Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, 3:14-cv-00582

Background

Consumer-deception class action alleging Samsung rigged Galaxy S4 phones to boost CPU/GPU performance when commonly used benchmarking apps ran.
After prolonged litigation (bench trial on arbitration formation, denial of arbitration affirmed on appeal), only a UCL "unfair"-prong omission claim remained.
Parties reached a proposed settlement for a certified California settlement class of buyers of 16 GB Galaxy S4 phones from April–July 2013 (≈367,000 members).
Settlement terms: $2.8 million cash fund (up to $10 per valid claim), fees/costs/incentive to be paid from the fund, cy pres distribution to the Samuelson Clinic, and a 3‑year injunctive provision.
Court granted final approval, approved cy pres and injunction, rejected inclusion of injunctive relief in fee valuation, awarded attorneys’ fees of $840,000 (30% of the $2.8M fund), reimbursed $101,138.76 in litigation expenses, approved up to $155,500 in administration costs, and awarded a $3,000 incentive payment to the named plaintiff.
The lone objector (Helfand) was found not to have standing and his objection was overruled.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final approval — fairness of settlement	Settlement provides adequate monetary relief, injunctive relief, and cy pres; negotiated at arm's length	Settlement is fair and reasonable given litigation risks	Approved: class certification and final approval granted under Rule 23(e) and Ninth Circuit factors (Bluetooth/Churchill Village)
Notice adequacy	Notice plan (email, publications, website, telephone support) was sufficient	N/A (no challenge)	Notice satisfied Rule 23(e)(1); best practicable notice provided
Valuation for attorneys’ fees — inclusion of injunctive relief	Counsel relied on expert valuation to include injunctive relief, claiming a $13.394M total settlement value and sought ~10.44% ($1.398M)	Samsung argued injunctive relief valuation should not inflate common fund for fee calculation	Court rejected including injunctive relief in the common‑fund valuation (Staton); awarded 30% of the actual $2.8M fund ($840,000) as reasonable
Fee methodology — lodestar vs. percentage	Counsel asserted lodestar supports requested fee (lodestar ≈ $1.95M) and that percentage based on inflated total supported request	Samsung contested valuation and adequacy of lodestar detail	Court declined to rely on lodestar (insufficient detailed time records) and used percentage method (30%)
Costs and administration expenses	Requested reimbursement of $101,138.76 in expenses; admin costs up to $155,500	N/A	Expenses reimbursed ($101,138.76); settlement administration costs approved up to $155,500
Incentive award to class representative	Norcia sought $7,500 for >100 hours of work and testimony	Lower award more appropriate relative to class recovery	Court awarded $3,000 as a reasonable incentive payment
Standing of objector (Helfand)	Objector challenged settlement; claimed ownership of two S4 phones	Parties questioned objector's class membership and evidence	Court found Helfand not credible and lacking standing; objection overruled

Key Cases Cited

Staton v. Boeing Company, 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (injunctive relief generally excluded from common‑fund valuation for fee awards)
In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (factors and standards for determining fairness of class settlements)
Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (factors for settlement fairness review)
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (percentage‑of‑recovery benchmark and lodestar multiplier guidance)
Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) (cy pres distributions must bear substantial nexus to class interests)
In re Washington Public Power Supply Sys. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) (no presumption in favor of lodestar or percentage methods)
Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (incentive awards are typical and may be appropriate)
In re Online DVD‑Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming reasonableness of modest incentive awards)