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.

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 MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES,

AND SERVICE AWARD 

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 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 17
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 Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, expenses, 

and service award submitted to the Court pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement 

agreement.

I. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE LITIGATION

A. Investigation of Claims and Section 1782 Negotiations

3. In the Spring of 2016, my office was contacted by Thomas Iglesias regarding a 

potential false advertising lawsuit against Ferrara Candy Company (“Ferrara” or “Defendant”) 

based on allegedly deceptive packaging. During the weeks and months that followed, my office 

investigated the potential claims, conducted background research on Mr. Iglesias, reviewed the 

products’ packaging, consulted a packaging expert, and reviewed all relevant statutory and case 

authority.

4. My office conducted a thorough case intake interview with Mr. Iglesias. We 

inquired about his motivation for seeking legal action which was to right a perceived wrong based 

on allegedly deceptive packaging and obtain refunds for every purchaser who was deceived like 

him. We performed a conflicts check. We also reviewed all online search tools and social media 

for information on Mr. Iglesias, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google, and other 

available tools. 

5. My office also conducted background research on Ferrara. We researched their 

collectability and learned that they were one of the largest candy companies in the world. We also 

learned as much as we could about the types of products they sold, the channels of distribution 

through which they sold their products, their gross annual revenues, the popularity of the products 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 17
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

at issue, their leadership structure, their advertising and marketing campaigns, their public 

relations initiatives, among other things.

6. My office also reviewed all relevant statutory, case, and regulatory authority. 

Although my firm had prior experience with slack fill litigation, the legal landscape was everchanging and required hours of additional research regarding the viability of Mr. Iglesias’ claims. 

There were a number of slack fill cases in California, New York, and Missouri. We reviewed all 

of these authorities.

7. My office also ordered exemplars of the products at issue. Once we received the 

exemplars, we reviewed the products’ packaging in detail and took informal measurements of the 

amount of empty space contained therein.

8. My office also researched packaging engineering design consultants. We located 

several academics from various universities and other packaging engineering consultants from the 

food packaging industry. We contacted a number of potential consulting experts, a number of 

which we interviewed. We discussed the viability of the potential claims over the course of 

several phone calls.

9. Based on our review of the facts and applicable law, my firm agreed to take on the 

case on a contingency fee. We knew at the time that the case would be an expert-driven lawsuit

with requiring input from qualified professionals in the fields of packaging design engineering, 

economics, conjoint analysis survey methodologies, and marketing. We also knew that there 

would be a substantial risk of nonpayment given the fact that other cases had been dismissed on 

pleadings challenges. But we decided that the claims were meritorious, our client was highly 

credible, and something ought to be done to address what appeared to be an industry-wide 

problem.

10. In Summer of 2018, my office prepared a statutory notice letter pursuant to the 

California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which we served on Ferrara on August 1, 2016. In the 

months that followed, counsel for Ferrara and we had discussions under Section 1782(e), focused 

on how to cure the allegedly deceptive packaging. There were many detailed conversations and 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 3 of 17
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

substantive settlement communications which involved evaluation of the claims and defenses. 

The parties ultimately were unable to reach a resolution.

B. Filing of the Lawsuit and Case Assignment to Judge Vince Chhabria

11. In January and February 2017, my office prepared the instant lawsuit in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California, which we filed on behalf of Mr. 

Iglesias on February 21, 2017. Plaintiff alleged violations of state and federal packaging laws and 

consumer protections laws on behalf of all United States purchasers of the theater box candy 

products manufactured by Ferrara. The case was assigned to the Honorable District Judge Vince 

Chhabria. During the following days, we thoroughly researched the Honorable District Judge 

Vince Chhabria’s background, judicial decisions, and standing orders.

C. Defendant’s Pleading Challenges

12. In March 2017, Ferrara requested additional time to respond to the complaint, and 

we provided the professional courtesy of an extension.

13. On April 19, 2017, Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

complaint (Dkt. 14). On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) 

pursuant to Rule 15(a) to add additional remedies available under the statutes in lieu of an 

opposition (Dkt. 18).

14. On May 24, 2017, Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the FAC, 

claiming the Products are not misleading and do not contain nonfunctional slack-fill (Dkt. 28), 

which Plaintiff opposed on June 7, 2017 (Dkt. 34), to which Defendant replied on June 14, 2017 

(Dkt. 37), and the Court denied on July 25, 2017 (Dkt. 40). Defendant answered Plaintiff’s FAC 

on August 8, 2017 (Dkt. 41).

