Fangman et al v. Genuine Title, LLC

Filing 473

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 459 Settlement Counsels' Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the full requested and unopposed amount of $607,163.33. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 6/15/2017. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EDWARD J. AND VICKI
FANGMAN, et al.,

*
*

Plaintiffs,

*

v.

Civil Action No. RDB-14-0081
*

GENUINE TITLE, LLC, et al.

*

Defendants.
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On June 8, 2017, this Court conducted a Final Fairness Hearing on the Proposed
Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 412-2) (“Settlement Agreement”) of all claims asserted in
this action against Defendant Net Equity Financial, Inc. (“Net Equity”). Via Order dated
that same day (ECF No. 471), this Court granted final approval of the Settlement
Agreement, dismissed all claims against Net Equity, and approved the requested service
award for Class Representative Helen L. Householder in the amount of $5,000, including her
Settlement Benefit.1 See Order, ¶¶ 1, 9, 13, ECF No. 471. Final Judgement has been entered
in this case against Net Equity in an “amount2 necessary to fund Settlement Benefits payable
to the Settlement Class Members, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement,” discussed
infra. Id. ¶¶ 11, 15. Still pending before this Court is Settlement Counsels’ Petition for
1 Pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Settlement Agreement, Ms. Householder’s service award will be paid out of the
Common Fund.
2 Settlement Counsel have subsequently indicated to this Court that the value of the Net Equity Common
Fund is $3,642,980.00. Mem. Supp. Mot., p. 1, ECF No. 459-1. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
$42,980.00 of this amount will be applied specifically to the attorneys’ fees award by way of a promissory
note, payable in twelve (12) equal monthly payments with no interest accruing.

1

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (ECF No. 459), in which Settlement Counsel request an
award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of “20% of the amount of the
Settlement Benefit to the Settlement Class, specifically, $607,163.33.” Net Equity has not
opposed that request.3 The parties’ submissions have been reviewed, and no additional
hearing on the issue of attorneys’ fees and expenses is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.
Md. 2016). For the reasons stated herein, the pending Settlement Counsels’ Petition for
Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (ECF No. 459) is GRANTED in the full requested, and
unopposed, amount of $607,163.33, an award equal to 20% of the Settlement Benefit to
the Settlement Class or, alternatively, 1/6 of the entire Common Fund.4
BACKGROUND
In January of 2014, Plaintiffs Edward J. and Vicki Fangman brought this class action
against Defendant Genuine Title, LLC alleging, inter alia, violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2607(a), (b)5. See Compl., ECF No. 2.
Net Equity Financial, Inc. (“Net Equity”) was named as a Defendant in the First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 47). An additional thirteen home mortgage lenders have also been
named as Defendants (collectively “Lender Defendants”) via the First and Second Amended
As discussed infra, the Settlement Agreement provides that Net Equity shall not object to an award of attorneys’ fees
and expenses up to 20% of the Settlement Benefit to the Settlement Class.

3

This Court has previously awarded Settlement Class Counsel attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amounts
of 15%, 25%, and 20% of the Common Funds in the Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and E Mortgage/E
Properties Settlements, respectively, although the awards in those cases were paid by the settling defendants in
addition to, and not out of, the Common Fund. As discussed infra, Settlement Counsels’ requested award of
20% of the Settlement Benefit to the Settlement Class or, alternatively, 1/6 of the entire Common Fund, is a
reasonable award. A lodestar cross-check confirms that this is a reasonable award. The lodestar multiplier
for this award is only 1.88, well within the range of reasonable multipliers previously approved by this Court.
See, e.g., Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 665, 689 (D. Md. 2013) (“Courts have generally held
that lodestar multipliers falling between 2 and 4.5 demonstrate a reasonable attorneys’ fee.”).
5 Additionally, Plaintiffs alleged violations of Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 14-127 (“Section 14-127”) and the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301. Those claims were
subsequently dismissed by this Court. See Orders, ECF Nos. 214, 281.
4

2

Complaints in this action. Attorneys Michael Paul Smith, Sarah Zadrozny, Timothy J.
Maloney, and Veronica Nannis of the law firms of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC (“SGS”)
and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. (“JGL”) (hereinafter “Settlement Counsel”) have
represented all Plaintiffs, including the Net Equity Plaintiffs, throughout this litigation.
In prosecuting this case, Settlement Counsel have incurred significant expense and
have undergone significant investigation. For example, in July of 2013, Plaintiffs filed a
Petition for Emergency Appointment of a Receiver for the purpose of retrieving and
preserving the documents, books, and records of Genuine Title in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland.

