The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 IN RE CALIFORNIA GASOLINE SPOT Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC
8 MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED
9 MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS
10 Re: Dkt. No. 635
11
12
13 On March 14, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the class
14 action settlement and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees,
15 costs, and service awards for the representative Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 631.1) As relevant here, the
16 Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for service awards because Plaintiffs failed to justify the requested
17 awards with any evidence demonstrating the quantity or quality of the Settlement Class
18 Representatives’ service. (Id. at 18.) Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a renewed
19 motion for service awards and renewed motion for service awards is now pending before the
20 Court. (Dkt. No. 635.) Having considered the motion and the relevant legal authority, the Court
21 concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion.2
22 DISCUSSION
23 In evaluating a request for a service award (also referred to as an “incentive award”) in
24 class action settlement approvals, courts consider “the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the
25
1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
26
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
27
2 Although the Court entered final judgment on March 24, 2025, the Court retained jurisdiction
1 interests of the class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions ... [and] the
2 amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation.” Staton v. Boeing Co.,
3 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003). Incentive awards “are intended to compensate class
4 representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputation risk
5 undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes to recognize their willingness to act as a private
6 attorney general.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2009). The
7 decision to approve an incentive award is a matter within the court’s discretion. In re Mego Fin.
8 Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir. 2000).
9 In determining whether an incentive award is reasonable, courts generally consider:
10 (1) the risk to the class representative in commencing a suit, both
financial and otherwise; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulties
11 encountered by the class representative; (3) the amount of time and
effort spent by the class representative; (4) the duration of the
12 litigation; and (5) the personal benefit (or lack thereof) enjoyed by the
class representative as a result of the litigation.
13
Covillo v. Specialtys Café, No. C–11–00594-DMR, 2014 WL 954516, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6,
14
2014) (quoting Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995)). A
15
class representative must justify an incentive award through “evidence demonstrating the quality
16
of plaintiff’s representative service,” such as “substantial efforts taken as class representative to
17
justify the discrepancy between [his] award and those of the unnamed plaintiffs.” Alberto v.
18
GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 669 (E.D. Cal. 2008). Further, district courts must evaluate each
19
incentive award individually. See Staton, 327 F.3d at 977.
20
Plaintiffs seek incentive awards of $5,000 each for the three Settlement Class
21
Representatives: Fricke-Parks Press, Inc., Bogard Construction, Inc., and Ritual Coffee Roasters,
22
Inc. Plaintiffs contend the awards are warranted because they (1) assumed reputational and
23
financial risk by publicly associating their businesses with litigation challenging major players in
24
the California gasoline market; and (2) spent dozens of hours over nearly five years responding to
25
discovery, sitting for depositions, and coordinating with counsel through class certification and
26
ultimately a successful mediation. The Settlement Class Representatives have now submitted
27
declarations in support of the request attesting they spent between 20-59 hours on the litigation.
1 (Dkt. No. 635-1, Fricke-Parks Decl. at {| 5-7 (attesting to over 16 hours reviewing and compiling
2 || documents, a half-day deposition, and over 20 phone conferences with counsel); Dkt. No. 635-2,
3 || Bogard Decl. at § 7 (attesting to “no less than 50 hours over the course of the litigation); Dkt. No.
4 || 635-3, Ritual Decl. at J 10 (“In total, Ritual spent approximately fifty-nine hours participating in
5 || this litigation.”).
6 Given the above, the Court is satisfied the Settlement Class Representatives’ individual
7 contributions to this case warrant an incentive award. Further, the requested $5,000 incentive
8 || award is reasonable and does not “undermine the adequacy of the class representatives.” Radcliffe
9 v. Experian Info. Sols. Inc., 715 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Court
10 || GRANTS Plaintiff's motion and awards the three Settlement Class Representatives Fricke-Parks
11 Press, Inc., Bogard Construction, Inc., and Ritual Coffee Roasters, $5,000 each.
12 This Order disposes of Docket No. 635.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 |] Dated: April 30, 2025
□□□ fiJed States District Judge ff
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28