Wininger

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated cases, we consider whether the district court properly awarded attorneys’ fees to counsel for both the class representatives (“Plaintiffs’ counsel”) and objectors (“Objectors’ counsel”), following the settlement of the underlying class action litigation. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The objectors appeal the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs’ counsel, arguing that the mandate pronounced by a prior panel of this court, Wininger v. SI Management L.P. (“Wininger I”), 301 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.2002), precluded the district court from awarding fees for any work that did not contribute to stopping the 1996 Plan. Plaintiffs’ counsel vigorously disagrees with this interpretation.

District courts must carry out the terms of a mandate, and may not “ ‘vary it or examine it for any other purpose than execution.’” United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178, 181 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255 , 16 S.Ct. 291 , 40 L.Ed. 414 (1895)). However, “ ‘under certain circumstances, an order issued after remand may deviate from the mandate if it is…