1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEANNE TAN, individually and on Case No.: 20cv1082-LL-DDL behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. GRANTING MOTIONS FOR FINAL 14 APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION QUICK BOX, LLC, et al., 15 SETTLEMENTS [ECF Nos. 488, 492]; Defendants. 16 GRANTING MOTIONS FOR 17 __________________________________ ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS 18 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. [ECF Nos. 487, 489]; 19 DENYING AS MOOT SEALING 20 MOTION [ECF No. 494] 21
22 On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff Leanne Tan filed a putative consumer fraud class action 23 against Defendants La Pura, Quick Box, and Konnektive, alleged operators of an online 24 “free trial” scam. ECF No. 1. The First Amended Complaint is operative. ECF No. 89 25 (“FAC”); see ECF No. 299 (denying motion to further amend the complaint but noting 26 Konnektive’s post-suit name change on the docket). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 27 fraudulently lured her and similarly situated consumers into purchasing La Pura skin care 28 products by offering “free samples” and assuring her that she would only pay for shipping 1 and handling, but then charging her for samples and an undisclosed recurring payment for 2 additional samples each month. See FAC ¶¶ 8–121. 3 The Court has jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action Fairness Act. 4 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiff moved for class certification, which the Court granted. 5 ECF Nos. 229, 378, 391. Plaintiff later moved for default against La Pura, which the Clerk 6 entered. ECF Nos. 214, 215. Then Plaintiff settled in principle with Quick Box and 7 Konnektive. ECF Nos. 330, 332, 464, 468, 477. In turn, Plaintiff moved for preliminary 8 settlement approvals, which the Court granted too. ECF Nos. 350, 481, 483, 486. 9 After the parties’ settlement administrator began notifying class members of the 10 preliminary approvals, Plaintiff moved for final settlement approval with Quick Box as 11 well as for attorney fees, costs, and an incentive award. ECF Nos. 487, 488. Plaintiff moved 12 for the same with Konnektive. ECF Nos. 489, 492. Unlike with Quick Box, however, 13 Konnektive opposed in part Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees. ECF No. 493. Konnektive 14 also moved to seal materials in support of its opposition. ECF No. 494. Plaintiff replied. 15 ECF No. 496. 16 The administrator contacted 99% of all class members across both settlements with 17 the following result: ~10,000 of the ~60,000 members responded to opt into the settlements 18 with actual damages totaling ~$1,365,000. See ECF No. 502 ¶¶ 12, 17, 25–28. This is a 19 ~16% take-up rate and ~$136.50 average claim per class member. Notably, no one objected 20 to or opted out of the settlements. See id. 21 On June 10, 2025, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), the 22 Court held a hearing to better evaluate the fairness of the settlements, pending motions, 23 and any other outstanding matters. ECF Nos. 500, 503, 511. 24 I. CLASS CERTIFICATION 25 The Court found that the proposed settlement class met Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) 26 requirements for class action certification, namely numerosity, commonality, typicality, 27 adequacy of the class representative and class counsel, predominance of common questions 28 of fact and law among the settlement class, and superiority. See ECF Nos. 391, 483, 486. 1 As such, the Court preliminarily certified the settlement class as:
2 All consumers in the U.S. who, during the class period, were billed for 3 products sold, shipped, or caused to be sold or shipped by any of the Defendants under the La Pura, La’Pura, La’ Pura, LaPura or any similar 4 brand name, including any La Pura Product marketed or otherwise 5 promoted by Rocket Management Group. Excluded from the settlement class are: (i) jurists and mediators who are or have presided over the action, 6 Plaintiff’s counsel, and Defendants’ counsel, their employees, legal 7 representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, or any members of their immediate family; (ii) any government entity; (iii) the Quick Box and 8 Konnektive Parties and any entity in which the Quick Box and Konnektive 9 Parties have a controlling interest, any of their subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, 10 successors, or assigns, or any members of their immediate family; and 11 (iv) any persons who timely opt out of the settlement class.
