Ryan Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. GEORGE SCHNEIDER, Class Member; et al., Objectors -

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; et
al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
GEORGE SCHNEIDER, Class Member;
et al.,
Objectors - Appellants.
No. 09-56278
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc
MEMORANDUM*
RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; et
al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
SARAH SIEGEL, Class Member; et al.,
Objectors - Appellants.
No. 09-56314
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc
FILED
AUG 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

The panel unanimously concludes that Appeal Nos. 09-56314 and 09-**
56500 are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2).
-2-
RYAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; et
al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ROBERT JOSEPH GAUDET, Jr.,
Objector - Appellant.
No. 09-56500
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
George Schneider, Jonathan M. Slomba, James Puntumapanitch, Justin
Head, and Ryan Helfrich (collectively, the “Schneider Objectors”), Sarah Siegel,
Evans & Mullinix, P.A., Jennifer Brown McElroy, Daniel M. Schafer, David Oriol,
and Jason Tingle (collectively, the “Siegel Objectors”), and pro se objector Robert
Joseph Gaudet Jr. appeal from the district court’s August 7, 2009 order denying

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
them attorneys’ fees in whole or in part. The objectors contend that they are
entitled to such fees for their efforts in securing $325,000 to the class as a result of
the district court’s rejection of the class representatives’ requests for incentive
awards. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award fees to
the Siegel Objectors and Gaudet. The district court reasonably concluded that the
Siegel Objectors and Gaudet did not meaningfully argue that the incentive awards
should be voided because they created a conflict of interest, which was the
argument that ultimately prevailed, see Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.
(Rodriguez I), 563 F.3d 948, 958, 963 (9th Cir. 2009), and therefore did not
“substantially enhance[] the benefits to the class under the settlement,” see
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002).
Nor does the district court’s award of $8,125 to the Schneider Objectors
constitute an abuse of discretion. In light of the broad deference accorded the
district court to determine whether and in what amount to award fees, see Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983), we cannot say that the district court’s
finding that the Schneider Objectors’ contributions were minimal, or its
determination that $8,125 constituted a reasonable fee award, was clearly

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
erroneous. See, e.g., Riordan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 999,
1008 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --