Dardarian v. Officemax North America, Inc, 4:11-cv-00947

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action under California's Song‑Beverly Credit Card Act alleging OfficeMax recorded ZIP codes at point of sale; OfficeMax stopped the practice after Pineda and before suit was filed.
Parties negotiated a settlement awarding class members $5 and $10 merchandise vouchers and agreed on a fee range: a floor of $200,000 and a ceiling of $500,000 to be set by the court after voucher redemption.
More than $600,000 in vouchers were distributed, but only $40,020 in face value was redeemed by the end of the redemption period; many $5 vouchers likely went to non‑class customers.
Plaintiffs sought $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs; OfficeMax opposed any award above $200,000 (the agreed floor).
The Court considered the Settlement Agreement, CAFA (28 U.S.C. § 1712) regarding coupon settlements, and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 and ultimately awarded $200,000.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement vouchers are "coupons" for CAFA purposes	Vouchers should not be treated as coupons such that CAFA redemption‑value rules apply; fees may be set under state law	Vouchers are coupon‑like and CAFA applies; fee award must consider redemption value	The Court held vouchers are effectively coupons and CAFA applies
Whether attorney fees must be based on coupon redemption value under CAFA	Fees may be awarded under Cal. CCP § 1021.5 (lodestar) so CAFA redemption rule need not govern	CAFA § 1712 requires fees attributable to coupons be based on value of redeemed coupons	Court applied CAFA and considered redemption value when setting fees
Whether section 1021.5 lodestar can justify $500,000 award	Plaintiffs argued lodestar under § 1021.5 would support $500,000	OfficeMax argued the fee would be grossly disproportionate given low redemption and voluntary cessation	Court declined lodestar calculation because CAFA framework controlled and found plaintiffs failed to substantiate hours for $500,000; lodestar not necessary to decide but would not support $500,000 if used
Appropriate fee amount given negotiated range and facts	Requested $500,000 consistent with settlement ceiling and counsel's work	Argued $200,000 floor is reasonable; $500,000 disproportionate given only $40,020 redeemed and limited relief	Court awarded the $200,000 agreed floor as reasonable and denied the request for more

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (court must give concise but clear explanation for fee awards)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (appellate review of district court fee awards for abuse of discretion)
In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig., 716 F.3d 1173 (CAFA requires fee awards attributable to coupons be based on redemption value)
Pineda v. Williams‑Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 524 (ZIP code is "personal identification information" under § 1747.08)
Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 1309 (court may not conduct in camera review of billing records without making them available to opponent)