Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 28, 2021

In re E-3 Systems Litigation

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:19-cv-01453
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Class ActionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jose Franco v. E-3 Systems, Judge Gilliam directed supplemental briefing about a proposed $5,000 class-representative incentive award.

Who this affects

Jose Franco’s request for a class-representative incentive award is directly affected because he must provide additional information. The order also concerns the class members and E-3 Systems in the underlying litigation.

What happened

In Jose Franco v. E-3 Systems, Jose Franco asked the court to approve a $5,000 incentive award for serving as the class representative. The opinion says this was about seven times the average class member’s recovery.

The court said it must carefully review incentive awards, including the plaintiff’s efforts to protect the class, the benefits to the class, and the time and effort spent on the case. It wanted more information about Franco’s involvement, the tasks he performed, and the number of hours he spent.

The court directed Franco to submit no more than three pages of supplemental briefing and a declaration containing those details by June 4, 2021. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not decide the incentive-award request in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In re E-3 Systems Litigation · No. 4:19-cv-01453
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
May 28, 2021

Background

Jose Franco sought approval of a $5,000 incentive award for serving as the class representative. The court stated that the proposed award was approximately seven times the recovery of the average class member.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it must scrutinize all incentive awards. Relevant considerations include the plaintiff’s actions to protect the class’s interests, the extent to which the class benefited from those actions, and the time and effort the plaintiff spent pursuing the litigation.

The court was particularly interested in Franco’s involvement in the litigation, including the tasks he performed and an estimate of the hours he spent.

Order

The court directed Franco to submit supplemental briefing of no more than three pages and a declaration providing the requested details by June 4, 2021. This order directed further briefing and did not state whether the court approved or denied the proposed incentive award.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.