Christopher Andrews

P.O. Box 530394

Livonia, MI 48153-0394
248-635-3810
caaloa@gmail.com
February 01, 2021

Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk of the Court

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
James R. Browning Courthouse
95 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Re: Edwards v. National Milk Producers Federation, No. 17-16459
. Response to supplemental authority per FRAP 28(j) & Cir. R. 28-6

This panel’s unpublished decision overrules the same panel’s published reversal,
which they both again ignore!

“The court’s approval of so-called “incentive awards” for the named plaintiffs
raises similar concerns. As an initial matter, contrary to the district court’s
assertion, our court has not “stressed that incentive awards are [] efficient ways
of encouraging members of a class to become class representatives and
rewarding individual efforts taken on behalf of the class.” Op. at 32. Nothing in
our opinion in Hadix v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 895 (6th Cir. 2003), adopts that
proposition as our own. Instead, in Dry Max, we said that “[o]ur court has never
approved the practice of incentive payments to class representatives, though in
fairness we have not disapproved the practice either.” 724 F.3d at 722. And in
Hadix we recognized a “sensibl[e] fear that incentive awards may lead named
plaintiffs to expect a bounty for bringing suit or to compromise the interest of the
class for personal gain.” 322 F.3d at 897.

We have concerns about a bounty here. The settlement agreement provides for
incentive awards of up to $10,000 per individual named plaintiff and up to
$50,000 per organization. Class counsel argues in conclusory terms that the
awards compensate the named plaintiffs for their time spent on the case.

Page 1 of 4
To ensure that these amounts are not in fact a bounty, however, counsel must
provide the district court with specific documentation—in the manner of attorney
time sheets—of the time actually spent on the case by each recipient of an award.
Otherwise the district court has no basis for knowing whether the awards are in
fact “a disincentive for the [named] class members to care about the adequacy of
relief afforded unnamed class members[.]” Dry Max, 724 F.3d at 722 (emphasis in
original). That does not mean the court should necessarily approve the awards if
counsel provides this documentation. But it does mean that, on the factual record
at least, the “difficult issue” of the propriety of incentive awards would be
properly presented. Hadix, 322 F.3d at 898.4.

From pages 14-15 published attached decision 15-1544.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Christopher Andrews

Christopher Andrews

PO Box 530394
Livonia, MI 48153-0394
T 248-635-3810
Email caaloa@gmail.com
Pro se Appellant, non attorney
January 29, 2021

Page 2 of 4
 Certificate of Compliance

I, Christopher Andrews do herby certify pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(g) that the

appellant’s response to Fed. R. p. 28(j) filing complies with the type-volume

limitations of Fed. R. App. 28(j) and Cir R. 28-6 because, excluding parts of the

document exempted by Fed R. App. P. 32(f), this document contains less than 350

words.

In addition, this filing complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.

28(e)(2)(A) and the typestyle requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this

filing has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word

2007, Times Roman font in 14 point size.

/s/ Christopher Andrews

Christopher Andrews

PO Box 530394
Livonia, MI 48153-0394
T 248-635-3810
Email caaloa@gmail.com
Pro se Appellant, non attorney
January 29, 2021

Page 3 of 4
 Certificate of Service

Per the Ninth Circuit’s request on the court’s website, the appellant files this

document by transmitting it to the Court electronically into the email box

designated by the Clerk of the Court on the Court’s website and will be accepted as

any other electronic filing. Fed. R. App. 25(a)(2)(B). Entry on the docket by the

clerk will be considered to be adequate service on other electronic filers pursuant

to fed. R. App. P. 25(c)(2). It was sent to prose_pleadings@ca9.uscourts.gov.

The undersigned certifies that today he filed the foregoing with the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals which will send electronic notification to all attorneys and others

registered to receive ECF filings.

/s/ Christopher Andrews

Christopher Andrews

PO Box 530394
Livonia, MI 48153-0394
T 248-635-3810
Email caaloa@gmail.com
Pro se Appellant, non attorney
January 29, 2021

Page 4 of 4