That court granted the petition on July 30, 2014, and

Settlement Counsel were able to retrieve vast amounts of evidence from Genuine Title’s
records, including the identities of potential Net Equity Class Members.
Net Equity Filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on July 21,
2015 (ECF No. 162), to which Plaintiffs responded on September 4, 2015 (ECF No. 178).
Following a hearing on November 24, 2015, this Court denied Net Equity’s Motion to
Dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act in
a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 9, 2015 (ECF Nos. 211 & 212).
Following this Court’s entry of a Scheduling Order on December 15, 2015 (ECF No. 220),
the parties engaged in a period of contested discovery. Settlement Counsel have indicated
that several discovery disputes remained unresolved at the time of settlement.
The parties filed a Joint Motion to Preliminarily Approve Settlement on November
22, 2016 (ECF No. 412), attaching the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 412-2). This Court
held a Preliminary Fairness Hearing on January 12, 2017 and granted the parties’ Joint
3

Motion via Order dated that same date (ECF No. 431). This Court’s Order designated
Michael Paul Smith, Sarah Zadrozny, Timothy J. Maloney, and Veronica Nannis of the law
firms of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC (“SGS”) and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A.
(“JGL”) as Settlement Counsel.
Section 7.2 of the Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of the following
benefits to the Net Equity Class Members:
Each of these class members shall receive a proportionate share of the
Common Fund remaining after deduction of any awards of attorneys’ costs,
expenses, and fees and service awards . . . . The formula for distribution shall
be the Common Fund less any awards of attorneys’ costs, expenses, and fees
and service awards divided by the number of members of the Settlement Class
who did not file a complete and valid Request for Exclusion by the Exclusion
Deadline.
Settlement Counsel have indicated that the Common Fund now totals $3,642,980.
With respect to attorneys’ fees and expenses, the Settlement Agreement provides that
“[p]ayment of any award of attorneys’ costs, expenses and fees shall come from the Common
Fund.” Settlement Agreement, ¶ 13, ECF No. 412-2 (emphasis added). The Settlement
Agreement provides that Settlement Counsel shall limit their requested attorneys’ fees and
expenses to an amount equal to 25% of the amount of the Settlement Benefit to the
Settlement Class. Id. The Agreement further provides that Net Equity reserves the right to
oppose any petition for attorneys’ fees and expenses that seeks more than an aggregate award
equal to 20% of the Settlement Benefit to the Settlement Class. Id.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, a notice plan was completed pursuant
to which all members of the Net Equity Class were informed of the Settlement Agreement’s
terms, including the provisions for payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses. See Id. ¶ 11.
4

No objections to the terms of the Settlement Agreement have been filed. One request for
exclusion was filed by Sonia Gilroy, personal representative for the Estate of David K.
Gilroy. On November 4, 2016, this Court conducted a Final Fairness Hearing on the
proposed settlement and granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement that same day,
excluding Gilroy from the Settlement Class.
ANALYSIS
Settlement Counsel have requested an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses of “20%
of the amount of the Settlement Benefit to the Settlement Class, specifically, $607,163.33.”
Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees, p. 2, ECF No. 459.

After deducting Settlement Counsels’

reported costs and expenses of $34,876.08, the attorneys’ fees sought are $572,287.25. See
Mem. Supp. Mot., p. 22, ECF No. 459-1. Net Equity does not oppose this award.
Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]n a certified class
action, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs that are
authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). Additionally, the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) provides that “[i]n any private action brought
pursuant to this subsection, the court may award to the prevailing party the court costs of
the action together with reasonable attorneys fees.” 12 U.S.C. § 2607(d)(5). As this Court
has previously noted, “[t]here are two primary methods of calculating attorneys’ fees: the
lodestar method and the ‘percentage of recovery’ method.” Whitaker v. Navy Fed. Credit
Union, No. RDB-09-2288, 2010 WL 3928616, at *4 (D. Md. Oct. 4, 2010). “The lodestar
method requires the multiplication of the number of hours worked by a reasonable hourly
rate, the product of which this Court can then adjust by employing a ‘multiplier.’ ” Id. “The
5

percentage of the recovery method involves an award based on a percentage of the class
recovery, set by the weighing of a number of factors by the court.” Id.
For the reasons explained in this Court’s prior Memorandum Opinion of November
18, 2016 (ECF No. 411), the “percentage of recovery” method shall be used to calculate
Settlement Counsels’ attorneys’ fees and expenses in this case. However, this Court will
cross-check the “percentage of recovery” analysis with a lodestar analysis. This Court has
previously recognized that “using the percentage of fund method and supplementing it with
the lodestar cross-check . . . take[s] advantage of the benefits of both methods.” Singleton v.
Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 665, 681 (D. Md. 2013) (quoting In re The Mills Corp.
Securities Litig., 265 F.R.D. 246, 261 (E.D. Va. 2009)).
A.