12 See ECF Nos. 391, 483, 486. The Court affirms its findings and certifies the class for 13 settlement purposes. It also affirms its appointment of Mr. Kneupper and Mr. Covey of 14 Kneupper & Covey PC as class counsel representing all class members per Rule 23(g)(1). 15 II. CLASS SETTLEMENT TERMS 16 Plaintiff’s settlement agreement with Quick Box is signed and dated October 2023. 17 ECF No. 488-4. In consideration for class members releasing their claims against it, Quick 18 Box agreed to pay $5,500,000 into a common fund to distribute to: (1) class counsel for 19 their fees and costs; (2) Ms. Tan, class representative, for her incentive service award; 20 (3) Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, settlement administrator, for expenses to 21 notify class members of this settlement, process their claims, and distribute their payments; 22 (4) class members who opted into this settlement for the amount they paid for products 23 sold or shipped by any Defendant under La Pura or a similar brand name, subject to a pro 24 rata adjustment up to three times the amount they paid based on fund availabilities; and 25 (5) National Consumer Law Center, an American nonprofit and designated cy pres gift 26 recipient, for any leftover money from the common fund. See id. 27 Plaintiff’s settlement agreement with Konnektive is signed and dated August 2024. 28 ECF No. 492-4. In consideration for class members releasing their claims against it, 1 Konnektive agreed to pay either $2,000,000 or $5,000,000 into a common fund for the 2 same distribution as in Quick Box’s fund. See id. The amount depends on the agreed-to 3 bench trial before Magistrate Judge Leshner: if he finds that Plaintiff proved any of her 4 Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) claims against Konnektive by a preponderance 5 of the evidence and that no affirmative defense applies, Konnektive shall pay $5,000,000; 6 conversely, if Plaintiff does not prove any CLRA claim or Konnektive is otherwise found 7 not liable due to one of its defenses, Konnektive shall only pay $2,000,000 into the 8 common fund. See id. at 15–16. 9 III. FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS 10 A. Legal Standard 11 The Ninth Circuit has a “strong judicial policy” favoring class action settlements. 12 Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). Still, if a settlement 13 “would bind class members,” a court “may approve it only after a hearing and only on 14 finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). This is due to the 15 “inherent risk” that “class counsel may collude with the defendants, tacitly reducing the 16 overall settlement in return for a higher attorney’s fee,” which presents “unique due process 17 concerns for absent class members.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 18 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). 19 Factors to consider are whether: (A) the class representative and class counsel have 20 “adequately represented the class;” (B) the settlement was “negotiated at arm’s length;” 21 (C) the “relief provided for the class is adequate,” given, for instance, the “costs, risks, and 22 delay of trial and appeal;” and (D) the settlement “treats class members equitably relative 23 to each other.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). We further weigh: “(1) the strength of the plaintiff’s 24 case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk 25 of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; 26 (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience 27 and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction 28 of the class members.” Kim v. Allison, 8 F.4th 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2021). 1 B. Discussion 2 1. Adequate Representation 3 To serve as class representative, one must “fairly and adequately protect the interests 4 of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). This requirement serves to protect the “constitutional 5 due process concerns” of absent members who will be bound by a class action judgment. 6 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). “Resolution of two 7 questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have 8 any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and 9 their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Id. 10 Here, there is no conflict of interest between Ms. Tan, class counsel, and the class as 11 a whole. Over the past five years, Ms. Tan and class counsel have conveyed their abilities 12 to vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the class. This included class counsel 13 reviewing over 15,000 pages of documents in discovery, deposing over a dozen witnesses, 14 defending Ms. Tan in her deposition, briefing motions to dismiss (“MTDs”) and motions 15 for summary judgment (“MSJs”), mediating, and so on. See ECF Nos. 88, 130, 416, 482, 16 488, 492. This factor favors approving the class settlements. 