if the dollar value of the claims

exceeded the total available funds, each timely claim would

be subject to a pro

‐ rata reduction. Any funds that were not

claimed by class members were to be kept by Cochran. The

agreement further provided that each of the representative

plaintiffs 2 was entitled to an incentive award of $15,000, and

class counsel were to be paid “one third of the Settlement

Fund ($233,333.33).” 3

On December 7, 2016, the district court held a hearing to

consider the preliminary approval of the settlement. At the

outset, the court advised the parties that it had concerns about

some aspects of the proposed settlement: the early stage of the

litigation and the amount of work that had been done com

‐ pared to the amount of attorneys’ fees; the reversion of funds

1 R.28

‐ 1 at 5.

2 In addition to Camp Drug Store, ARCare became a second representative

plaintiff. ARCare originally filed an action against Cochran in the district

court for the Middle District of Georgia. The claims were consolidated for

settlement, and ARCare was added as a named plaintiff in this action. See

R.44 at 1.

3 R.28

‐ 1 at 8.4 No. 17

‐ 2086

to the defendant; and the means and timeline for notification. 4

The court explored each of these topics during the hearing.

Specifically, counsel advised the court that no formal discov

‐

ery had occurred, but that, in anticipation of mediation,

Cochran had provided plaintiffs’ counsel with its financials

and a list of businesses to which it likely had faxed infor

‐

mation. Counsel also informed the court that the action rep

‐

resented an uninsured risk to Cochran, a small family busi

‐

ness. Finally, counsel clarified for the court that the settlement

agreement did not guarantee plaintiffs’ counsel one

‐ third of

the available funds; it simply allowed plaintiffs’ counsel to pe

‐

tition the court for “up to one

‐ third of 700[,000].” 5

After discussing these issues with counsel, the district

court formally appointed counsel and representatives for the

class, elongated the time frame for notice and response, and

preliminarily approved the settlement agreement. The court

directed that plaintiffs’ counsel file a motion for final ap

‐ proval by March 20, 2017, and scheduled a final hearing for

April 19, 2017.

The settlement administrator sent the notice of the pro

‐ posed settlement and the claim form to all class members, in

‐ itially by fax and, if the fax was unsuccessful, by mail. Of the

approximately 17,000 potential class members, 1,765 class

members returned claim forms. No class members filed objec

‐

tions, and only twelve class members requested to be ex

‐

cluded from the settlement. The total amount of funds that

Cochran paid to claimants was $220,625.00.

4 See R.39 at 4–5.

5 Id

. at 20.No. 17

‐ 2086 5

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for final ap

‐ proval of the class settlement. According to the plaintiffs, the

settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” as required

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). With respect to

fees, the plaintiffs requested that class counsel be awarded

one

‐ third of the $700,000 ($233,333.33) that had been made

available for the settlement of the claims, as well as an addi

‐

tional $30,000 in out

‐ of

‐ pocket expenses attributable to medi

‐

ation fees, costs of notice, and settlement administration. In

support of this award, the plaintiffs noted that “[w]hen a class

suit produces a fund for the class, it is commonplace to award

the lawyers for the class a percentage of the fund.” 6 “Here,”

the plaintiffs continued, “the Settlement created a common

fund by agreement of the parties.” 7 Consequently, the plain

‐

tiffs maintained that one

‐ third of the settlement fund was an

appropriate fee award.

The court considered the propriety of the final settlement

at a hearing held on April 19, 2017. It evaluated the settlement

against each of the factors set forth in Isby v. Bayh

, 75 F.3d

1191, 1199 (7th Cir. 1996), namely:

the strength of plaintiffs’ case compared to the

amount of defendants’ settlement offer[;] an as

‐

sessment of the likely complexity, length and

expense of the litigation[;] an evaluation of the

amount of opposition to settlement among af

‐

fected parties[;] the opinion of competent coun

‐ sel[;] and the stage of the proceedings and the

6 R.41 at 12 (quoting Gaskill v. Gordon

, 160 F.3d 361, 362 (7th Cir. 1998)).

