RYAN RODRIGUEZ V. WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION, No. 09-56278 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al., No. 09-56278 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc Plaintiffs - Appellees, MEMORANDUM * v. GEORGE SCHNEIDER, Class Member; et al., Objectors - Appellants. RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al., No. 09-56314 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. SARAH SIEGEL, Class Member; et al., Objectors - Appellants. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al., No. 09-56500 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. ROBERT JOSEPH GAUDET, Jr., Objector - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 5, 2012 ** Pasadena, California Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. George Schneider, Jonathan M. Slomba, James Puntumapanitch, Justin Head, and Ryan Helfrich (collectively, the Schneider Objectors ), Sarah Siegel, Evans & Mullinix, P.A., Jennifer Brown McElroy, Daniel M. Schafer, David Oriol, and Jason Tingle (collectively, the Siegel Objectors ), and pro se objector Robert Joseph Gaudet Jr. appeal from the district court s August 7, 2009 order denying ** The panel unanimously concludes that Appeal Nos. 09-56314 and 0956500 are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). -2- them attorneys fees in whole or in part. The objectors contend that they are entitled to such fees for their efforts in securing $325,000 to the class as a result of the district court s rejection of the class representatives requests for incentive awards. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award fees to the Siegel Objectors and Gaudet. The district court reasonably concluded that the Siegel Objectors and Gaudet did not meaningfully argue that the incentive awards should be voided because they created a conflict of interest, which was the argument that ultimately prevailed, see Rodriguez v. W. Publ g Corp. (Rodriguez I), 563 F.3d 948, 958, 963 (9th Cir. 2009), and therefore did not substantially enhance[] the benefits to the class under the settlement, see Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Nor does the district court s award of $8,125 to the Schneider Objectors constitute an abuse of discretion. In light of the broad deference accorded the district court to determine whether and in what amount to award fees, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983), we cannot say that the district court s finding that the Schneider Objectors contributions were minimal, or its determination that $8,125 constituted a reasonable fee award, was clearly -3- erroneous. See, e.g., Riordan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.