b"Page 12FBA/OC Pitfalls in Class Settlementssociate in the firms San Francisco office.(Continued from page 11)1944 F.3d 1035, 1047 (9th Cir. 2019).sentative by creating a conflict of interest be- 2944 F.3d at 1047.tweentherepresentativeandtheotherclass members. 14 Thoughincentiveawardsrarely3 SeeFrankv.Gaos,139S.Ct.1041,1046 bar approval of a class settlement, courts rou- (2019).tinely adjust the amount based on the facts of the case. Courts have decreased incentive pay- 4Id.ments when the payments were not proportion-al to the relief received by other class members5 In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., andwhentheactualworkperformed,orrisk654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011).undertaken by the class representative did not substantiate the incentive award. 15 6 SeeRoes1-2v.SFBSCManagement,LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1049-1050 (9th Cir. 2019).Therefore,whenseekingapprovalforaclass settlement, practitioners should clearly demon- 7 See Kutzman v. Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc., stratehow theincentiveawardrelates totheNo. 118CV00755AWIJLT, 2020 WL 406768, atwork performed by the class representative and*13 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2020)are proportional to other class members relief. 8Benitezv.W.Milling,LLC,No.1:18-CV-Although parties and counsel may feel like they01484-SKO,2020WL309200,at*12(E.D. arenearingthefinishlinewhenclassactionCal. Jan. 21, 2020).settlementsarereached,thebarforclassac-tion settlement approval is high, and courts are9 Id. not afraid to send counsel back to the drawing boardon particular settlement components or10 See Azar v. Blount Int'l, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-todenysettlementapprovalentirely.Antici- 0483-SI, 2019 WL 7372658, at *9 (D. Or. Dec. pating the above pitfalls in settlement negotia- 31, 2019) (the parties omission of a clear sail-tionsanddraftingwillhelpensureasmoothing clause indicated that no collusion oc-settlement approval process and insulate suchcurred).approval from reversal on appeal.11 In re Baby Prod. Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d 163,172(3dCir.2013)(discussingcourts skepticismofreversionaryclausesandthe benefits of cy pres recipients in contrast). 12No. 19-CV-5460 (JSR), 2019 WL 6798980, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2019) (denying pre-liminary approval on multiple grounds); see *StevenD.AllisonandSamrahR.Mahmoudalso Raffin v. Medicredit, Inc., No. arepartnersintheOrangeCountyofficeofCV154912MWFPJWX, 2018 WL 8621204, at Troutman Pepper. Mary Kate Kamka is an as- (Continued on page 14)"