Filed: Apr. 20, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARY HEFLER; et al., No. 19-15140 Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-05479-JST v, MEMORANDUM* THOMAS PEKOC, Objector-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. 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
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARY HEFLER; et al., No. 19-15140 Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-05479-JST v, MEMORANDUM* THOMAS PEKOC, Objector-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. 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 ..
More
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 20 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY HEFLER; et al., No. 19-15140
Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-05479-JST
v,
MEMORANDUM*
THOMAS PEKOC,
Objector-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
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
*
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).
Before: BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE,*** District Judge.
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.
***
The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
2