7 Id

. at 13.6 No. 17

‐ 2086

amount of discovery completed at the time of

settlement.

As it had in the preliminary hearing, the court expressed con

‐

cerns about the requested attorneys’ fees “[i]n terms of the

stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery.” 8 The

court observed that “there was no real litigation in this case.

The case was filed. Counsel entered their appearance. They

requested a stay. They began negotiations

... . The case was

stayed and then they announced a settlement.” 9

The court also was not persuaded that the $700,000 repre

‐

sented a common fund that inured to the benefit of the class.

Instead, the court explained that “it was a security deposit.” 10

The court stated that it would have agreed with the plaintiffs’

argument “if the defendant plopped down $700,000 and

sa[id], This is it, now you can divvy this up with claims, attorneys’

fees, costs, however you want to do it, but this is it .” 11 However,

the settlement required reversion back to Cochran of any un

‐

claimed amounts. The court, therefore, determined that it was

more appropriate to award counsel thirty

‐ three percent of the

amount recovered by the class, or $73,000. In the court’s view,

8 R.45 at 7.

9 Id

. at 8–9.

10 Id

. at 18.

11 Id

. at 18–19 (italics in original).No. 17

‐ 2086 7

even this amount was a “windfall” given the early stage of

litigation at which the case had settled. 12

The court also was not convinced by counsel’s argument

that the fee award should be higher because “the actual Lode

‐

star in this case was $156,000.” 13 The court rejected this argu

‐

ment because, although the lodestar can be an appropriate

cross

‐ check, counsel had provided only a summary of the

number of hours spent on the case; counsel had not provided

details or documentation regarding how the $156,000 in fees

had accumulated given how little work was done on the

case. 14

With respect to the incentive award, the court noted that

there were certain factors that it had to consider, including:

“The actions that the plaintiffs have taken to protect the inter

‐

ests of the class; the degree to which the class has benefited

from those actions; and the amount of time and effort the

plaintiff expended

... .” 15 Counsel then informed the court

that the named plaintiffs’ involvement was limited to review

‐ ing the pleadings, discussing negotiations with counsel, and

being available by phone on the day of the mediation. The

court concluded that this minimal involvement did not justify

the requested $15,000. The court, therefore, approved an in

‐

centive award of $1,000.

12 Id. at 24.

13 Id

. at 25.

14 See id

. at 25–26.

15 Id. at 12–13.8 No. 17

‐ 2086

The district court’s final order reflected these adjustments.

In that order accepting the settlement and dismissing the ac

‐

tion, the court reiterated that a fee of $233,333.33 was not ap

‐ propriate in this case because the settlement did not create a

“common fund.” 16 It explained that the financial arrangement

at issue here was not a “true common fund case[]” where

“fees are awarded based on a percentage of the fund actually

recovered”; instead, fees were determined based on “the max

‐

imum amount of money the defendant has promised to make

available.” 17 Additionally, the fee requested by counsel was

not commensurate with the amount of work counsel actually

had expended to resolve the case. The district court therefore

awarded attorneys’ “fees in the amount of $73,468.13, which

represents 33.3% of the $220,625.00 claims payment.” 18

Similarly, “[i]n determining whether an incentive award

is appropriate, and[]

... in what amount,” the district court

“look[ed] to ‘the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the

interests of the class, the degree to which the class has bene

‐

fitted from those actions, and the amount of time and effort

the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation.’” 19 The

$15,000 incentive award did not reflect properly the amount

16 R.44 at 5. In reaching its conclusion that the settlement did not create a

common fund, the district court relied upon our decisions in Holtzman v.

Turza ( Holtzman I ), 728 F.3d 682, 688 (7th Cir. 2013), and Holtzman v. Turza

( Holtzman II ), 828 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2016), as well as the Supreme

Court’s decision in Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert

, 444 U.S. 472 (1980).

17 R.44 at 6.

18 Id

. at 7.