D. Written Discovery, Depositions, and Motion to Compel

15. In the ensuing weeks, the Parties negotiated and filed a stipulated protective order 

for the sharing of information and documents (Dkt. 43). Plaintiff had already served multiple sets 

of discovery by the time the pleadings were resolved, including special interrogatories, requests 

for admissions, and document requests. Over the course of the next several months, the Parties 

met and conferred over Plaintiff’s discovery requests and Defendant’s (supplemental) responses, 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 4 of 17
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

which culminated in Plaintiff’s motion to compel on November 15, 2017 (Dkt. 47), which the 

Court granted on November 29, 2017 (Dkt. 48). 

16. As a result of Plaintiff’s successful motion to compel, Defendant produced over 

6,000 documents. Many of the documents were multi-page spreadsheets which required input 

from experts to understand. My office spent weeks thoroughly reviewing the documents before 

taking Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, which my associate Bahar Sodaify and I traveled to Chicago for 

from December 19-21, 2017, obtaining critical admissions from Defendant’s designees.

17. In addition, on November 13, 2017, Plaintiff sat for a full day deposition. Our office 

spent several hours in the days leading up to the deposition to prepare Mr. Iglesias who had never 

sat for such a deposition before. He provided highly credible testimony under oath, such that 

defense counsel remarked on it.

E. Mediations and Class Certification

18. On October 10, 2017, the Parties attended a full-day mediation in San Francisco 

with mediator Martin Quinn. My office prepared and submitted a detailed mediation brief with 

input from consulting experts, a detailed review of the claims and defenses, the prospects of class 

certification and success on the merits, among other things. The parties made some progress but 

were unable to reach an agreement. 

19. On the heels of Plaintiff’s persuasive and credible deposition testimony on 

November 13, 2017 and Plaintiff’s successful motion to compel discovery on November 29, 2017, 

the Parties scheduled a second mediation, which was held on February 2, 2018, with the 

Honorable William Cahill (Ret.) in San Francisco. 

20. In January 2018, Plaintiff prepared for the possibility that the case would not settle 

at the parties’ second mediation in early February and that Plaintiff would have to file his motion 

for class certification. Plaintiff retained four experts in various disciplines in order to proffer 

substantial evidence on the Rule 23 elements in order to satisfy the expected rigorous analysis. 

21. Class Counsel worked intensely with an expert in conjoint analysis survey 

methodologies, Dr. Michael Bechtel, and commissioned a large-scale consumer survey in which 

nearly 4,000 consumers were surveyed about their purchase decision making with respect to the 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 5 of 17
5

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

products at issue. The survey results demonstrated that the size of the box was material in 

consumers’ decision-making. It also demonstrated that the amount of candy in the products’ 

boxes was inconsistent with consumers’ expectations. 

22. Class Counsel also worked closely with an expert packaging design engineer, Dr. 

Claire Sand, who conducted a detailed slack-fill study on the products’ packaging. She 

determined that the products’ packaging contained substantial nonfunctional slack fill.

23. Class Counsel also worked closely with an economics expert, Dr. Justin Lenzo, who 

evaluated Dr. Bechtel’s and Dr. Sand’s opinions, and determined based on their study results that 

consumers paid a price premium for the nonfunctional empty space in the packaging. 

24. Class Counsel also worked closely with an expert in marketing, Dr. Forrest 

Morgeson, who opined that the number of complaints were highly underreported due to barriers to 

complaint inherent in the stream of commerce for low cost consumer goods. Dr. Morgeson also 

opined as to consumer purchase decision-making.

25. Each of Plaintiff’s retained experts prepared full expert reports in support of 

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, which was filed along with a declaration from Class 

Counsel and Plaintiff Thomas Iglesias, on March 5, 2018.

26. Up through and including that time, Judge Cahill had remained involved in ongoing 

mediation discussions following the parties’ second mediation on February 2, 2018. Within weeks 

of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification being filed on March 5, 2018 (Dkt. 53-54), the parties 

settled the case (Dkt. 58).

