e settlement would likely be insignificant when compared with Defendants' total revenues. This factor does not favor approval of the settlement. 7. Girsh factors eight and nine: the reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best recovery [*54] and all the attendant risks of litigation The fina

art v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590, 593 (3d Cir. 2010). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals identified nine factors that bear on this analysis in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975): (1) the complexity and duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) th

vidence of "regular oil changes (within 2,000 ["50] miles of recommended schedule)"). The 23 objectors make arguments that raise several legitimate Girsh factor considerations. Ultimately, however, because of the relatively small number of objections and exclusions compared with the total number of C

iation of merits when parties "exchanged initial disclosures and arrived at the Settlement after negotiation before a retired federal judge."). 4. Girsh factors four and five: the risks of establishing liability and damages The fourth and fifth Girth factors require the Court to balance the Parties'

e settlement would likely be insignificant when compared with Defendants' total revenues. This factor does not favor approval of the settlement. 7. Girsh factors eight and nine: the reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best recovery [*54] and all the attendant risks of litigation The fina

proposed New York-Philadelphia mean and fourth-quartile billing rates all fall within this range. For the second factor, the Court incorporates its Girsh analysis of Class member objections and notes that no Class members have objected to the proposed Class Counsel award. This factor weighs in p81] f

vidence of "regular oil changes (within 2,000 ["50] miles of recommended schedule)"). The 23 objectors make arguments that raise several legitimate Girsh factor considerations. Ultimately, however, because of the relatively small number of objections and exclusions compared with the total number of C

e settlement would likely be insignificant when compared with Defendants' total revenues. This factor does not favor approval of the settlement. 7. Girsh factors eight and nine: the reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best recovery [*54] and all the attendant risks of litigation The fina

iation of merits when parties "exchanged initial disclosures and arrived at the Settlement after negotiation before a retired federal judge."). 4. Girsh factors four and five: the risks of establishing liability and damages The fourth and fifth Girth factors require the Court to balance the Parties'

Page 13 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97188, * GM Truck Prods., 55 F.3d at 785-86 (citing Girsh, 521 F.2d at 157). In addition to the Girsh factors, the Third Circuit encourages district courts to consider additional factors, such as the proba

proposed New York-Philadelphia mean and fourth-quartile billing rates all fall within this range. For the second factor, the Court incorporates its Girsh analysis of Class member objections and notes that no Class members have objected to the proposed Class Counsel award. This factor weighs in p81] f