19 Id

. (quoting Cook v. Niedert

, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998)).No. 17

‐ 2086 9

of time and effort the named plaintiffs had expended in pur

‐ suing the litigation. Consequently, the court reduced the in

‐

centive award to $1,000 for each of the named plaintiffs. 20

Camp Drug Store timely appealed the court’s judgment

with respect to attorney fee and incentive awards. 21

II

DISCUSSION

The legal principles that must guide our decision today

are well settled. A district court may approve the settlement

of a class action only if it holds a hearing and finds that the

proposed resolution “is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). One of the district court’s principal respon

‐

sibilities in undertaking this review is “to protect the mem

‐

bers of a class

... from lawyers for the class who may

... place

their pecuniary self

‐ interest ahead of that of the class.” Reyn

‐

olds v. Beneficial Nat’l Bank

, 288 F.3d 277, 279 (7th Cir. 2002).

Indeed, we have characterized the role of “the district judge

in the settlement phase of a class action suit [as] a fiduciary of

the class, who is subject therefore to the high duty of care that

the law requires of fiduciaries.” Id

. at 280. We evaluate how

the court fulfilled this role for an abuse of discretion. See Kauf

‐

man v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co

., 877 F.3d 276, 283

20 See id

. at 7–8.

21 As agreed in the settlement, Cochran did not object to the plaintiffs’ fee

request, nor did it contest the incentive award. It takes no position as to

these matters on appeal, with one clarification: “Cochran did not have an

‘agreed obligation’ to pay the full amounts in the event the District Court

awarded less.” Appellee’s Br. 3.10 No. 17

‐ 2086

(7th Cir. 2017). “Under this standard, we shall affirm the judg

‐

ment of the district court whenever we believe that the district

court chose an option that was among those from which we

might expect a district court reasonably to choose.” Salgado v.

Gen. Motors Corp

., 150 F.3d 735, 739 (7th Cir. 1998).

Here, Camp Drug Store maintains that the district court

abused its discretion in reducing both the proposed attorney

fee award and the incentive award for the named plaintiffs.

We address first the attorney fee issue.

A.

With respect to the attorney fee award, Camp Drug Store

submits that the district court erred in failing to treat the

$700,000 made available for claims as a “common fund.” In its

view, the Supreme Court’s decision in Boeing Co. v. Van Ge

‐

mert

, 444 U.S. 472 (1980), compels that conclusion, and the dis

‐

trict court erred in reaching a contrary decision by relying on

our decisions in Holtzman v. Turza ( Holtzman I ), 728 F.3d 682,

688 (7th Cir. 2013), and Holtzman v. Turza ( Holtzman II ), 828

F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2016).

We cannot accept Camp Drug Store’s characterization of

the settlement here as creating a common fund. Boeing does

not compel such a conclusion. In Boeing

, a class of debenture

holders brought an action against Boeing for failing to give

them adequate notice of a redemption option. The district

court entered judgment for the plaintiff class in “the principal

sum of $3,289,359 together with [prejudgment] interest.” 444

U.S. at 475–76 (alteration in original). The court fixed the

amount that each member could recover on a principal

amount of $100 in debentures and also provided that “[e]achNo. 17

‐ 2086 11

individual recovery was to carry its proportionate share of the

total amount allowed for attorney’s fees, expenses, and dis

‐

bursements.” Id

. at 476. Boeing appealed the attorney fee

award claiming that the district court should have awarded

attorney’s fees only from the portion of the fund actually

claimed by class members. An en banc Second Circuit disa

‐ greed, as did the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ex

‐ plained that “a litigant or a lawyer who recovers a common

fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client

is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a

whole.” Id. at 478. Moreover, the criteria for a common fund

are satisfied

when each member of a certified class has an

undisputed and mathematically ascertainable

claim to part of a lump

‐ sum judgment recov

‐

ered on his behalf.

... Although the full value of

the benefit to each absentee member cannot be

determined until he presents his claim, a fee

awarded against the entire judgment fund will

shift the costs of litigation to each absentee in

the exact proportion that the value of his claim

bears to the total recovery.

