In Wolph v. Acer America Corp., No. 09-01314 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013), plaintiff alleged that defendant’s notebook computers were marketed in a deceptive manner. The court certified a class, and the parties reached a settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, class counsel sought $2.5 million in attorneys’ fees and $5,000 incentive awards to each plaintiff. The court reduced the fees, finding plaintiffs’ three law firms inefficiently duplicated work. The court engaged in a detailed analysis of the fee petitions, identifying instances in which attorneys from the three plaintiffs’ firms had overlapping responsibilities. In addition, the court found plaintiffs failed to prove their rates were in line with the relevant community. The court found a multiplier was not justified in light of the value of the benefits conferred upon the class. To support the incentive awards, the class representatives submitted declarations in which they explained they each spent over 100 hours on the case, identified their out-of-pocket expenses, their involvement in the lawsuit, and the injuries they suffered. The court found an incentive award appropriate, but awarded $2,000 to each claimant, rather than the $5,000 requested.