In re E-3 Systems Litigation

N.D. California

In re E-3 Systems Litigation

DecidedMay 28, 2021

Docket4:19-cv-01453

StatusUnknown

This text of In re E-3 Systems Litigation (In re E-3 Systems Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re E-3 Systems Litigation, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: 5/28/2021 26 Abapurel 5 Mh |). 7 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: 5/28/2021 26 Abapurel 5 Mh |). 7 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re E-3 Systems Litigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-e-3-systems-litigation-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack