James Keller v. Gaspari Nutrition Inc, 2:11-cv-06158

Keller sued Gaspari Nutrition in a California class action seeking relief under consumer protection laws related to Novedex XT recall.
Settlement provides a $1,000,000 non-reversionary common fund: $750,000 cash and $250,000 in Gaspari Viridex XT product.
No release of personal injury claims; restitutionary relief limited to monetary refunds or product substitutions for class members.
Class members may claim $20 per bottle with proof of purchase (up to four bottles) or $10 per bottle without proof with a signed purchase declaration; alternatives include up to two Viridex XT bottles.
Notice procedures included a settlement website, toll-free line, press outreach, and broad internet advertising; as of claims cutoff, thousands of views and hundreds of claims were submitted.
Court preliminarily approved the settlement; the current motion requests final approval and approval of attorneys’ fees, costs, and an incentive award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether final approval is appropriate	Class recovery is fair given risks and costs of continued litigation.	Settlement is fair but merits further scrutiny of terms and class viability.	Final approval granted; terms fair, adequate, and reasonable.
Whether attorney fees are reasonable	Fees at 25% of the common fund reflect customary benchmark and work performed.	Fees may be excessive given size of fund and objections.	25% fee approved as reasonable and consistent with the benchmark.
Whether the named plaintiff's incentive award is appropriate	Keller contributed time and effort protecting the class; award justified.	Incentive awards should be limited to ensure funds favor class members.	Incentive award of $3,000 approved.
Whether costs are reasonable and properly allocated	Costs align with standard practice and reflect actual expenditures.	Costs should be scrutinized to ensure reasonableness.	Costs of $9,004.27 approved.
Whether class certification for settlement purposes remains appropriate	Class satisfies Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes.	Certification could be challenged at trial; court should certify for settlement only.	Court reaffirmed prior certification for settlement purposes.

Torrisi v. Tucson Electric Power Co., 8 F.3d 1375 (9th Cir. 1993) (multi-factor test for settlement fairness; one factor may drive outcome)
Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership, 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) (courts may grant settlement approval with adequate information and discovery)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard for evaluating class action settlements and fairness)
National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative v. DirectTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (presumption of fairness when aggressive arm's-length negotiations and counsel experience)
In re Mego Financial Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) (counsel experience and absence of collusion support approval)
In re Omnivision Technologies, Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (considerations for evaluating settlement in complex actions)
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (proper cy pres distribution considerations and factors)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (incentive awards must be reasonable and tied to class benefit)