context: The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving an attorney's fees award in the sum of 28% of the gross common fund recovery.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50
citation_a.parenthetical: discussing the relevant factors and noting that 25% of common fund is a benchmark award
citation_a.sentence: See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing the relevant factors and noting that 25% of common fund is a benchmark award); see also Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1258 (9th Cir.2000) (“We note that the choice of whether to base an attorneys’ fee award on either net or gross recovery should not make a difference so long as the end result is reasonable.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 229 F.3d 1249, 1258
citation_b.parenthetical: "We note that the choice of whether to base an attorneys' fee award on either net or gross recovery should not make a difference so long as the end result is reasonable."
citation_b.sentence: See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing the relevant factors and noting that 25% of common fund is a benchmark award); see also Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1258 (9th Cir.2000) (“We note that the choice of whether to base an attorneys’ fee award on either net or gross recovery should not make a difference so long as the end result is reasonable.”).