IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING

Transcription

1 THE HONORABLE VERONICA ALICEA-GALVÁN Department Noted for Consideration: October, 0, :0 a.m. With Oral Argument IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING 0 0 SCOTT GINGRASSO, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, CEDAR GROVE COMPOSTING FACILITY; CEDAR GROVE, INC., et al., Defendants. NO KNT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 0 0 I. INTRODUCTION... II. STATEMENT OF FACTS... III. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT... A. The settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.... Plaintiffs likelihood of success supports final approval.... The settlement terms and conditions support final approval.... The amount of discovery and evidence supports final approval.... The positive recommendation and extensive experience of counsel support final approval.... Future expense and likely duration of litigation support final approval.... The reaction of the Class supports final approval.... The presence of good faith and absence of collusion support final approval... B. Class Members received the best notice practicable... C. The amount of attorneys fees requested is fair and reasonable...0 D. Reimbursement of Class Counsel s litigation costs and notice costs is reasonable... E. The requested class representative incentive awards are reasonable... IV. CONCLUSION... V. LCR (B)()(B)(VI) CERTIFICATION... ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS i CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATE CASES Page No. 0 0 Barnett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No (King Co., July 0, 00)... Bowles v. Dep t of Ret. Sys., Wn.d ()...0, Pickett v. Holland Am. Line-Westours, Inc., Wn.d (00)...,,,, Splater v. Thermal Ease Hydronic Sys., Inc., No (King Co., July, 00)... FEDERAL CASES Carideo v. Dell, Inc., No. 0-cv-0, ECF No. (W.D. Wash. Dec., 00)...0 Hartman v. Comcast Business Commc ns, LLC, No. 0-0, ECF No. 0 (W.D. Wash Dec., 0)...0 In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., F. Supp. d (S.D. Cal. 00)...0 In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., F. Supp. (N.D. Cal. )... In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d (th Cir.000)... In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d (th Cir. 00)...0 In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., F.d (th Cir. 0)... Pelletz v. Weyerhauser Co., F. Supp. d (W.D. Wash. 00)... ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS ii CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

4 Rodriguez v. W. Publ g Corp., F.d (th Cir. 00) ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS iii CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

5 0 0 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Scott Gingrasso, Renee Gingrasso, Celia Kernkamp, John Kernkamp, Joan Langendoerfer, Floyd Langendoerfer, Peter Nelson, Janice Nelson and Richard Weaver ( Plaintiffs ) respectfully request that the Court grant final approval of the class action settlement they reached with Defendant Cedar Grove Composting Facility, Cedar Grove, Inc., and Cedar Grove Composting, Inc. (collectively, Cedar Grove or Defendant ). The settlement establishes a $,,00 settlement fund and requires Cedar Grove to spend $,00,000 on improvement measures intended to reduce the off-site emission of noxious odors from the Defendant s Maple Valley composting facility. The settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class because it provides Class Members with monetary recovery for their nuisance claims, and substantial and valuable injunctive relief. After this Court preliminarily approved the settlement, Class Counsel mailed detailed settlement notices to,0 households. See Declaration of Steven D. Liddle in Support of Final Approval ( Second Liddle Decl. ) 0. The deadline for Class Members to submit claims, object, or opt out is September. Id., Exh. A. As of August, 0 Class Members have submitted claims. Id.. Ten Class Members have requested exclusion. Id.. And just one Class Member has objected to the settlement. Id.. Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant final approval of the settlement by: () finding the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable; () approving the requested attorneys fees and costs and Class Representative incentive awards; and () determining Class Counsel provided adequate notice to the Class. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs brought this class action on behalf of homeowners affected by noxious odors, pollutants and air contaminants emitted from Cedar Grove s Maple Valley composting facility. See generally Dkt. No. (First Amended Complaint). Plaintiffs alleged that Cedar Grove s pollutants and contaminants invaded Plaintiffs property and substantially and unreasonably ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