Id

. at 479. In the case before it, the Court observed, “the named

respondents ha[d] recovered a determinate fund for the ben

‐

efit of every member of the class whom they represent[ed],”

and Boeing had not appealed the judgment awarding the

class a sum certain. Id

. The class members’ “right to share the

harvest of the lawsuit upon proof of their identity, whether or

not they exercise it, is a benefit in the fund created by the ef

‐

forts of the class representatives and their counsel.” Id. at 480.12 No. 17

‐ 2086

Notably, the court stated explicitly that its opinion did

“not decide whether a class

‐ action judgment that simply re

‐ quires the defendant to give security against all potential

claims would support a recovery of attorney’s fees under the

common

‐ fund doctrine.” Id

. at 479 n.5. In the case before it,

the district court explicitly had entered judgment in the

amount of $3,289,359; “[n]othing in the court’s order made

Boeing’s liability for this amount contingent upon the presen

‐

tation of individual claims.” Id

.

Boeing

, therefore, does not control our situation. The fund

created by the settlement here did not establish, definitively,

an amount for the benefit of the class members. Instead,

Cochran pledged up to $700,000 to be made available for the

satisfaction of claims. Cochran never surrendered the funds

to the court or a third

‐ party administrator, and, in the end,

significantly less than the $700,000 was claimed. The settle

‐

ment, therefore, fits squarely within the category of those that

the Court opted not to address: “a class

‐ action judgment that

simply requires the defendant to give security against all po

‐

tential claims.” Id

. Rather than establishing a common fund,

this arrangement gives rise to a “claims

‐ made” settlement. See

William B. Rubenstein, 5 Newberg on Class Actions § 15:56,

at 189 (5th ed. 2015) (describing “claims

‐ made” settlements);

see also William B. Rubenstein, 4 Newberg on Class Actions

§ 13:7, at 287–88 (5th ed. 2014) (same). 22

22 As we already have noted, in determining that the settlement here was

not a common fund case, the district court looked to our decisions in Holtz

‐

man I and II

, which held that a class action involving claims under the

TCPA “stems from discrete injuries suffered by each recipient of the faxes;

it does not create a common fund.” Holtzman I

, 728 F.3d at 688; see also

Holtzman II

, 828 F.3d at 608 (stating that, “[w]e thought then, and thinkNo. 17

‐ 2086 13

Moreover, Camp Drug Store’s reliance on Boeing and the

common fund doctrine is misplaced for a more fundamental

reason. Neither Boeing

, nor any of our cases, dictate that class

counsel is entitled to a certain percentage of a common fund.

Instead, Boeing simply establishes the sum against which a

district court measures the reasonableness of an attorney fee

award. See Boeing

, 444 U.S. at 473 (“The question presented in

this class action is whether a proportionate share of the fees

awarded to lawyers who represented the successful class may

be assessed against the unclaimed portion of the fund created

by a judgment.” (emphasis added)). Even if a settlement is a

common fund, the fee award still must be reasonable. In re Sw.

Airlines Voucher Litig.

, 799 F.3d 701, 708 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Un

‐

der the ‘common fund’ doctrine, an attorney who recovers a

common fund for the benefit of a class is entitled to a reason

‐

able portion of the fund that is made available to the class rather

than the amount actually claimed by the class.” (citing Boeing

,

444 U.S. at 478)). 23

now, that suits under the [TCPA] seek recovery for discrete wrongs to the

recipients” and therefore do not create “genuine common fund[s]”). Camp

Drug Store argues that these holdings cannot be reconciled with Boeing ’s

description of a common fund and urges us to “clarify, limit or abrogate

Holtzman .” Appellant’s Br. 22.

Even if we were so inclined, this case does not present an appropriate

occasion to take such an action. As we have explained, even under Boeing

, the case here is not a common fund. Cochran did not surrender a sum

certain that inured to the collective benefit of the class.

23 See also, e.g.

, Halley v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.

, 861 F.3d 481, 496

– 97 (3d Cir.