17 2. Negotiated at Arm’s Length 18 When settlement agreements are “reached after mediation with a neutral mediator,” 19 they are “presumptively the product of a non-collusive, arms-length negotiation.” Saucillo 20 v. Peck, 25 F.4th 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2022). That is the case here. Plaintiff, Quick Box, 21 and Konnektive partook in the Court’s Early Neutral Evaluation before a Magistrate Judge 22 and then mediated again and again. See ECF Nos. 350, 481. These serious and informed 23 efforts over years of litigation ultimately led each side to accept an experienced mediator’s 24 settlement proposal. The Court finds these settlements to be the product of non-collusive, 25 arm’s-length negotiations. This factor, too, favors approval. 26 3. Adequate Relief 27 In determining whether the relief provided to a class is adequate, the Court weighs 28 the strength of plaintiff’s case, risks of further litigation, settlement amounts, and so forth. 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C); Kim, 8 F.4th at 1178. Plaintiff’s case has survived MTDs, 2 an MSJ, and obtained initial class certification, but, on the other hand, another MSJ, motion 3 to decertify the class, and motions to exclude Plaintiff’s expert testimonies were merely 4 mooted due to the settlements. See ECF Nos. 88, 130, 391, 416, 482. This suggests that the 5 case is relatively strong so far but by no means a slam dunk given the inherent risks in 6 trying to proceed to trial. On balance, then, these favor approval. See Jeter-Polk v. Casual 7 Male Store, LLC, No. 14-cv-0891-VAP-DTBx, 2016 WL 9450464, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 8 29, 2016) (finding “this factor favors final approval” when “the relative strength” of the 9 case was weighed against “the risks and costs associated with future complex litigation”); 10 Couser v. Comenity Bank, 125 F. Supp. 3d 1034, 1041 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (“It has been held 11 proper to take the bird in hand instead of a prospective flock in the bush.”). 12 Above all, the money favors approving these settlements. Quick Box agreed to pay 13 $5,500,000 and Konnektive will pay $2,000,000 or $5,000,000. ECF Nos. 488-4, 492-4. 14 Class counsel both declare that damages in this case total ~$6,400,000. ECF Nos. 487-1 15 ¶ 29; 487-2 ¶ 31; 488-1 ¶ 31; 488-2 ¶ 27; 489-1 ¶ 29; 489-2 ¶ 31; 492-1 ¶ 28; 492-3 ¶ 31. 16 After the agreed-to bench trial before Judge Leshner, which will result in Konnektive 17 paying either $2,000,000 or $5,000,000, the combined settlements will total $7,500,000 or 18 $10,500,000. At worst this is 117% of the maximum actual damages and, at best, 164%. 19 Courts routinely approve settlements for far less. See, e.g., In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. 20 Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he Settlement amount of almost $2 million 21 was roughly one-sixth of the potential recovery, which, given the difficulties in proving 22 the case, is fair and adequate.”); Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 306 F.R.D. 245, 256 23 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“[T]he agreed upon common fund represents between 27 percent and 11 24 percent of the total potential recovery. The Court is satisfied that these numbers are fair.”). 25 Indeed, even assuming the class recovered all its damages and had them trebled at trial, the 26 settlements before the Court are still safely within the wide ranges of fairness. 27 Finally, the settlements do not guarantee a recovery for attorney fees, costs, and 28 incentive awards, which are separate motions. Even if the Court grants those motions, all 1 members who opted into the settlements will receive their actual losses. See ECF No. 511. 2 Based on the ~16% take-up rate, this is a ~$136.50 average recovery per class member. 3 See ECF No. 502 ¶¶ 12, 17, 25–28. Depending on the outcome of the bench trial and final 4 accounting from the parties’ settlement administrator, each member may even receive a 5 pro rata increase up to two or three times their actual losses. See ECF No. 511. These are 6 meaningful recoveries, so this factor likewise favors approval. 7 4. Equitable Relief 8 Class action settlements ought to treat “class members equitably relative to each 9 other.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(D). Here, each class member who was billed for products 10 sold or shipped by any Defendant under La Pura or a similar brand name can recover the 11 amount they paid, subject to pro rata increases. See ECF Nos. 488-4, 492-4, 511. Because 12 each class member can receive their fair share of the cash, they are treated equitably relative 13 to each other. This factor also favors approval. 