Curran v. Oakland  ·  2025-12-04  ·  N.D. California  ·  pin 327 F.3d at 938

“named plaintiffs … are eligible for reasonable incentive payments”

Munoz v. RDO Equipment Co.  ·  2025-07-30  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 327 F.3d at 938

“[N]amed plaintiffs . . . are eligible for reasonable incentive payments.”

Abrams v. Sequium Asset Solutions LLC  ·  2023-03-31  ·  W.D. Washington  ·  pin 327 F.3d at 938

“The rules governing both reduction and enhancement have become increasingly 11 refined over time, and we have therefore required careful explanations by district courts of 12 statutory fee determinations.”

Arredondo v. Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc.  ·  2022-02-09  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 327 F.3d at 938

“[N]amed plaintiffs . . . are eligible for reasonable incentive payments.”

Newell v. Ensign United States Drilling (California) Inc.  ·  2021-04-02  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 327 F.3d at 938

“[N]amed plaintiffs . . . are eligible for reasonable incentive payments.”

Castro v. Paragon Industries, Inc.  ·  2020-04-27  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 327 F.3d at 938

“[N]amed plaintiffs . . . are eligible for reasonable incentive payments.”

Alberto v. GMRI, Inc.  ·  2008-06-24  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 327 F.3d at 938

“We have characterized these inherent dangers of class settlements as encompassing the possibility that ‘the agreement ... is the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties.’ ”

Moore v. United States  ·  2005-01-31  ·  Federal Claims  ·  pin 327 F.3d at 938

“If fees are unreasonably high, the likelihood is that the defendant obtained an economically beneficial concession with regard to the merit provisions.”