2 . For purposes of the lodestar cross-check, the Court uses the lodestar summary figures provided by Class Counsel. See In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 955 (9th Cir.2015) (explaining the district court compared the percentage of the fund amount to the summary lodestar numbers provided by class counsel); Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 306 F.R.D. 245, 264 (N.D.Cal.2015) (“[lit is well established that the lodestar cross-check calculation need entail neither mathematical precision nor bean counting ... courts may rely on summaries submitted by the attorneys'and need not review actual billing records.”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); Bond v. Ferguson. Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-1662 OWW MJS, 2011 WL 2648879, at *12 (E.D.Cal. June 30, 2011) (<HOLDING>). The Court makes no finding as to the
holding that where the states definition of robbery has on its face the element of use or threatened use of physical force a robbery conviction is properly used as a predicate under acca holding that the court may consider collateral evidence of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement in determining whether the language of the agreement is unclear and if the evidence presented is so plain that no reasonable person could hold any way but one then the court may interpret the meaning as a matter of law recognizing that the privilege of being a heard amicus rests solely within the discretion of the court recognizing that where the lodestar is being used here as a crosscheck the court may use a rough calculation of the lodestar holding that a court may conduct a fair use analysis as a matter of law where the facts are presumed or admitted