6 0 0 interfered with the use and enjoyment of Plaintiffs property. Id..-.. Plaintiffs outlined the basic facts in their preliminary approval motion, which this Court granted on June 0. Dkt. Nos.,. Here, Plaintiffs summarize relevant facts for final approval. After Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the parties engaged in substantial discovery. Dkt. No. (Declaration of Steven D. Liddle ( First Liddle Decl. )). Plaintiffs obtained and analyzed tens of thousands of pages of documents, including inspection reports, odor complaint reports, violations, descriptions of Defendant s process and incoming waste stream, air sampling, pictures and maps of Defendant s facility, correspondence to and from various governmental regulatory agencies, odor surveys, weather reports, s, odor logs, handwritten notes, administrative records, and hearing notes. Id. Plaintiffs also retained experts to provide opinions regarding the operation and maintenance of Defendant s facility and the likely distribution of the odors from the facility. Id. In addition to defending the depositions of their own experts, Plaintiffs took the depositions of Cedar Grove s numerous experts. Id. Plaintiffs also deposed Cedar Grove s manager, Jerry Bartlett, and defended the depositions of each Class Representative. Id. After three years of litigation, the parties attended an all-day mediation session with private mediator John Cooper of Washington Arbitration and Mediation Services. First Liddle Decl.. While the matter did not settle at mediation, the parties continued to discuss the possibility of settlement, and ultimately agreed to the terms in the June, 0 Settlement Agreement. Id., Exh.. On July, 0, Class Counsel mailed notice of the settlement to,0 households. Second Liddle Decl. 0. The notice contains information regarding the value of the settlement; the specific amounts requested for attorneys fees, costs, administration expenses, and service awards; and instructions on how to opt out or object to the settlement. Id., Exh. A. As of August, 0 Class Members have submitted claims. Id.. Class Counsel has received thirteen requests for exclusion. Id.. However, three persons who requested ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

7 0 0 exclusion were never part of the Settlement Class because they settled their claims with Cedar Grove in other litigation. See First Liddle Decl., Exh. (class definition excluding persons who settled claims in any other action relating to or arising out of allegations of odors emitted from Cedar Grove s compost facilities ). And just one Class Member has objected to the settlement. Id.. III. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT When considering final approval of a class action settlement, a court determines whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Pickett v. Holland Am. Line- Westours, Inc., Wn.d, (00) (quoting Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., F.d 0, (th Cir. )). This is a largely unintrusive inquiry. Id. at. Although the Court possesses some discretion in determining whether to approve a settlement, [T]he court s intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned. Id. (quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm n, F.d, (th Cir. )). Moreover, it must not be overlooked that voluntary conciliation and settlement are the preferred means of dispute resolution. Id. at 0 (quoting Officers for Justice, F.d at ). In evaluating whether a class settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, courts generally reference the following criteria, with differing degrees of emphasis: the likelihood of success by plaintiffs; the amount of discovery or evidence; the settlement terms and conditions; recommendation and experience of counsel; future expense and likely duration of litigation; recommendation of neutral parties, if any; number of objectors and nature of objections; and the presence of good faith and absence of collusion. Id. at (citing Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions. (d ed. )). This list is not exhaustive, ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

