FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 16 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHAD M. CARLSEN; SHASTA L.
CARLSEN; CARL POPHAM; MARY
POPHAM, husbands and wives, No. 12-35571
individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated Washington families, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00246-LRS
Plaintiffs-Appellees, MEMORANDUM*
v.
GLOBAL CLIENT SOLUTIONS,
LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability
company; ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BANK & TRUST, a Colorado
financial institution,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Honorable Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BURY, District Judge.***
Global Client Solutions, LLC, and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust
(Appellants) appeal the district court’s order granting the Class (Appellees) motion
for approval of attorney fees and costs pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. We affirm.
On August 2, 2009, Appellees filed a class action alleging violations of
Washington’s Debt Adjusting Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 18.28, and Washington’s
Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 19.86. On January 31, 2012, a
Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release was filed. Appellees filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The parties
negotiated a Settlement Agreement on the merits which involved a full refund of
all fees collected by Appellants to the members of the Appellee class, as well as
payment of the class administration expenses. Appellees also filed a Motion to
Appoint Special Master to Determine Reasonable Attorney Fees under Rule
54(d)(2)(D). The court entered an Order preliminarily approving the class
settlement, issued a class notice, set a fairness hearing, and entered an Order
appointing a special master to determine reasonable attorney fees. The Special
Master entered a fee award based on the Appellees’ lodestar calculation of
***
The Honorable David C. Bury, United States Senior District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
2
$1,092,098.10. The Special Master recommended a multiplier of 1.65, resulting in
a final award of $1,831.015.04. Appellants filed objections to the Special Master’s
report (Report). Based on the Report and the Settlement Agreement, Appellees
filed a motion for attorney fees and costs. The court entered a final order and
judgment approving the class settlement. The court also entered an order granting
and approving attorney fees as recommended by the Report.
The district court properly conducted a de novo review of the Appellants’
objections to the conclusions of law derived from the factual findings in the
Report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(4). The objections preserved Appellants’ right to
appeal.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the
application of the 1.65 multiplier was warranted under Washington law because of
the unusually high risks of the case and the quality of work in an exceptional case.
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
the risk was not eliminated until the Settlement Agreement was signed and
approved by the court.
AFFIRMED.
3