F. The Settlement

27. Based on all available sources my office has reviewed, this settlement is the largest 

slack fill settlement on record. It provides for a common claim fund of $2.5 million and a 

permanent injunction in the form of changes to Ferrara’s quality control procedures and target fills 

levels to 75% for all theater box products and 50% for bag-in-the-box theater box products. This is 

a substantial increase over what Plaintiff’s packaging design engineering expert calculated the 

slack fill levels to be and will bring the packaging more in line with consumer expectations 

according to Plaintiff’s conjoint analysis survey expert. 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 6 of 17
6

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

28. The settlement is the largest-ever slack-fill settlement on record1 and provides a 

superior recovery for the class. Defendant will pay a total of $2.5 million in cash to a common 

claim fund. Subject to court approval, the settlement fund will be used to pay the settlement 

payments to class members, notice and administration costs ($522,000), a service award to Mr. 

Iglesias ($5,000), reimbursement of litigation expenses ($102,172.12), and an award of reasonable 

attorneys’ fees ($625,000).

29. On May 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed his motion for preliminary approval which included 

a detailed notice and administration plan and the proposed settlement which included substantial 

monetary relief and injunctive relief (Dkt. 72) as agreed upon by the Parties. The Court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval (Dkt. 80, 82).

G. Post-Preliminary Approval Activity to Date

30. Our office has closely monitored the class notice program being carried out by the 

notice administrator and the claims administration process with minimum weekly check-ins and 

discussions whenever class member questions have arisen. The class member response has been 

overwhelmingly positive. To date, 71,116 claims and zero objections have been submitted.

31. This is an important win for consumers. Plaintiff has achieved through this 

settlement the type of relief one might reasonably expect after a trial on the merits, making 

settlement at this juncture all the more enticing. As a result of Plaintiff’s efforts, consumers will be 

able to obtain refunds that exceed the amounts they might have received through trial given the 

average price premium according to Plaintiff’s economics expert and the average price per box as 

compared to the 50 cents per box refund amount. In addition, consumers will have the benefit of 

fill levels in line with their expectations from a highly visible competitor in the marketplace—now 

part of the second largest candy company in the world—which will aid in leveling the playing 

field among candy companies, a substantial benefit to the general public. 

32. Class Counsel achieved this outstanding result with skill and efficiency, against the 

determined opposition of a deep-pocketed defendant represented by highly experienced and 

 1 Compare to Kline v. Dymatize Enters., LLC, No. 15-CV-2348, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142774 

(S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2016) (slack-fill case involving protein powder in large opaque containers 

provided only injunctive relief).

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 7 of 17
7

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

capable counsel. Plaintiff’s claims were complex and raised difficult legal questions. Prosecuting 

these claims required a high degree of skill, experience, and diligence, and presented daunting 

risks. While vigorously litigating this case, Class Counsel had to navigate the ever-changing legal 

terrain and overcome pitfalls common to other slack-fill lawsuits. As reflected in hotly contested 

pleadings challenges, this case raised novel issues, which Plaintiff and Class Counsel astutely 

addressed and overcame. For example, this case asked whether Defendant’s product packaging 

contains nonfunctional slack-fill and is considered deceptive to reasonable consumers. There was 

(and is) no appellate decision in any circuit that dealt with these specific issues. Resolution of the 

issues therefore involved researching and analyzing conflicting district court opinions and 

statutory interpretation.

33. Plaintiffs earned this settlement after investing substantial time and personnel 

resources (accumulating a lodestar to date of $523,702.50), and advancing considerable costs

(totaling $102,172.12). As discussed herein, Plaintiffs’ request is reasonable given the exceptional 

result obtained after hard-fought litigation, the efforts of Class Counsel, and the costs incurred. 

II. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE OF CLASS COUNSEL

34. Our firm is comprised of highly-respected and experienced leaders in the field of 

consumer class action litigation. 

35. I graduated from the Michigan State University School of Law, summa cum laude, 

in 2005 and received my B.A. from University of Michigan at Ann Arbor in 1999. 

36. Prior to founding Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. (and its predecessor firm) in 2011 and 

serving as its managing attorney, I was a senior associate at a prominent Southern California class 

action firm where I exclusively litigated consumer class actions against pharmaceutical 

companies, insurance carriers, food manufacturers, and other consumer goods manufacturers. 

Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. has focused on large-scale class action litigation from its inception.