8 0 0 nor will each factor be relevant in every case. Id. at (quoting Officers for Justice, F.d at ). A. The settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The settlement reached is fair, adequate, and reasonable. It provides for Cedar Grove s common fund payment of $,,00 and payment of $,00,000 toward improvement measures intended to reduce the off-site emission of noxious odors from the Defendant s composting facility. As described below, the relevant criteria favor final approval.. Plaintiffs likelihood of success supports final approval. The existence of risk and uncertainty to the Plaintiffs and Settlement Class weighs heavily in favor of a finding that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. See Pickett, Wn.d at. Here, Plaintiffs would have faced significant hurdles to relief had the settlement not been reached. First, although Plaintiffs and Class Counsel maintain that this case is appropriate for class treatment, the Court previously agreed with Cedar Grove s arguments against certification. Specifically, the Court denied certification on predominance grounds, finding that [t]he evidence required to establish liability in this matter is specific to each individual property. Dkt. No. 0 a :-. Thus, at the time of settlement Plaintiffs faced an uphill battle in attempting to secure class certification due [to] the trial court s original denial. Pickett, Wn.d at, (approving settlement where prior denial of class certification left class members with the very real prospect that Plaintiffs might receive little or no recovery ). Second, throughout this litigation, Cedar Grove has denied liability, claiming that other parties are responsible for the odors. Plaintiffs faced the risk that the Court or a jury would conclude that Class Members were not entitled to relief. Indeed, in 0, one jury in Snohomish County presiding over homeowners claims concluded that the Defendant s ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

9 0 0 operation of its composting facility was not responsible for the emission of noxious odors. Julie Davis, et al v. Cedar Grove Composting, Inc., Snohomish County Case No Third, even if Plaintiffs succeeded in proving that Cedar Grove was responsible for the odors, Plaintiffs would have faced the challenge of convincing the Court or a jury that Class Members suffered monetary injury. Without evidence of dimunition of their property values and particularly so in a real estate climate that favors sellers Class Members faced significant risks as to how the Court or a jury would interpret and weigh available evidence regarding damages. Finally, if Plaintiffs proved liability and damages, any recovery could have been delayed for years by an appeal, and an appellate court could ultimately reverse any favorable ruling obtained at the trial court level. Class Counsel understood and considered these risks when they negotiated the settlement, which eliminates these risks and provides substantial compensation to Class Members without further delay.. The settlement terms and conditions support final approval. Cedar Grove has agreed to pay $,,00 into a settlement fund. First Liddle Decl., Ex.,. This amount will be used to satisfy () the settlement awards to Class Members who submit valid claims, () the incentive awards to the named Plaintiffs, () the award of attorneys fees to Class Counsel, () and the expenses and costs of litigation incurred by Class Counsel, including the cost of notice. Id. To receive payment from the Settlement Fund, Class Members need only complete and return a simple claim form, postmarked by September. Second Liddle Decl., Exh. A. Each Class Member that properly submits a completed claim form shall receive a pro-rata share of the Settlement Fund. First Liddle Decl., Exh., (d). Based on the number of claims filed as of August, Class Members could receive more than $00 each. This number will likely go down as additional claims are mailed between August and September. ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

10 0 0 In addition, Cedar Grove has agreed to valuable injunctive relief. Cedar Grove will spend $,00,000 on improvement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions and odors dispersed from the Defendant s facility. Id.. Cedar Grove will use this money to: Purchase new GORE covers annually (The Gore Technology is an encapsulated system that is in vessel approved and designed to eliminate odors and recirculate leachate) and use the newest covers on Phase I material. In Phase I of the composting process, materials are piled and periodically turned, allowing the material to break down. Upgrade GORE system hardware and software to take advantage of the latest technological improvements. Updates to the operating system and components will allow Cedar Grove to more accurately monitor the active composting operation to ensure proper temperatures are reached thus mitigating odor. Upgrade the Negative Air System (designed to scrub air of its odor before it is released outside the facility) to link fan speeds with temperature readings and to reduce airflow from bio filters (odor control components of composting facilities) resulting in better mitigation of odor from the bio filters. Replace lateral aeration channels and resurface aeration pad, which will help direct odors to the bio filter. Upgrade primary bio filter media to a sand-based media, which is a greater odor deterrent. Install additional misting systems which will allow greater control of dust emissions during variable wind directions. The purchase of additional enzymes for misting operations will reduce odors on-site at the transfer points. Upgrade the screening operation. By upgrading the screening operation and connecting multiple operations using conveyors into a combined system, material movements will be minimized resulting in reduced odors during the movement of material to screening. Id. Cedar Grove shall seek all necessary regulatory approvals for the improvement measures identified above. ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