14 5. Discovery Completed and Stage of Proceedings 15 “Extensive discovery” and at least “one round of summary judgment proceedings” 16 enables a court to “find that counsel had a good grasp on the merits of their case” and to 17 “weigh this factor in favor of approval.” See Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 18 967 (9th Cir. 2009). That is the case here. Class counsel litigated this case for over three 19 years with Quick Box and over four years with Konnektive prior to settling with each of 20 them. See ECF Nos. 1, 350, 481. The parties produced over 15,000 pages of documents in 21 discovery and deposed over a dozen witnesses, including experts. See ECF Nos. 488, 492. 22 The parties also briefed two MSJs. See ECF Nos. 338, 416, 431, 482. This factor therefore 23 favors approval. 24 6. Class Counsel Experience and Views 25 “Parties represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to 26 produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome in litigation.” In re 27 Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 378 (9th Cir. 1995). “Great weight” is thus “accorded 28 to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely acquainted with the facts of the 1 underlying litigation.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 2 528 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). Here, class counsel both have extensive 3 experience litigating consumer law cases and have conveyed a high degree of competence 4 in this litigation. They strongly believe that the settlements with Quick Box and Konnektive 5 are fair, adequate, and reasonable. See ECF Nos. 488, 492. This factor favors approval. 6 7. Governmental Participant 7 “There is no governmental participant in this case, so this factor is neutral.” 8 McMorrow v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc., No. 17-cv-2327-BAS-JLB, 2022 WL 1056098, at *4 9 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2022). Indeed, “this factor weighs slightly in favor of final approval” 10 when nonparty “governmental officials served” with settlement notices, “as required by 11 CAFA” under 28 U.S.C. § 1715, do not object to their approval. Barr v. SelectBlinds LLC, 12 No. 22-cv-8326-SPG-PD, 2024 WL 5162609, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2024). That is the 13 case again here. There is no governmental party, and the nonparty governmental officials 14 that the administrator served with the settlement notices did not object to their approval. 15 See ECF Nos. 361, 501-1. This factor slightly favors approval or is, at a minimum, neutral. 16 8. Class Member Reactions to Proposed Settlements 17 The “absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement 18 raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are 19 favorable to the class members.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms., 221 F.R.D. at 529. The Court 20 approved the parties’ requested procedures for notifying members of their right to object 21 to or opt out of the settlements. ECF Nos. 483, 486. The administrator has since executed 22 these procedures, which satisfies due process. See ECF No. 502. The result: no one 23 objected to or opted out of the settlements. See id. This factor therefore favors approval. 24 See Testone v. Barlean’s Organic Oils, LLC, No. 19-cv-0169-RBM-BGS, 2023 WL 25 2375246, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2023) (finding this factor favors “final approval” when 26 there is a “strong claims rate, lack of objections, and low opt-out rate”). 27 On balance of the factors above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s settlement agreements 28 with Quick Box and Konnektive to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. It thus approves them. 1 IV. MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS 2 Having approved the settlements, the Court next considers the requests for attorney 3 fees, costs, and incentive awards. ECF Nos. 487, 489. For the settlement with Quick Box, 4 Plaintiff’s attorneys seek one-third of the $5,500,000 common fund ($1,833,333) as their 5 reasonable fees; $119,618 as their costs; and $3,000 as Ms. Tan’s incentive award. 6 See ECF No. 487. For the settlement with Konnektive, Plaintiff’s attorneys seek one-third 7 of the either $2,000,000 or $5,000,000 common fund ($666,666 or $1,666,666) as their 8 reasonable fees; $259,307 as their costs; and $3,000 as Ms. Tan’s incentive award. 9 See ECF No. 489. 10 A. Attorney Fees 11 “In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and 12 nontaxable costs that are authorized by law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). Courts have an 13 “independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable.” 14 Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941. “Where a settlement produces a common fund for the benefit 15 of the entire class, courts have discretion to employ either the lodestar method or the 16 percentage-of-recovery method.” Id. at 942. The “lodestar figure is calculated by 17 multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation 18 (as supported by adequate documentation) by a reasonable hourly rate for the region and 19 for the experience of the lawyer,” subject to an “upward or downward” departure based on 20 other “reasonable” factors like “the benefit obtained for the class.” Id. at 941–42. 