DECLARATION OF RYAN J. CLARKSON

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

Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

9255 Sunset Blvd, Ste. 804

Los Angeles, CA 90069

CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.

Ryan J. Clarkson (SBN 257074)

rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com

Shireen M. Clarkson (SBN 237882)

sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com

Bahar Sodaify (SBN 289730)

bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com

9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804

Los Angeles, CA 90069

Tel: (213) 788-4050

Fax: (213) 788-4070

Settlement Class Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FERRARA CANDY CO., and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00849-VC

[CLASS ACTION]

DECLARATION OF RYAN J. 

CLARKSON IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION 

AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 

Hon. Judge Vince Chabbria

Complaint filed: February 21, 2017

Hearing Date: October 25, 2018

Hearing Time: 10:00 AM

Hearing Location: Courtroom 4

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 84-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 1 of 5
1

DECLARATION OF RYAN J. CLARKSON

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

Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804

Los Angeles, CA 90069

DECLARATION OF RYAN J. CLARKSON

I, Ryan J. Clarkson, declare as follows:

1. I am managing partner at Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. and Class Counsel for the 

Settlement class in the above-captioned matter. I am licensed to practice in all state and federal 

courts in California and Michigan, and I am a member in good standing of the State Bars of 

California and Michigan. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if 

called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.

2. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of class 

action Settlement submitted to the Court pursuant to the terms of the parties’ Settlement 

Agreement.

3. As part of the Settlement, Defendant will pay $2.5 million into a Claim Fund. Each 

Class Member who made a claim may obtain a cash refund of 50 cents per box purchased. Class 

Members were able to submit claims for an unlimited number of purchases. Up to 15 claims, for a 

total of $7.50, will be paid without Proof of Purchase. These amounts will increase pro rata to 

ensure the Claim Fund is exhausted. As of September 18, 2018, the pro rata distribution of the 

Claim Fund is estimated to increase by more than 50% to $.82 per box with an average of $14.28 

per claim. At 50 cents per box purchased, the recovery represents a two- to five-times multiplier of

what class members could potentially recover at trial. At the estimated 82 cents, it represents a 3-

to 8-times multiplier. Further, this amount is subject to slightly change as the deadline for 

submitting a claim is September 20, 2018, the same date as the filing of this motion. At the 

preliminary approval hearing, DSG estimated the number of claims would exceed 50,000. 

4. This Settlement was reached after substantial discovery, law and motion practice, 

including a strong class certification motion supported by four retained experts who conducted full 

expert reports based on a detailed slack-fill analysis and large-scale consumer survey, and after 

arms-length negotiations between experienced attorneys familiar with the legal and factual issues 

of this case, including two mediations with experienced neutrals. The Settlement is also 

reasonable given the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation.

///

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 84-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 2 of 5
2

DECLARATION OF RYAN J. CLARKSON

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

Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804

Los Angeles, CA 90069

5. The notice and administration costs of $522,000 does not include the cost for 

printing and mailing Settlement checks to claimants, which DSG has agreed to provide “at cost,” 

which totals $100,260 as of September 18, 2018, and which is estimated to be $112,760 after the 

claim submission deadline of September 20, 2018.

6. The case was not settled early on. It took over a year of litigation, two full-day 

mediations with two experienced neutrals, and weeks of follow-up mediation discussions with the 

assistance of Honorable William Cahill. The Parties also conducted ample discovery to allow 

experienced class action attorneys representing both parties to consider the full range of possible 

outcomes. As such, the Parties reached the proposed Settlement only after they were capable of a 

full and fair understanding of their case and their opponent’s case, having gone through significant 

discovery and motion practice.

7. In addition to monetary relief, Defendant’s changed business practices will benefit 

Class Members, consumers, and the general public, by ensuring they receive an amount of candy 

commensurate with their expectation and thereby help dispel any deception.

8. Loss on any one of the following hurdles would eliminate or drastically reduce the 

recovery: (1) obtaining Rule 23 class certification; (2) maintaining Rule 23 class certification; (2) 

defeating prospective summary judgment; (3) establishing liability at trial; (4) overcoming 

Daubert challenges; (5) engaging in a “battle of the experts”; and (5) even if Plaintiff was to 

prevail on all of these issues, the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court could reverse any victory. 

9. Here, litigating the case through to trial would have been expensive, required 

extensive resources, involved substantial risk, and would not have been fully resolved for years. 