11 0 0 Based on the risks in this case, the payments and injunctive relief represent an excellent result for Class Members.. The amount of discovery and evidence supports final approval. Where extensive discovery takes place before a class action settlement, as here, final approval is favored. See Pickett, Wn.d at. Class Counsel acquired and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents, surveyed proposed Class Members, and accumulated and reviewed responsive documentation regarding Class Members experiences with the odors. First Liddle Decl.. Plaintiffs also retained two experts, both of whom prepared expert reports and were deposed. Id. Neal Bolton physically inspected the facility and provided an opinion regarding the operation and maintenance of Defendant s facility and the causes of Defendant s odors, and David Weeks performed computer modeling of the emissions to determine the likely distribution of the odor. Id. Class Counsel also deposed Cedar Grove s numerous experts, and its facility manager, Jerry Bartlett, and defended the Class Representatives depositions. By the time the parties attended an all-day mediation session with private mediator John Cooper on June, 0, Class Counsel were prepared to negotiate a strong settlement. First Liddle Decl.. The parties were unable to reach a settlement on that date. Id. However, following mediation, the parties continued to discuss the possibility of settlement, and exchanged numerous letters and additional information. Id. Ultimately, the parties agreed to the terms in the Settlement Agreement. Id. At all times, the negotiations were adversarial, noncollusive, and at arm s length. Id.. The positive recommendation and extensive experience of counsel support final approval. When experienced and skilled class counsel support a settlement, their views are given great weight. Pickett, Wn.d at 00. Class Counsel, who are experienced and skilled in class action litigation, support the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. Dkt. No. (Declaration of Beth E. Terrell in Support of Motion to ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

12 0 0 Preliminarily Approve Class Action Settlement ( First Terrell Decl. )) -0; First Liddle Decl. -,. Given Class Counsel s knowledge and experience in litigating class actions and their evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of this case, Counsel believe the settlement is an excellent result. First Terrell Decl. 0.. Future expense and likely duration of litigation support final approval. Another factor for the Court to consider in assessing the fairness of a settlement is the expense and likely duration of the litigation had a settlement not been reached. Pickett, Wn.d at. This settlement guarantees a substantial recovery for Class Members while obviating the need for lengthy, uncertain, and expensive litigation. Continued litigation of this matter would cause additional expense and delay. Although the parties had conducted significant discovery up to this point, substantial work was necessary to prepare the case for trial. After Plaintiffs unsuccessful motion for class certification, they amended their complaint to add hundreds of additional plaintiffs, intending to proceed to trial as a mass action. Additional discovery regarding these additional parties would be required, likely followed by motions for summary judgment. If the Plaintiffs prevailed against Cedar Grove at trial, Cedar Grove would likely appeal any adverse rulings, thereby delaying their relief. Even then, the relief would be limited to the named Plaintiffs; a trial on the merits would secure no justice for Class Members. In contrast, the settlement allows Plaintiffs to proceed on a classwide basis and makes substantial monetary relief available to Class Members in a prompt and efficient manner.. The reaction of the Class supports final approval. A court may infer a class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable when few, if any, class members object to it. See Pickett, Wn.d at 00 0 (approving settlement with almost fifty objections). Here, the deadline to opt out or object to the settlement is September. As of August, just one Class Member has objected, and ten have excluded themselves. ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

