positive. As previously noted, only 809 class members requested exclusion, (see Dkt. 268-5, Prutsman Deck at ¶ 32), which is 0.014% of those who received notice, (see Dkt. 268-1, Motion at 15), and only seven class members filed objections to the settlement, (see Dkt. 268-5, Prutsman Deck at ¶ 33), which represents 0.0001% of those who received notice of the settlement. (See Dkt. 268-1, Motion at 15). The positive reaction of the class members supports the fee application. 6. Lodestar Cross-Check. “One way that a court may demonstrate that its use of a particular method or the amount awarded is reasonable is by conducting a cross-check using the other method.” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d at 949; see Laffitte, 1 Cal.5th at 504, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 555, 376 P.3d 672 (<HOLDING>). “For example, a cross[-]check using the
holding that the court has discretion to double check the reasonableness of the percentage fee through a lodestar calculation recognizing the lodestar may provide a useful perspective on the reasonableness of a given percentage award holding that in determining the reasonableness of attorneys fees under federal fee shifting statutes courts may not enhance the fee award above the lodestar amount to compensate attorneys for assuming the risk of receiving no payment for their services if the lawsuit failed holding that a fee substantially less than the lodestar amount is permissible holding that both the lodestar and the percentage of the fund methods are permitted