In re E-3 Systems Litigation

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 JOSE FRANCO, Case No. 19-cv-01453-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ? v. ON INCENTIVE AWARD 10 E-3 SYSTEMS, 11 Defendant. 12

13 Plaintiff seeks approval of a Class Representative incentive award of $5,000. Dkt. No. 61 14 || at 15. This is approximately seven times the recovery of the average class member. See Dkt. No. 3 15 62-2. The Court is obliged to “scrutiniz[e] all incentive awards,” Radcliffe v. Experian Info. a 16 Solutions, Inc., 715 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013), and evaluate “relevant factors includ[ing] the 3 17 actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to which the class has S 18 || benefitted from those actions, . . . [and] the amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended in 19 || pursuing the litigation ....” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003). Here the 20 || Court is particularly interested in the extent of Plaintiffs involvement with the litigation, 21 including the tasks performed and an estimate of hours spent. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS 22 || Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing of no more than three pages and a declaration by Plaintiff 23 || with these details by June 4, 2021. 25 || Dated: 5/28/2021 26 Abapurel 5 Mh |). 7 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 28