13 0 0 Second Liddle Decl. 0-. Plaintiffs will update this information and respond to the existing objection, and any future objections, by September.. The presence of good faith and absence of collusion support final approval. In determining the fairness of a settlement, the Court should consider the presence of good faith and absence of collusion. Pickett, Wn.d at 0. Here, there has been no collusion or bad faith. The settlement is the result of extensive negotiations between experienced attorneys who are highly familiar with class action litigation and the legal and factual issues of this case. See First Liddle Decl. ; First Terrell Decl. -. At all times, the negotiations leading to the settlement were adversarial, non-collusive, and at arm s length. Second Liddle Decl.. For these reasons, final approval of the settlement is appropriate. B. Class Members received the best notice practicable. This Court has determined that the notice program meets the requirements of due process and applicable law, provides the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitutes due and sufficient notice to all individuals entitled thereto. Dkt. No. (Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, ). Class Counsel has implemented the program. See Second Liddle Decl. 0-. Specifically, on July, Class Counsel mailed notice to,0 households. Second Liddle Decl., 0, Exh. A. Class Counsel also established a settlement website, where Class Members can find information relating to the settlement, and view and download the full settlement notice, claim form, and settlement agreement. Second Liddle Decl.. Among the key documents made available on the web site will be this motion for final approval Three persons who requested exclusion were never part of the Class because they settled their claims with Cedar Grove in prior litigation. See First Liddle Decl., Exh. (class definition excluding persons who settled claims in any other action relating to or arising out of allegations of odors emitted from Cedar Grove s compost facilities ). ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

14 0 0 of the settlement agreement, including Class Counsel s request for attorneys fees and costs, and service awards for the named Plaintiffs. Id. Class Members will have over three weeks to review and respond to these requests before the objection deadline. Id.; see In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d, (th Cir. 00) (class members should receive opportunity to examine final motion for attorneys fees and costs before deadline for objections to class action settlement). For these reasons, the Court should find that Class Counsel has provided adequate notice to the Settlement Class. C. The amount of attorneys fees requested is fair and reasonable. Where attorneys have obtained a common fund settlement for the benefit of a class, Washington courts use the percentage of recovery approach in calculating and awarding attorneys fees. Bowles v. Dep t of Ret. Sys., Wn.d, (). While 0 to 0 percent is the usual common fund award, [u]nder special circumstances, this figure can be adjusted upward or downward, or can be replaced with a lodestar calculation. Id. at. Whether the Court applies the percentage of recovery or lodestar approach, the fee requested is reasonable and supported by public policy: When attorney fees are available to prevailing class action plaintiffs, plaintiffs will have less difficulty obtaining counsel and greater access to the judicial system. Little good comes from a system where justice is available only to those who can afford its price. Id. at. Here, Class Counsel request approval of attorneys fees in the amount of $,000. Class Counsel s fee request is far from a windfall. The fee request is nearly equal to the amount of time that Class Counsel has devoted to the prosecution of this case, at reasonable hourly rates that have been approved numerous times in class action cases brought in both the Western District of Washington and King County Superior Court. See Declaration of Beth E. Terrell in Support of Final Approval ( Second Terrell Decl. ) (summarizing $,0.0 in lodestar incurred by attorneys and professional personnel at Terrell Marshall Law Group); Second ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS 0 CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

15 0 0 Liddle Decl. (summarizing $0,0.0 in lodestar incurred by attorneys and professional personnel at Liddle & Dubin); see also Carideo v. Dell, Inc., No. 0-cv-0, ECF No. (W.D. Wash. Dec., 00) (Judge Robart approving as reasonable a fee petition which included rates ranging from $ to $00); Barnett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No (King Co., July 0, 00) (Judge Spector approving fee request based on rates ranging from $00 to $0); Splater v. Thermal Ease Hydronic Sys., Inc., No (King Co., July, 00) (Judge Washington approving fee request based on rates ranging from $00 to $0); Hartman v. Comcast Business Commc ns, LLC, No. 0-0, ECF No. 0 (W.D. Wash Dec., 0) (Judge Lasnik approving Plaintiff s counsel s fee request based on rates ranging from $0 to $0). Moreover, the fee request is reasonable in light of the risks inherent in an environmental class action like this, based on noxious odors, the source of which Cedar Grove adamantly disputes. Indeed, there was a real possibility that Class Counsel would recover nothing for their work. Class Counsel took this case on a contingency basis and have devoted over five years to prosecuting it with no guarantee they would ever be paid for their efforts. Second Liddle Decl. -. Both the delay in payment and the risk involved in this kind of case justify the fee requested here. D. Reimbursement of Class Counsel s litigation costs and notice costs is reasonable. For common fund settlements, litigation costs are awarded in addition to fee awards. See Bowles, Wn.d at 0. Reasonable costs and expenses incurred by an attorney who creates or preserves a common fund are reimbursed proportionately by those class members who benefit from the settlement. In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., F. Supp., (N.D. Cal. ). Here, Class Counsel incurred $00,. in litigation expenses, nearly half of which were expert costs. Second Terrell Decl., (costs totaling $,.); Second Liddle Decl., (costs totaling $,0.). These expenses include: () pro hac vice admission fees; () computer research expenses; () expert payments; () copying expenses and ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