37. The following are some of my representative cases:

a. Fluoroquinolone Antibiotic Cases. I was the first attorney in the country to 

take on clients in connection with claims for permanent and disabling nerve damage caused by 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 8 of 17
8

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

Levaquin, Cipro, and Avelox antibiotics manufactured by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer 

Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Clarkson represents dozens of clients across the country. 

b. Garcia v. Iovate et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court, Case No. 1402915. 

I successfully intervened in this case on behalf of a class of consumers of the popular 

“Hydroxycut” weight loss supplement and, along with the efforts of co-counsel, increased the size 

of the settlement by more than ten-fold to a total settlement value of over $10 million.

38. My law partner Shireen M. Clarkson received her Juris Doctorate from University of 

California Hastings College of the Law in 2004. Prior to joining Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., she

was a senior associate at a prominent Southern California class action firm where she also 

exclusively litigated consumer class actions and mass torts cases against pharmaceutical 

companies, insurance carriers, food manufacturers, and other consumer goods manufacturers. In 

2014, Mrs. Clarkson joined Clarkson Law Firm P.C. 

39. The following are some of Mrs. Clarkson’s representative cases:

a. Imburgia, et al vs. DirecTV Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, 

Case No. BC398295. Mrs. Clarkson was actively involved in obtaining class certification of a

matter involving unlawful termination fees against the satellite television giant, DirecTV, and was 

among the attorneys appointed as co-lead class counsel for the certified class. Most notably, she 

played an integral role in defeating DirecTV’s motion to compel arbitration following the United 

States Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion – the only case in the 

nation to overcome Concepcion’s broad impact on consumer contracts with arbitration provisions. 

Mrs. Clarkson participated in the further defeat of DirecTV’s appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The 

decision was ultimately reversed by the United States Supreme Court, although Justices Thomas, 

Ginsburg, and Sotomayor filed dissents, consistent with plaintiffs’ position, writing that the 

majority’s decision “again expanded the scope of the FAA, further degrading the rights of 

consumers and further insulating already powerful economic entities from liability for unlawful 

acts.”

b. Grair vs. Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1497 

(2009), Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC288536. While at her former law 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 9 of 17
9

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

firm, Mrs. Clarkson assisted in achieving a class settlement of over $3.5 million for a class of 

California consumers of the drug Paxil. This was a hard-fought lawsuit that spanned over the 

course of eight years. The settlement changed the general perception of sleeping pills which are no 

longer regarded as “non-habit forming” as falsely advertised by GlaxoSmithKline.

c. Penos vs. Zell, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 

BC398686. Mrs. Clarkson assisted in uncovering Labor Code violations on behalf of employees 

in this certified class action lawsuit. She was an integral part of the discovery, briefing, and 

negotiations that ultimately led to a class action settlement of this matter, resulting in hundreds of 

thousands of dollars to the employee class.

40. A copy of my firm’s resume, which includes more detailed information about our 

practice and the qualifications of the other Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. lawyers who worked on this 

case, is attached as Exhibit 1. Not included on my law firm’s resume are four other slack fill 

cases my firm is prosecuting on behalf of consumer classes in California state and federal court 

involving theater box candy products against highly visible competitors in the confectionery 

industry. 

III. CLASS COUNSEL’S LODESTAR AND EXPENSES

41. I have personally reviewed all of my firm’s time entries, and have used billing 

judgment to ensure that duplicative or unnecessary time has been excluded and that only time 

reasonably devoted to the litigation has been included. The time and descriptions displayed in 

these records were regularly and contemporaneously recorded by me and the other timekeepers of 

the firm pursuant to firm policy and have been maintained in the ordinary course of business.

42. As of September 5, 2018, Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. expended 1,081.8 hours in this 

case. Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.’s lodestar fee in this case, based on current billing rates, is

$523,702.50. Notably, my firm has not increased our billing rates since 2016 when billing on this 

matter commenced.

43. Our firm maintains a system for entering daily billing entries disaggregated by date, 

description, hours, amount, and Uniform Task-Based Management System (“UTBMS”) Codes 

and Sub-codes, which will be made available for in camera review upon request of the Court. 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 10 of 17
10

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

Below is a summary chart of each of my firm’s timekeepers who have billed to this matter, 

disaggregated by number of hours billed, billing rate, and total fees. Notably, I assigned as many 

tasks to lower-rate paralegals and associate attorneys as possible.

