From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hefler v. Pekoc

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 20, 2020
No. 19-15140 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020)

Summary

affirming district court's rejection of objection to attorney fee award

Summary of this case from Urena v. Cent. Cal. Almond Growers Ass'n

Opinion

No. 19-15140

04-20-2020

GARY HEFLER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THOMAS PEKOC, Objector-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 4:16-cv-05479-JST MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 16, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE, District Judge.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. --------

Thomas Pekoc appeals the district court's rejection of his objection to the award of attorneys' fees to Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLF (BLB&G). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pekoc raised only one argument to the district court: that the fee agreement between lead plaintiff Union Asset Management Holding AG and BLB&G was unreasonable because BLB&G had previously settled a class action for an overall fee of 8.5% of the total award, in contrast to the 20% award here. This argument fails. The district court found that BLB&G ultimately received a 20% award in the earlier class action, see In re Merck & Co., Sec., Derivative & "ERISA" Litig., MDL No. 1658, 2016 WL 11575090, at *5-6 (D.N.J. June 28, 2016), which supports the court's determination that the fee award in this case was reasonable.

Pekoc forfeited the additional arguments he now raises on appeal, see In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010), and does not explain why we should consider those arguments despite the forfeiture. Therefore, we decline to do so.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hefler v. Pekoc

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 20, 2020
No. 19-15140 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020)

affirming district court's rejection of objection to attorney fee award

Summary of this case from Urena v. Cent. Cal. Almond Growers Ass'n
Case details for

Hefler v. Pekoc

Case Details

Full title:GARY HEFLER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THOMAS PEKOC…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 20, 2020

Citations

No. 19-15140 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020)

Citing Cases

Vataj v. Johnson

This 2% aggregate recovery is consistent with the 2-3% average recovery that the parties identified in other…

Urena v. Central Cal. Almond Growers Assn.

The Court will review Camacho's objection even though the settlement administrator indicated that the…