2017) (describing methods for evaluating the reasonableness of attorneys’

fees in a common fund case); In re Life Time Fitness, Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot.

Act (TCPA) Litig.

, 847 F.3d 619, 622

– 23 (8th Cir. 2017) (describing methods

a district court may use to assess the reasonableness of an attorney fee14 No. 17

‐ 2086

In assessing the reasonableness of an attorney fee award

for a class action settlement, district courts should “do their

best to award counsel the market price for legal services, in

light of the risk of nonpayment and the normal rate of com

‐ pensation in the market at the time.” Sutton v. Bernard

, 504

F.3d 688, 692 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Synthroid Mktg.

Litig

., 264 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir. 2001)). Factors that bear on

the market price for legal fees include the risk of nonpayment,

the quality of the attorney’s performance, the amount of work

necessary to resolve the litigation, and the stakes of the case.

Id

. at 693.

Here, the court rightfully was concerned that the re

‐ quested fee of $233,333.33 was disproportionate to the

amount of work expended by class counsel on the litigation.

Immediately after the case was filed, Cochran expressed in

‐

terest in settlement. Cochran provided financials and cus

‐

tomer

‐ target lists to Camp Drug Store. There was no paper

discovery; no depositions were taken; and no substantive mo

‐

tions were filed. As summed up by the district court, “[T]here

was no real litigation in this case.” 24 The district court con

‐

cluded that class counsel’s requested fee of nearly a quarter

million dollars for merely filing a complaint and negotiating

a settlement bore little relationship to market reality. The dis

‐

trict court, therefore, reduced the fee to $73,468.13, or

one

‐ third of what the members of the plaintiff class actually

award and stating that “‘[i]t is within the discretion of the district court to

choose which method to apply,’ as well as to determine the resulting

amount that constitutes a reasonable award of attorney’s fees in a given

case” (quoting Johnston v. Comerica Mortg. Corp.

, 83 F.3d 241, 246 (8th Cir.

1996)) (citations omitted)).

24 R.41 at 8.No. 17

‐ 2086 15

recovered. Given the paucity of effort expended by counsel

compared to the size of the proposed fee, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in concluding that the award be re

‐

duced accordingly. 25

25 Camp Drug Store argues that the district court also made an error in

calculating the fee award. It maintains that the district court should have

awarded class counsel one

‐ third of the total amount that Cochran would

have to pay out, which includes both the amount actually paid to the

claimants and the amount of fees. See Appellant’s Br. 24, 24 n.5. It relies on

our decision in Redman v. Radioshack Corp

., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014), for

the proposition that class counsel is presumptively entitled to that

amount.

Redman considered an attorney fee award in the settlement of a class

action alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

According to the settlement, the class members were to receive $830,000

worth of Radio Shack coupons. The settlement also included attorneys’

fees of approximately $1,000,000 and administrative fees of approximately

$2,200,000. In assessing the reasonableness of the requested attorney fee

award, the district court compared the amount of attorney’s fees to the

total amount of funds paid out by Radioshack (which included the value

of the coupons, attorneys’ fees and administrative costs). The district court

determined that, because the requested fees constituted twenty

‐ five per

‐

cent of the total payout, they were reasonable.

On appeal, we determined that the district court’s reasonableness as

‐

sessment was flawed because administrative costs should not have fac

‐

tored into its analysis:

[T]he roughly $2.2 million in administrative costs should not have

been included in calculating the division of the spoils between

class counsel and class members. Those costs are part of the set

‐

tlement but not part of the value received from the settlement by

the members of the class. The costs therefore shed no light on the

fairness of the division of the settlement pie between class counsel

and class members.16 No. 17

‐ 2086

The fee award of $73,468.14 was within a range of reason

‐

able awards from which the district court could choose. Con

‐ sequently, we affirm the district court’s attorney fee award.

B

.