Timekeeper (Year of Bar Admission) (Title) Hours Rate ($) Total ($)

Ryan J. Clarkson (2005) (Managing Attorney) 390 650 253,390

Shireen M. Clarkson (2005) (Senior Partner) 112.4 650 73,060

Bahar Sodaify (2013) (Associate) 462.6 375 173,860

Shalini Dogra (2016) (Associate) 8 290 2,320

Rita Mansuryan (Law Clerk) 6.6 245 1,617

Brandon Mata (Law Clerk) 7.3 245 1,788.5

Lauren Mayes (Law Clerk) 9 245 2,205

Sarah Longalong (Litigation Support) 57.3 180 10,314

Stephanie Satow (Litigation Support) 27.4 180 4,392

Christine Williams (Litigation Support) 1.2 180 216

Totals 1,081.8 484 523,702.50

44. In addition to the time enumerated above, I estimate that Plaintiffs’ counsel will 

incur dozens of additional hours of future work in connection with this case through final approval 

and to ensure the claims administrator satisfied its duties to the settlement class and the Court.

45. Our firm maintains an itemized listing of the primary out-of-pocket expenses my 

firm incurred in this case disaggregated by date, description, amount, and Uniform Task-Based 

Management System (“UTBMS”) Codes and Sub-codes, which will be made available for in 

camera review upon request of the Court. Plaintiffs’ total litigation expenses of $102,172.12 were 

reasonably incurred in this case. These expenses are reflected in the records of Clarkson Law 

Firm, P.C., and were necessary to prosecute this litigation. All expenses were carefully and 

reasonably expended, and they reflect market rates for various categories of expenses incurred. 

Most of these expenses were incurred for expert opinions and testimony, court fees, survey fees, 

mediation fees, discovery costs, travel costs, copying costs, and courier costs. Expense items were

billed separately and such charges were not duplicated in my firm’s billing rates. Below is a 

summary chart of the litigation expenses by category:

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 11 of 17
11

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

Category of Litigation Expenses Total

Courier Services $1,767.25

Filing Fees $842.60

Airfare, Hotel, and Taxis $6,040.23

Copy Services $1,951.40

Discovery Management $2,344.69

Expert Fees $78,527.38

Deposition and Court Reporting Services $6,863.64

Mediation Fees $3,783.33

Total $102,172.12

46. Our firm has prepared a chart setting forth the hourly rates charged for lawyers and 

staff at our firm. Based on my knowledge and experience, the hourly rates charged by my firm are 

within the range of market rates charged by attorneys of equivalent experience, skill, and 

expertise. These are the same hourly rates that we actually charge to our regular hourly clients 

who have retained us for non-contingent matters, and which are actually paid by those clients. I 

have personal knowledge of the range of hourly rates typically charged by counsel in our field in 

San Francisco, California, and throughout the United States, both on a current basis and in the 

past. In determining my firm’s hourly rates from year to year, Mrs. Clarkson and I have 

consciously taken market rates into account and have aligned our rates with themarket.

47. Through my practice, we have become familiar with the non-contingent market rates 

charged by attorneys in California. This familiarity has been obtained in several ways: (1) by 

litigating attorneys’ fee applications; (2) by discussing fees with other attorneys; (3) by obtaining 

declarations regarding prevailing market rates filed by other attorneys seeking fees; and (4) by 

reviewing attorneys’ fee applications and awards in other cases, as well as surveys and articles on 

attorney’s fees in the legal newspapers and treatises. The information we have gathered showsthat 

our firm’s rates are in line with, and in fact less than, the non-contingent market rates charged by 

attorneys of reasonably comparable experience, skill, and reputation for reasonably comparable 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 12 of 17
12

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

class action work. In fact, comparable hourly rates have been found reasonable by various courts 

for reasonably comparable services, including:

a. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, No. M 07 1827 SI, MDL, 

No. 1827 (N.D. Cal. 2013), an antitrust class action, in which the court found blended hourly rates 

of $1000, $950, $861, $825, $820, and $750 per hour reasonable. 

b. Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises, Inc., Alameda County Superior Ct. No. 