21 “Many courts and commentators have recognized” that “the percentage of the 22 available fund analysis is the preferred approach in class action fee requests because it 23 more closely aligns the interests of the counsel and the class, i.e., class counsel directly 24 benefit from increasing the size of the class fund and working in the most efficient manner.” 25 Aichele v. City of Los Angeles, No. 12-cv-0863-DMG-FFMx, 2015 WL 5286028, at *5 26 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015) (listing cases). This Court agrees. 27 Next, courts “typically calculate 25% of the fund as the ‘benchmark’ for a reasonable 28 fee award, providing adequate explanation in the record of any ‘special circumstances’ 1 justifying a departure.” Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942. When assessing “the reasonableness of 2 the requested fees,” the “Ninth Circuit has approved” factors like: “(1) the results achieved; 3 (2) the risk of litigation; (3) the skill required and the quality of work; (4) the contingent 4 nature of the fee and the financial burden carried by the plaintiffs; and (5) awards made in 5 similar cases,” along with (6) the “reaction of the class” and (7) a cross-check “lodestar 6 analysis.” In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1046–48 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 7 The Court will consider each reasonableness factor in turn. 8 1. Results Achieved 9 “The overall result and benefit to the class from the litigation is the most critical 10 factor in granting a fee award.” Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1046. Here, the settlements 11 eclipse the total actual damages in this case regardless of the bench trial’s outcome. This 12 is a great achievement on behalf of the class and supports granting the requested fees. 13 2. Litigation Risk 14 “The risk that further litigation might result in Plaintiffs not recovering at all” is a 15 “significant factor in the award of fees.” Id. at 1046–47. Although Plaintiff’s case has 16 survived MTDs, an MSJ, and obtained initial class certification, another pending MSJ, 17 motion to decertify the class, and motions to exclude Plaintiff’s expert testimonies were 18 merely mooted due to the settlements. See ECF Nos. 88, 130, 391, 416, 482. Without these 19 settlements, Defendants will likely re-file those motions and, if necessary, move for further 20 pre-trial relief. Whether a jury would find in Plaintiff’s favor is also entirely uncertain, as 21 would the results of any ultimate appeals. The risk that Plaintiff would have recovered less, 22 if anything, supports granting the requested fees. 23 3. Skill Required 24 The “prosecution and management of a complex national class action requires 25 unique legal skills and abilities.” Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1047. Plaintiff’s case has 26 attained initial class certification and withstood MTDs and an MSJ, despite other alleged 27 weaknesses, which conveys her attorneys’ skills. This factor thus supports the requested 28 fees. 1 4. Contingent Fee 2 “The importance of assuring adequate representation for plaintiffs who could not 3 otherwise afford competent attorneys justifies providing those attorneys who do accept 4 matters on a contingent-fee basis a larger fee than if they were billing by the hour or on a 5 flat fee.” Id. at 1047. This suit began over five years ago and Plaintiff’s attorneys have 6 spent over 3,200 hours litigating this case without compensation. See ECF Nos. 487-3, 7 489-4, 489-5 (billing records). They have also advanced over $375,000 in litigation 8 expenses. See ECF Nos. 487-3, 489-6, 489-7, 489-8 (expense records). This substantial 9 opportunity cost and outlay, when there is a risk of no recovery, further supports awarding 10 the requested fees. 11 5. Awards in Similar Cases 12 In “most common fund cases,” the awarded fee “exceeds” the “benchmark of 25%.” 13 Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1047. This includes awarding one-third of common funds 14 as reasonable attorney fees. See Testone, 2023 WL 2375246, at *7 (awarding “one-third of 15 the common fund” as “reasonable attorneys’ fees” in a “food [mis]labeling” class action); 16 Clarke v. Insight Glob., Inc., No. 13-cv-0357-H-BLM, 2015 WL 13828417, at *7–8 (S.D. 17 Cal. Jan. 5, 2015) (awarding the same in a “wage and hour class action”). Therefore, 18 although the facts of this case are not identical to those cases, they suffice for the Court to 19 find this factor neutral. 