Camp Drug Store also takes issue with the district court’s

reduction of the incentive award to the named plaintiffs. We

review the award of an incentive payment to a lead plaintiff

Id. at 630. Instead, we held that “[t]he ratio that is relevant to assessing the

reasonableness of the attorney’s fee that the parties agreed to is the ratio

of (1) the fee to (2) the fee plus what the class members received.” Id

. When

the fee ($1,000,000) was compared to the appropriate basis ($1,000,000 plus

$830,000 paid out in coupons), the result was a fee of 55% of the relief ob

‐

tained, which was unreasonable. We therefore reversed the district court’s

judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

In later cases

, we have employed this ratio as a basis for evaluating

counsel’s fee requests, see Pearson v. NBTY, Inc.

, 772 F.3d 778, 781 (7th Cir.

2014), and have held that “a district court should compare attorney fees to

what is actually recovered by the class and presume that fees that exceed

the recovery to the class are unreasonable,” In re Sears, Roebuck & Co. Front

‐ Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig.

, 867 F.3d 791, 793 (7th Cir. 2017).

Although Redman

, Pearson

, and In re Sears, Roebuck & Co

. provide guid

‐

ance for evaluating the reasonableness of fees, they do not establish that

class counsel is entitled to fees in the amount of one

‐ third of the actual

class recovery (or, indeed, of any particular fraction of the actual class re

‐ covery). Here, the district court assessed the fee “[b]ased on the market for

legal services in TCPA class cases, the quality of Counsels’ performance in

this case,

... and the amount of work necessary to resolve the case,” and

determined that a fee of one

‐ third of the amount of submitted claims was

reasonable. R.44 at 6

– 7. For the reasons already stated, namely the very

little amount of work required of counsel in this case, the fee was reason

‐

able.No. 17

‐ 2086 17

for an abuse of discretion. See Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood,

Inc.

, 231 F.3d 399, 408 (7th Cir. 2000).

“[A] named plaintiff is an essential ingredient of any class

action.” Cook v. Niedert

, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998).

Therefore, “an incentive award is appropriate if it is necessary

to induce an individual to participate in the suit.” Id

. To de

‐

termine if an incentive award is warranted, a district court

evaluates “the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the in

‐

terests of the class, the degree to which the class has benefitted

from those actions, and the amount of time and effort the

plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation.” Id

.

The district court determined that “[t]he named plaintiffs’

involvement in the case prior to settlement d[id] not justify

the requested $15,000 incentive award” for each class repre

‐

sentative. 26 The court explained that

[u]pon inquiry by the Court during the final

fairness hearing, Counsel stated that represent

‐

atives for the named Plaintiffs consulted with

Counsel and provided information about the

faxes they received prior to filing suit, reviewed

the complaints before they were filed, were

available by telephone during the mediation

(but were not involved in the actual negotia

‐

tions during mediation) and ultimately ap

‐

proved [the] proposed settlement. [ 27 ]

Thus, although “an incentive award [wa]s justified based on

the named representatives’ willingness to pursue the claims

26 R.44 at 7.

27 Id

.18 No. 17

‐ 2086

on behalf of the class,” the district court concluded that $1,000

was a reasonable award “in light of the degree of their partic

‐ ipation in the case and the amount of time and effort ex

‐

pended.” 28

Camp Drug Store does not maintain that its participation

was greater than what the district court represented it to be.

Instead, it alerts us to the fact that district courts in other

TCPA cases have approved awards that are equivalent to, or

larger than, the incentive award requested here. 29 Camp Drug

Store, however, does not argue that its effort on behalf of the

plaintiff class was commensurate with the lead plaintiffs’ ef

‐

forts in those cases, at least one of which spanned three years

and involved significant discovery and motions practice.

Given how little exertion the named plaintiffs expended in

pursuing this action, the district court’s award of $1,000 was

among the reasonable options from which the district court

could choose. Consequently, there was no abuse of discretion,

and we will not disturb the district court’s incentive award.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the district court’s

attorney fee and incentive awards were not an abuse of dis

‐

cretion. We therefore affirm its judgment.

AFFIRMED

28 Id. at 7–8.

29 Appellant’s Br. 25.