From their prior experience, Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates that Defendant would oppose 

certification, seek interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f), and move to decertify at a later 

date. 

10. Furthermore, complex class actions can be expensive and time-consuming to 

prosecute. Indeed, the Parties’ additional expert costs would quickly accumulate as a result of 

expert depositions, rebuttal reports, oppositions to any Daubert challenges, testimony, and any

associated costs such as travel expenses which could quickly lead to a scenario in which 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 84-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 3 of 5
3

DECLARATION OF RYAN J. CLARKSON

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

Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804

Los Angeles, CA 90069

Settlement might not be economically feasible for either party.

11. A trial would likely not commence until sometime in mid-2019 or later. Thus, any 

monetary and injunctive relief, which is not guaranteed and likely would not be as substantial as

what Plaintiff has achieved with this Settlement, would probably be delayed by at least a year. In 

the meantime, Defendant would be permitted to continue to deceptively package the Products with 

impunity to the financial detriment of class members and consumers.

12. Based on all available resources, this Settlement is the largest-ever slack-fill 

Settlement on record and provides a superior recovery for the Class.

13. Assuming that this case went to trial, Plaintiff’s counsel believes that the best-case 

recovery at trial would be approximately $20 million, based on applying Drs. Lenzo and Bechtel’s 

damages analysis (Dkt. 54-13) to nationwide sales figures. However, Defendant disputes any such

premium exists, and expert testimony on the subject is likely to diverge wildly.

14. Here, the Parties engaged in formal and informal discovery, pursued extensive 

written discovery, and thoroughly investigated Plaintiff’s claims. Indeed, Plaintiff dedicated 

considerable time, effort, and skill engaging in the following: (1) developing the causes of action 

in this case; (2) evaluating the likelihood of getting the matter certified and maintaining class 

status throughout the case; (3) appraising the strength of Plaintiff’s liability theory, the extent and 

range of class recovery against the risks of not obtaining and maintaining class certification status; 

(4) assessing the risks posed through the normal perils of litigation, including the defenses 

asserted by Defendant, Defendant’s proffered records, the difficulties of complex litigation, the 

lengthy process of establishing specific damages, and various possible delays and appeals; (5) 

engaging in rounds of interrogatories and requests for production; (6) reviewing over 6,000 

documents totaling thousands of pages; (7) taking the depositions of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) 

corporate designees; (8) serving third party subpoenas; (9) extensive discussions with Plaintiff’s 

four experts who conducted in-depth studies and analyses, produced thorough expert reports on 

product packaging design, marketing, and conjoint analysis/damages, as well as a large-scale 

consumer survey; and (10) significant legal research and briefing. In fact, the actual amount of 

discovery materials exceeds this amount because many of these documents are actually 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 84-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 4 of 5
4

DECLARATION OF RYAN J. CLARKSON

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

Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804

Los Angeles, CA 90069

voluminous Excel spreadsheets with multiple tabs of information and some of which are dozens if 

not hundreds of pages long when printed. The Parties also attended two in-person mediations in 

San Francisco. Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement is the result of fully-informed arm’s length 

negotiations based on a well of information obtained through discovery.

15. Class Counsel endorses the Settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable.

16. The proposed Settlement here is the product of arm’s-length negotiations between 

the Parties. As previously stated, Plaintiff conducted a significant investigation of the facts and 

law during the prosecution of this action, including (1) extensive discovery and law and motion 

practice; (2) obtaining and reviewing detailed records produced by Defendant; (3) conducting a 

comprehensive analysis of the material issues in the case based on reports prepared by experts in 

survey design, damages, packaging engineering, and marketing; and (4) attending two mediations 

in San Francisco with the help of two experienced neutrals. The Parties considered the strengths 

and weaknesses of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses.

17. The Parties also considered the uncertainty and risk of the outcome of further 

litigation and the difficulties and delay inherent in such litigation. The Parties are also aware of the 

burdens of proof necessary to establish the amount of damages for the Class Members, not to 

mention the strong likelihood that Defendant would appeal any court decision in Plaintiff’s favor. 

Considering the foregoing, final approval is warranted.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of 

California that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on September 20, 2018 at Los Angeles, California.

________________________________

________________________________

Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 84-1 Filed 09/20/18 Page 5 of 5