20 6. Class Reaction 21 In response to the tens of thousands of notices provided to 99% of the class members, 22 which eventually specified that Plaintiff’s attorneys were seeking one-third of the common 23 funds for their fees, no one objected to or opted out of the settlements. See ECF Nos. 502, 24 511. This factor, then, supports the requested fees. 25 7. Lodestar Comparison 26 “Calculation of the lodestar, which measures the lawyers’ investment of time in the 27 litigation, provides a check on the reasonableness of the percentage award.” Vizcaino v. 28 Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s attorneys have spent over 1 3,200 hours litigating this case to date, which, at their hourly rates, results in a lodestar 2 exceeding $2,150,000. See ECF Nos. 487-3, 489-4, 489-5 (billing records). The requested 3 one-third fee amounts to either $2,499,999 or $3,499,999, depending on the outcome of 4 Plaintiff and Konnektive’s bench trial, which represents a multiplier of either 1.16 or 1.63 5 times the lodestar. “In similar [class action] cases, courts have approved multipliers ranging 6 between 1 and 4.” Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1048; see, e.g., In re Immune Response 7 Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1176 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (finding “a multiplier of 1.47” to 8 be “reasonable in light of the duration of the litigation and the risk assumed by counsel in 9 accepting this case on a contingency basis”). This lodestar cross-check suggests that the 10 requested one-third fee award is reasonable, particularly since the 2020–24 bills on record 11 exclude this year and the additional time needed to litigate the bench trial before Judge 12 Leshner. 13 On balance of the factors above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s attorneys’ requests for 14 one-third of the common funds to be reasonable fee awards. It thus approves them.1 15 B. Costs 16 “There is no doubt that an attorney who has created a common fund for the benefit 17 of the class is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable litigation expenses from that fund.” 18 Selk v. Pioneers Mem’l Healthcare Dist., 159 F. Supp. 3d 1164, 1181 (S.D. Cal. 2016). 19 Courts have found “meals, hotels, and transportation; photocopies; postage, telephone, and 20 fax; filing fees; messenger and overnight delivery; online legal research; class action 21 notices; experts, consultants, and investigators; and mediation fees” to be “reasonable and 22 necessary” litigation costs in class actions. In re Immune Response, 497 F. Supp. at 1177 23 (omitting numerical brackets). 24 25 1 The Court was not persuaded by Konnektive’s cursory opposition to Plaintiff’s attorneys’ 26 request for one-third of its common fund, which, instead of arguing that such-and-such 27 reasonableness factor supports a lesser recovery, basically argued that Plaintiff’s claims were weak. See generally ECF No. 493. Konnektive’s motion to seal materials in support 28 1 Here, Plaintiff’s attorneys request $119,618 and $259,307 for litigation costs with 2 Quick Box and Konnektive under the same preceding categories. ECF Nos. 487-3, 489-6, 3 489-7, 489-8. The Court finds these costs to be reasonable under the circumstances and 4 adequately documented. It thus approves them. 5 C. Incentive Awards 6 “Incentive awards are payments to class representatives for their service to the class 7 in bringing the lawsuit.” Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Sols. Inc., 715 F.3d 1157, 1163 8 (9th Cir. 2013). “In cases where the class receives a monetary settlement, the awards are 9 often taken from the class’s recovery.” Id. Courts must “scrutinize carefully the awards so 10 that they do not undermine the adequacy of the class representatives.” Id. After all, “if class 11 representatives expect routinely to receive special awards in addition to their share of the 12 recovery, they may be tempted to accept suboptimal settlements at the expense of the class 13 members whose interests they are appointed to guard.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 14 975 (9th Cir. 2003). In scrutinizing these awards, we consider “the number of named 15 plaintiffs receiving incentive payments, the proportion of the payments relative to the 16 settlement amount, and the size of each payment.” Id. at 977. 17 Here, the one named plaintiff, Ms. Tan, seeks to receive a $3,000 incentive payment 18 for each settlement with Quick Box and Konnektive. $3,000 is 0.05% of the $5,500,000 19 settlement with Quick Box and 0.15% or 0.06% of the $2,000,000 or $5,000,000 settlement 20 with Konnektive. The Court finds Ms. Tan’s two $3,000 incentive awards totaling $6,000 21 eminently reasonable. This is because Defendants deposed her, moved for sanctions against 22 her and her attorneys (which the Court denied, see ECF Nos. 109–111, 115), and because 23 Ms. Tan has otherwise helped further the entire class’s interest over the last five years in 24 this rather complex litigation. The Court therefore awards the requested incentive awards. 25 See In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 947–48 (9th Cir. 2015) 26 (affirming “$5,000” as “reasonable” awards for each of the nine “class representatives” 27 when the “$45,000 in incentive awards makes up a mere .17% of the total settlement 28 fund”). 