Hanson v. Berthel Fisher and Company Financial Services, Inc et al
ORDER granting 131 Motion for Attorney Fees, Service Awards and Reimbursement of Expenses for a total of $450,000.00 (see text of Order). Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 9/16/2015. (skm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION
JON HANSON and JAMES
DeMARTINI, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
BERTHEL FISHER & COMPANY
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEY
FEES, EXPENSES AND SERVICE
PROPERTIES, LLC, TNP 2008
PARTICIPATING NOTES PROGRAM,
LLC, and ANTHONY W. THOMPSON,
This matter came for hearing on September 15, 2015 (the "Settlement Hearing")
on the unopposed Motion for Plaintiffs’ Attorney Fees, Expenses and Service Awards
(D. E.131) for attorney fees, reimbursement of costs and expenses and for two service
awards. Plaintiffs’ seek a total of $450,000 for attorney fees, expenses and two service
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS COURT HEREBY FINDS AND ORDERS:
There are two methods by which attorneys’ fees may be calculated, and
awarded: the lodestar method and the percentage-of-the-fund method. See Johnston v.
Comerica Mortg. Corp., 83 F.3d 241, 246 (8th Cir. 1996). “It is within the discretion
of the district court to choose which method to apply.” Id.
Under either method, this Court finds the requested attorneys’ fees
reasonable. Class Counsel have provided Declarations demonstrating that they have
incurred lodestar of $743,127.00 as of July 31st, 2015 (D. E. 131).
Settlement Class Counsel provided Declarations accounting for over
1,861.7 hours invested by counsel and associates in this complex litigation. The rates
for these hours range from $250 for associated attorneys and $350 – $750 for partners.
At the hearing, Settlement Class Counsel indicated they have incurred
additional lodestar preparing for this hearing and additional expense for which they seek
no further fees or expense.
I find these rates reasonable in the circumstances and further find so based
upon the supporting Declaration of Brady J. Brady (D. E. 135) and Affidavit of Steven
P. Wandro (D. E.137).
Further, in light of the number of hours invested by counsel, the
reasonability of the hourly rates, the risk inherent in contingent based compensation, the
novelty and complexity of the issues, and the quality and outcome of attorneys result,
the Court finds the fees fair and reasonable. In re: UnitedHealth Group Inc. S’holder
Derivative Litig.,631 F. Supp 2d. 1151, 1158-59 (D, Minn. 2009) (citing Grunin, 513
F.2d at 127).
This is supported by the fact that the requested attorney fees are in fact a
negative lodestar, as set forth in their motion and supporting Declarations (Docket Entry
This amount is also supported when using the percentage of the fund
approach. Settlement Counsel are asking for attorney fees, expenses and service awards
which total $450,000, which amounts to approximately 15.7% of the cash component of
the settlement of $2,865,000.
Finally, The Court approves the expenses and costs incurred as being fair
and reasonable given this complex litigation and the actual work performed.
Settlement Class Counsel has requested and there is no opposition to
service awards, in the amount of $10,000 each to class representatives, Mr. Hanson and
This Court finds that Mr. Hanson and Mr. DeMartini have been
significantly involved in this litigation, including having given their deposition
testimony. Also their efforts and time served to protect the interests of the class were
significant. I find that $10,000 service award for each to be fair and reasonable.
WHEREFORE, based upon the submissions and for the reasons set forth above,
Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorney Fees, Expenses and Service Awards is GRANTED
$430,000.00 Attorney Fees, Expenses and Costs
$10,000.00 service award to Mr. Hanson;
$10,000.00 service award to Mr. DeMartini;
$450,000 Total Fees, Expenses, and Services Awards.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16th day of September, 2015.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?