Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Considerable Deference With a Caveat: Third Circuit Addresses Fee Awards

June 12, 2020 by Nathaniel G. Foell and D. Matthew Allen

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision regarding the fee award in the National Football League concussion injury litigation. The decision is non-precedential but still instructive. One takeaway is that appellate courts will show “considerable deference” to district court fee awards. The other takeaway, however, is that district courts still must provide enough of an explanation for appellate courts to meaningfully review the award. When they do not, appellate courts will remand for a fuller explanation of any insufficiently explained aspect of the award.

In this litigation, a class of former NFL players sued the league for failing to protect them from head injuries, both concussive and sub-concussive. The district court appointed lead class counsel, an executive committee, and a steering committee, which is not uncommon in cases of this size and complexity. It also appointed a time-and-expense auditor to monitor the fees and expenses of class counsel.

The parties initially reached a settlement that was rejected by the district court. That initial settlement capped the fund for paying claims of retired players with certain diagnoses at an amount the district court doubted would cover those claims. The parties subsequently reached a revised settlement, which the district court approved.

After the revised settlement was approved, class counsel filed a petition seeking $112.5 million in attorneys’ fees. To aid its consideration of that petition, the district court asked one of the co-lead class attorneys to submit a detailed proposal for how to allocate the fee award among class counsel. Several firms challenged his proposed fee allocation. Ultimately, the district court awarded class counsel approximately $110 million in fees and expenses.

Various firms appealed the fee allocation. The Third Circuit held that the fee award was, in all but one respect, “factually and legally sound and reflected a proper exercise of … discretion.” The court discussed only two of the issues raised by the appellants, reasoning that the district court’s “thorough explanations for each of its rulings” made it unnecessary to “dwell on the numerous challenges.” It justified this deferential approach in part by quoting the Supreme Court’s statement in Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011), that “we can hardly think of a sphere of judicial decisionmaking in which appellate micromanagement has less to recommend it.”

The Third Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by seeking a fee allocation methodology from co-lead class counsel, given that the district court “reasonably viewed him as uniquely knowledgeable about the work performed by all counsel and believed that he could provide a perspective about how their work benefitted the class.” Furthermore, the district court heard challenges to that lawyer’s recommendation, did not follow the recommendation in all respects, and provided a thorough explanation of the fee award. Thus, the district court “acted well within its discretion.”

However, the Third Circuit found that the district court did not provide an adequate explanation of the amount it allocated to counsel for certain objectors. It noted that the district court’s $350,000 allocation to these attorneys was a 0.08 multiplier of their $4.3 million lodestar and a small fraction of their $20 million requested fee. But the main reason for the remand was not the amount of the award, but the fact that, in the view of the Third Circuit, the district court did not identify the “factual basis” for that modest award.

In re National Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation, No. 18-2012, 2020 WL 2214131 (3d Cir. May 7, 2020).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

CAFA: Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Sua Sponte Invocation and Application of Discretionary Home State Exception

Next Article »

Whither Objector Blackmail
Nathaniel G. Foell

About Nathaniel G. Foell

Nathaniel Foell is an associate at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

D. Matthew Allen

About D. Matthew Allen

Matt Allen is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.