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions for Final Approval of Class 3 Action Settlements, ECF Nos. 488, 492; GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions For Attorney Fees, 4 Costs, and Incentive Awards, ECF Nos. 487, 489; and DENIES AS MOOT Konnektive’s 5 Sealing Motion, ECF No. 494. As such, to be paid out of the common funds in line with 6 the settlement agreements, the Court ORDERS as follows: 7 1. This Order incorporates both settlement agreements, including the exhibits 8 and definitions. See ECF No. 488-4 (Quick Box); ECF No. 492-4 (Konnektive). 9 2. For the settlement with Quick Box, class counsel shall receive one-third of the 10 $5,500,000 common fund—$1,833,333—as their reasonable fees, $119,618 as their costs, 11 and Ms. Tan shall receive a $3,000 award. 12 3. For the settlement with Konnektive, class counsel shall receive one-third of 13 either the $2,000,000 or $5,000,000 common fund—$666,666 or $1,666,666—as their 14 reasonable fees, $259,307 as their costs, and Ms. Tan shall receive a $3,000 award. For the 15 final amount of this common fund only, if Judge Leshner finds that Plaintiff proved any of 16 her CLRA claims against Konnektive by a preponderance of the evidence and that no 17 affirmative defense applies, Konnektive shall pay $5,000,000; conversely, if Plaintiff does 18 not prove any CLRA claim or Konnektive is otherwise found not liable due to one of its 19 defenses, Konnektive shall instead pay $2,000,000 into the common fund. 20 4. For both agreements, the settlement administrator, Epiq Class Action and 21 Claims Solutions, shall receive its expenses to notify class members of the settlements, 22 process their claims, and distribute their payments. Class members who opted into the 23 settlements shall receive the amount they paid for products sold or shipped by any 24 Defendant under La Pura or a similar brand name, subject to a pro rata increase up to three 25 times the amount they paid based on fund availabilities. National Consumer Law Center, 26 an American nonprofit and designated cy pres gift recipient, shall receive any leftover 27 money from the common funds. 28 5. Class members who did not affirmatively opt out are enjoined from partaking 1 || as a plaintiff, claimant, or class member in all other proceedings in all jurisdictions based 2 the released claims. 3 6. Approving these two class settlements does not establish any party’s legal 4 || violation or other wrongdoing. 5 7. The parties may consent to Judge Leshner’s jurisdiction for resolving any 6 || disputes over the full execution of this Order and Final Judgment by signing and lodging 7 attached consent form by July 10, 2025. 8 8. The Court, finding no reason to delay entering this Order, directs the Clerk to 9 || enter Final Judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH 10 || PREJUDICE. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: July 3, 2025 NO 13 DE | 14 Honorable Linda Lopez 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
te
SOUUNTIHTEERDN S TDAISTTERSI DCITS TORFI CCATL CIFOOURRNTI A
LEANNE TAN, individually and on behalf of all CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF others similarly situated, SETTLEMENT JURISDICTION BY A Plaintiff, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER OF REFERENCE v. Case No.: 20cv1082-LL-DDL QUICK BOX, LLC, et al., Defendants.
CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The parties, having settled this case, by signing below further voluntarily consent to the jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner to decide: (1) all disputes regarding settlement terms arising during the documentation thereof not resolved by the parties themselves; and (2) all disputes arising out of the terms of the settlement agreement once completed. The parties further consent and agree that any decision by the Magistrate Judge regarding any such dispute(s) shall be FINAL AND BINDING, WITH NO APPEAL.
The parties intend to provide Magistrate Judge Leshner with plenary authority to achieve finality regarding disputes, reduce the risk of future litigation, and provide a venue to solve disputes with a minimum of expense. As part of his authority, Magistrate Judge Leshner may impose any sanction or penalty he deems appropriate, which, in his sole discretion, he believes is commensurate with the nature and severity of the dispute and resolution thereof. This authority includes, but is not limited to, monetary and/or injunctive relief and discretion to impose sanctions or penalties including imposition of any sanction up to and including contempt of court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(e). This consent is valid for one year from the date this order is signed by the District Judge. Signatures of All Parties and Attorneys Date
circle one each: (Plaintiff/Defendant) and (Attorney/Client)
ORDER OF REFERENCE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be referred to the Honorable David D. Leshner, United States Magistrate Judge, to resolve all settlement-related disputes as descrived above, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and the foregoing consent of the parties.