RG08366506, Order of Final Approval and Judgment filed November 8, 2012, a wage and hour 

class action, in which the court found the hourly rates of $785, $775, and $750 reasonable for the 

more senior counsel.

c. Luquetta v. The Regents of the Univ. of California, San Francisco Superior 

Ct. No.CGC-05-443007, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Common Fund Attorneys’ Fees 

and Expenses, filed October 31, 2012, a class action to recover tuition overcharges, in which the 

court found the hourly rates of $850, $785, $750, and $700 reasonable for plaintiffs’ more 

experienced counsel.

d. Pierce v. County of Orange, 905 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (C.D. Cal. 2012), a civil 

rights class action brought by pre-trial detainees, in which the court approved a lodestar- based on, 

inter alia, rates of $850 and $825 per hour in 2011.

e. Holloway et. al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 05-5056 PJH (N.D. Cal. 2011) 

(Order dated November 9, 2011), a class action alleging that Best Buy discriminated against 

female, African American and Latino employees by denying them promotions and lucrative sales 

positions, in which the court approved lodestar-based rates of up to $825 per hour.

f. Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., et al. v. California Department of 

Transportation, et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141030 (N.D. Cal. 2010), adopted by Order 

Accepting Report and Recommendation filed February 2, 2011, a class action in which the court 

found reasonable 2010 hourly rates of up to $835 per hour.

g. Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, San Francisco County Superior Court, JCCP 

No. 4335, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Incentive 

Awards, filed August 23, 2010, an antitrust class action, in which the court, before applying a 2.0 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 13 of 17
13

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

lodestar multiplier, found reasonable 2010 hourly rates of $975 for a 43-year attorney, $950 for a 

46-year attorney, $850 for 32 and 38 year attorneys, $825 for a 35-year attorney, $740 for a 26-

year attorney, $610 for a 13-year attorney, and $600 for a 9-year attorney, and $485 for a 5-year 

attorney.

48. The reasonableness of my firm’s hourly rates are also supported by several surveys 

of legal rates, including the following:

a. In an article entitled “On Sale: The $1,150-Per Hour Lawyer,” written by 

Jennifer Smith and published in the Wall Street Journal on April 10, 2013, the author describes the 

rapidly growing number of lawyers billing at $1,150 or more revealed in public filings and major 

surveys. The article also notes that in the first quarter of 2013, the 50 top-grossing law firms billed 

their partners at an average rate between $879 and $882 per hour. A true and correct copy of this 

article is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

b. In an article published April 16, 2012, the Am Law Daily described the 2012 

Real Rate Report, an analysis of $7.6 billion in legal bills paid by corporations over a five-year 

period ending in December 2011. A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as 

Exhibit 3. That article confirms that the rates charged by experienced and well-qualified attorneys 

have continued to rise over this five-year period, particularly in large urban areas like the San 

Francisco Bay Area. It also shows, for example that the top quartile of lawyers bill at an average 

of “just under $900 per hour.” 

c. Similarly, on February 25, 2011, the Wall Street Journal published an on-line 

article entitled “Top Billers.” A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit 

4. That article listed the 2010 and/or 2009 hourly rates for more than 125 attorneys, in a variety of 

practice areas and cases, who charged $1,000 per hour or more. Indeed, the article specifically 

lists eleven (11) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher attorneys billing at $1,000 per hour or more.

d. On February 22, 2011, the ALM’s Daily Report listed the 2006-2009 hourly 

rates of numerous San Francisco attorneys. A true and correct copy of that article is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 5. Even though rates have increased significantly since that time, my firm’s 

rates are well within the range of rates shown in this survey.

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 14 of 17
14

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

e. The Westlaw CourtExpress Legal Billing Reports for May, August, and 

December 2009 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 6) show that as far 

back as 2009, attorneys with as little as 19 years of experience were charging $800 per hour or 

more, and that the rates requested here are well within the range of those reported. Again, current 

rates are significantly higher.

f. The National Law Journal’s December 2010, nationwide sampling of law 

firm billing rates (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 7) lists 32 firms 

whose highest rate was $800 per hour or more, eleven firms whose highest rate was $900 per hour 

or more, and three firms whose highest rate was $1,000 per hour or more. 

g. On December 16, 2009, The AmLaw Daily published an online article 

entitled “Bankruptcy Rates Top $1,000 in 2008-2009.” That article is attached hereto as Exhibit 

8. In addition to reporting that several attorneys had charged rates of $1,000 or more in bankruptcy 

filings in Delaware and the Southern District of New York, the article also listed 18 firms that 

charged median partner rates of from $625 to $980 per hour.

h. The hourly rates of all billing attorneys from my firm are less than the rates 

reflected in the Laffey Index before adjustment for the roughly plus-20% cost of living increase 

necessary for the San Francisco market over Washington, D.C. A true and correct copy of the 

Laffey Index is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. The methodology of calculation and benchmarking 

for the Laffey Matrix has been approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of 

Columbia, Civ. A. No. 00-594 (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 

2001); Salazar v. Dist. of Col., 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000).

