
    Ryan RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George SCHNEIDER, Class Member; et al., Objectors-Appellants. Ryan Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Sarah Siegel, Class Member; et al., Objectors-Appellants.
    Nos. 09-56278, 09-56314, 09-56500.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 5, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 10, 2012.
    James Garrett Kendrick, Charles Benjamin Nutley, Esquire, Kendrick & Nutley, Pasadena, CA, John Jacob Pentz, III, Esquire, Class Action Fairness Group, Maynard, MA, Carmine Giardino, The Giardi-no Law Firm, San Antonio, TX, Edward Frank Siegel, Law Office of Edward Sie-gel, Cleveland, OH, John W. Davis, Law Office of John W. Davis, San Diego, CA, Robert C. Chojnacki, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert C. Chojnacki, Menlo Park, CA, Joshua Reuben Furman, Joshua R. Fur-man Law Corporation, Beverly Hills, CA, Dale Alan Harris, Harris & Ruble, Los Angeles, CA, Charles Alfred Sturm, Ronald D. Rosengarten, Rosengarten & Le-ven, LLP, Calabasas, CA, Joseph Darrell Palmer, David Patrick Schafer, Law Offices of David P. Schafer PLLC, San Antonio, TX, Kenneth E. Nelson, Esquire, Nelson Law Firm PC, Kansas City, MO, Robert L. Arleo, Law Office of Robert L. Arleo, Haines Falls, NY, for Objectors-Appellants.
    Robert Joseph Gaudet, Jr., pro se.
    Andrea Boggio, pro se.
    Sandeep Gopalan, pro se.
    Elizabeth De Long, pro se.
    Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes that Appeal Nos. 09-56314 and 09-56500 are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

George Schneider, Jonathan M. Slomba, James Puntumapanitch, Justin Head, and Ryan Helfrich (collectively, the “Schneider Objectors”), Sarah Siegel, Evans & Mulli-nix, P.A., Jennifer Brown McElroy, Daniel M. Schafer, David Oriol, and Jason Tingle (collectively, the “Siegel Objectors”), and pro se objector Robert Joseph Gaudet Jr. appeal from the district court’s August 7, 2009 order denying them attorneys’ fees in whole or in part. The objectors contend that they are entitled to such fees for their efforts in securing $325,000 to the class as a result of the district court’s rejection of the class representatives’ requests for incentive awards. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award fees to the Siegel Objectors and Gaudet. The district court reasonably concluded that the Siegel Objectors and Gaudet did not meaningfully argue that the incentive awards should be voided because they created a conflict of interest, which was the argument that ultimately prevailed, see Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp. (Rodriguez I), 563 F.3d 948, 958, 963 (9th Cir.2009), and therefore did not “substantially enhanced the benefits to the class under the settlement,” see Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1052 (9th Cir.2002).

Nor does the district court’s award of $8,125 to the Schneider Objectors constitute an abuse of discretion. In light of the broad deference accorded the district court to determine whether and in what amount to award fees, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), we cannot say that the district court’s finding that the Schneider Objectors’ contributions were minimal, or its determination that $8,125 constituted a reasonable fee award, was clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Riordan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     