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