49. Given Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.’s track record of success, our firm’s hourly rate for 

partners is set at $650, which is the same rate that my firm charges to clients who retain us on an 

hourly basis and comprises about 10% of our billings.

50. No court has ever cut my firm’s fee application by a single dollar on the ground that 

our hourly rates were not reasonable. 

51. My firm undertook this representation on a wholly contingent basis recognizing that 

the risk of non-payment has been high throughout this litigation. There were some uncertainties in 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 15 of 17
15

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

the viability of this case as a class action, as well as uncertainties in the merits of the underlying 

claims. Although we believed the case to be meritorious, a realistic assessment shows that the 

risks inherent in the resolution of the liability issues, protracted litigation in this action as well as 

the probable appeals process, were great. Indeed, as a result of taking on Mr. Iglesias’ case, my 

firm turned down other potentially profitable matters, including hourly work, and devoted 

resources to this case that could have been devoted to other potentially income-generating matters.

52. Had we not resolved this matter through settlement, we would have vigorously 

prosecuted the case through class certification, summary judgment, trial, and appealed any 

determinations that may have been adverse to the class’s interests. We were therefore at great risk 

for non-payment. In addition, as described above, we have advanced significant expenses that 

would have continued to grow and would not have been reimbursed absent a successful result.

53. Due to the commitment of time and capital required to litigate this action, my firm 

had to forego significant other work from the beginning late-2016 through the present, including 

work for paying clients billed by the hour on a non-contingent basis, as well as other class action 

cases.

IV. THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S ROLE IN THIS LITIGATION

54. Plaintiff requests approval of incentive awards of $5,000 each for their service. In 

light of his efforts, this request is exceedingly reasonable.

55. Under California law, it is well-established that named class representatives are 

eligible for reasonable incentive payments. See Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los 

Angeles, 186 Cal.App.4th 399, 412 (2010); In re Cellphone Fee Termination Cases, 186 

Cal.App.4th 1380, 1393 (2010); Clark v. American Residential Services LLC, 175 Cal.App.4th 

785, 804-06 (2009); Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 115 Cal.App.4th 715, 726 (2004); Newberg § 

11:38 (4th ed. 2008). These awards are discretionary, and “the rationale for making enhancement 

or incentive awards to named plaintiffs is that they should be compensated for the expense or risk 

they have incurred in conferring a benefit on other members of the class.” Clark, 175 Cal.App.4th 

at 806; see also Munoz, 186 Cal.App.4th at 412. Such awards compensate class representatives 

and others for actual costs in time, money, and the disruption of life incurred in the prosecution of 

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 16 of 17
16

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

the litigation. They also serve to encourage future plaintiffs to come forward and vindicate the 

rights of other injured parties. 

56. Here, the involvement of class representative Mr. Iglesias was critical to the 

prosecution of the case. Throughout the litigation, Mr. Iglesias held regular meetings with my firm 

by phone, in person, and through email to receive updates on the progress of the case, to discuss 

strategy, and to review and approve documents for filing. He assisted in my firm’s pre-lawsuit 

investigation by providing information regarding his background and purchase information. 

57. Mr. Iglesias coordinated with my firm to form responses to discovery requests, 

including written documents requests, and he searched for responsive documents. Mr. Iglesias also 

sat for a full-day deposition. He was intimately involved in the settlement process, and has

continued to keep abreast of settlement progress to date.

58. Mr. Iglesias assisted in the drafting of pleadings and papers, including complaints, 

class certification motion, opposition to motions to dismiss, and hey reviewed each for accuracy 

before they were filed.

59. Mr. Iglesias also took significant time away from work and personal activities to 

initiate and litigate this action. He was prepared to litigate this case to a verdict if necessary. His

dedication and efforts have conferred a significant benefit on millions of purchasers of the 

products across the United States and the general public. 

60. In light of his contributions and efforts, an incentive award of $5,000 for acting as 

the class representative is appropriate and should be approved. Mr. Iglesias’ contributions are 

described in more detail in his declaration, filed herewith.

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 6, 2018 at Los Angeles, California.

________________________________

Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 17 of 17