Sandra Palmer v. Sprint Nextel Corporation

MEMORANDUM

Ricardo H. Nigaglioni appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment approving a class action settlement and attorney’s fee award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a determination whether to approve a class action settlement and an award of attorney’s fees, Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving an attorney’s fees award in the sum of 28% of the gross common fund recovery. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing the relevant factors and noting that 25% of common fund is a benchmark award); see also Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1258 (9th Cir.2000) (“We note that the choice of whether to base an attorneys’ fee award on either net or gross recovery should not make a difference so long as the end result is reasonable.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving an incentive payment to the class representative in light of the representative’s work on behalf of the class. See Rodriguez v. West Publ'g Corp., 568 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir.2009) (“Incentive…