16 0 0 expenses in connection with electronic production; () costs associated with public records requests; () mediation expenses; () travel and court costs; and () costs to mail Class Notice. Id. The expenses were reasonable and necessary to secure the successful resolution of this litigation. See In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., F. Supp. d, (S.D. Cal. 00) (finding costs such as filing fees, messenger fees, photocopy costs, class action notices, expert fees, travel expenses, postage, online legal research fees, and mediation expenses are relevant and necessary expenses in class action litigation). Likewise, the administration expenses paid from the common fund are reasonable and necessary to inform Class Members of the settlement and ensure the settlement is administered fairly. Class Counsel request reimbursement of these costs. E. The requested class representative incentive awards are reasonable. Incentive awards compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class. In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., F.d, (th Cir. 0). These awards promote the public policy of encouraging individuals to undertake the responsibility of representative lawsuits. Rodriguez v. W. Publ g Corp., F.d, (th Cir. 00). The requested awards of $,00 for each of the Class Representative households are reasonable and in line with awards approved by other courts. See, e.g., In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d,, (th Cir.000) (approving service awards of $,000 from a total settlement of $,,000); Pelletz v. Weyerhauser Co., F. Supp. d, -0 & n. (W.D. Wash. 00) (approving $,00 service awards). The Class Representatives assisted Class Counsel in investigating the claims, preparing the complaint, and understanding the factual background of the lawsuit for the initial claims. They also responded to written discovery requests, sat for depositions, regularly communicated with Class Counsel regarding the progress of the litigation, and were prepared to testify at trial, if necessary. First Liddle Decl.. The incentive awards will compensate Plaintiffs for their time and effort in stepping forward to serve as Class Representatives. Id. They are well deserved and should be approved. ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

17 0 IV. CONCLUSION This settlement, comprised of a $,,00 common fund and $,00,000 in improvement measures to reduce the Cedar Grove s noxious odors, is fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of the obstacles to recovery in this case and the risks of continued litigation. Moreover, it is appropriate for the Court to award Class Counsel reasonable attorneys fees in the amount of $,000, which is commensurate with the amount time Class Counsel has devoted to the prosecution of this case. Likewise, Class Counsel s request for $00,. in litigation costs, nearly half of which is attributable to expert costs, is reasonable given the highquality work performed and successful resolution achieved. Finally, incentive awards of $,00 to each Class Representative household are reasonable given their service to the Class. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Plaintiffs Proposed Order Granting Final Approval. V. LCR (B)()(B)(VI) CERTIFICATION 0 Rules. I certify that this memorandum contains,0 words in compliance with the Local Civil RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND DATED this th day of August, 0. By: /s/ Beth E. Terrell, WSBA # Beth E. Terrell, WSBA # bterrell@terrellmarshall.com Adrienne D. McEntee, WSBA #0 amcentee@terrellmarshall.com North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0 Telephone: (0) -0 Facsimile: (0) -0 ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0

18 Steven D. Liddle, Admitted Pro Hac Vice David R. Dubin, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Nicholas Coulson, Admitted Pro Hac Vice LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, Michigan 0 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -00 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 0 0 ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO KNT North th Street, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0- TEL FAX 0..0