Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Court Orders Additional Notice to Class Regarding Counsel’s Request for Fees Based on Work Performed Following Initial Fee Award

by Clifton R. Gruhn

The Northern District of Illinois vacated its grant of fees to class counsel for work performed following an initial fee award, finding that Rule 23(h) required notice to the class regarding counsel’s new fee request, even though the total attorneys’ fees awarded were within the range disclosed in the original class notice. As discussed in a prior post, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the initial award of fees to class counsel, notwithstanding that the settlement included a “clear sailing” clause through which the defendant agreed not to challenge a request for fees of up to $3 million.

Following the appeal, class counsel moved in the district court for an additional award of fees based on work performed after the initial award, including work done on the appeal. The court granted, in part, class counsel’s request. However, an objector moved for reconsideration, arguing, among other things, that Rule 23(h) mandated the class be given notice of the request for additional fees. In response, class counsel and the defendant argued that additional notice was not required, given that the initial class notice disclosed the possibility of a fee award exceeding the amount of the initial award and the requested supplemental award combined.

The court noted in its opinion that the original class notice stated that class counsel would seek between $1 and $7 million in fees and that the total of class counsel’s supplemental request and the initial fee award was well within that range. Nevertheless, the court determined that “prudence counsels in favor of providing an additional notice to the class in connection with the request for post-fee award and appellate fees.” The court based its decision on the following: (1) class members may have viewed the original notice as contemplating only one request for fees, as opposed to several separate requests; (2) the notice provided that the defendant would not object to a fee award of up to $1.75 million because the agreement not to object to an award of up to $3 million in fees came after notice was provided to the class; and (3) class counsel’s request for additional fees would make the total fee award exceed the $1.75 million stated in the original notice Consequently, the court vacated its award of additional fees to class counsel and directed class counsel and defendant to confer and provide a proposed notice form and plan regarding counsel’s additional request for fees.

In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litig., No. 11-08176 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2016).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Another One Bites the Dust: Maryland Federal District Court Dismisses Putative Data Breach Class Action for Lack of Standing

Next Article »

Declined: Second Circuit Panel Shreds Visa and MasterCard Antitrust Settlement

About Clifton R. Gruhn

Clifton Gruhn is a Shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida.

Related Articles

  1. Does Rule 23(e) Require that Settlement Class Members Receive Notice of Modification to Cy Pres Remedy?
  2. Data Breach Class Actions: 2015 Year in Review and 2016 Preview
  3. What are Interim Class Counsel and When Should They be Appointed?

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

2025 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

  • Supreme Court Refuses to Decide Whether Damages Class Containing Both Injured and Uninjured Members Can Be Certified
  • Royal Canin v. Wullschleger: A Primer on Jurisdiction
  • Classified (Bi-)Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions From Federal Appellate Courts July and August 2024

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

Copyright © 2025 · Carlton Fields · All Rights Reserved