Clrb Hanson Industries, LLC v. Weiss & Associates, Pc

MEMORANDUM

Weiss & Associates, P.C. appeals from the district court’s approval of a class action settlement, approval of the notice to the class of the proposed settlement, and award of attorney’s fees. We affirm.

District courts “must direct notice [of a proposed settlement] in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(1). Our cases require that a settlement notice “describe[ ] the aggregate amount of the settlement fund and the plan for allocation,” Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 962 (9th Cir. 2009), but do not require that such notice allow class members to estimate their individual recovery. Id.; Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370 , 1374 (9th Cir.1993); Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173, 1177-78 (9th Cir.1977). It is undisputed that the notice in this case specified the aggregate amount of the settlement and described the plan for allocation to the class. The notice met the requirements of Rule 23(e)(1).

The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in approving the settlement. See Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 963-64 . Plaintiffs’ motion for approval identified and applied the…