“Percentage of Recovery” Analysis

Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit “has not yet
identified factors for district courts to apply when using the ‘percentage of recovery’ method,
. . . District courts in this circuit have analyzed the following seven factors:”
(1) the results obtained for the class; (2) the quality, skill, and efficiency of the
attorneys involved; (3) the risk of nonpayment; (4) objections by members of
the class to the settlement terms and/or fees requested by counsel; (5) awards
in similar cases; (6) the complexity and duration of the case; and (7) public
policy. [citing, e.g., The Kay Company v. Equitable Production Co., 749 F. Supp. 2d
455, 464 (S.D. W. Va. 2010)]. Importantly, “fee award reasonableness factors
‘need not be applied in a formulaic way’ because each case is different, ‘and in
certain cases, one factor may outweigh the rest.’ ” In re AT & T Corp., 455
F.3d 160, 166 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d
294, 301 (3rd Cir. 2005)).
Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 682.

6

a.

Results Obtained for the Class

“ ‘[T]he most critical factor in calculating a reasonable fee award is the degree of
success obtained.’ ” Id. (quoting McKnight v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 14 F. App’x. 147, 149 (4th
Cir. 2001)). In this case, Settlement Counsel have secured a significant financial recovery for
the members of the Net Equity Class. The members of the settlement class will directly
receive over 100% of the average settlement charges paid to Genuine Title on their loans.
As discussed supra, the Common Fund now totals $3,642,980. Additionally, as this Court
observed in Singleton, “[t]he fact that no objections have been filed further suggests that the
result achieved is a desirable one.” Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 683.
b.

Quality, Skill, and Efficiency of the Attorneys Involved

Settlement Counsel are experienced litigators who went to great lengths to prosecute
this action and obtained a quick and substantial settlement for the Net Equity Class. Lead
Counsel, Mr. Michael Paul Smith, “has represented plaintiffs for 24 years and has tried over
50 cases in state and federal courts,” including numerous “complex civil cases in the areas of
commercial litigation, fraud and banking/real estate issues.” Mem. Supp. Mot., p. 13, ECF
No. 459-1. Mr. Smith and the law firm of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC have significant
experience preparing and trying complex civil cases, including Mosaic Lounge v. BCR, Case
No.: 03-C-14-00449, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and Possidente v. GBMC, Case
No. 03-C-10-003295, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Id.
The attorneys of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. are also experienced plaintiffs’
counsel. Mr. Timothy Maloney “has represented plaintiffs for 30 years and has tried over
100 cases in state and federal courts.” Id. at 14. Mr. Maloney “regularly tries complex civil
7

cases in the areas of commercial litigation, fraud and constitutional violations” and has
served as plaintiffs’ counsel in several class action cases before this Court, including Robert J.
England, et al. v. Marriot International, Inc. et al., No. 8: 10-cv-01256-RWT, and In re Michelin
North America, Inc., PAX System Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation, No. 08:08-md-01911RWT. Id. Additionally, Ms. Veronica Nannis “has represented plaintiffs for 14 years and for
the past 10 years has focused on complex fraud cases under the False Claims Act.” Id.
In order to identify potential Net Equity Plaintiffs and class members, Settlement
Counsel went to great lengths to secure the records of the now-defunct Genuine Title, LLC.
In July of 2013, counsel filed a Petition for Emergency Appointment of a Receiver for the
limited purpose of retrieving and preserving the documents, books, and records of Genuine
Title in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland. That court granted the petition
on July 30, 2014. The Receiver immediately seized records that Plaintiffs have alleged were
scheduled for destruction. Subsequently, Settlement Counsel have engaged in extensive
motions practice and contentious discovery, as discussed supra.
c.

Risk of Nonpayment

“ ‘In determining the reasonableness of an attorneys’ fee award, courts consider the
relative risk involved in litigating the specific matter compared to the general risks incurred
by attorneys taking on class actions on a contingency basis.’ ” Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at
683 (quoting Jones v. Dominion Res. Servs., Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 756, 762 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)).
“The risk undertaken by class counsel is evaluated by, among other things, the presence of
government action preceding the suit, the ease of proving claims and damages, and, if the
case resulted in settlement, the relative speed at which the case was settled.” Id.
8

Settlement Counsel correctly note that several courts have dismissed similar RESPA
claims in recent years. See, e.g., Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 3827671 (4th Cir.
Aug. 5, 2014); Taggart v. Norwest Mort., Inc., 539 Fed. App’x. 42 (3d Cir. 2013); Toone v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 716 F.3d 516 (10th Cir. 2013); McCrimmon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 516
Fed. App’x. 372 (5th Cir. 2013). The fact that Settlement Counsel were able to achieve such
a substantial settlement for the members of the Net Equity Class despite this looming
uncertainty weighs in favor of granting their requested award.
d.

Objections

As discussed supra, Net Equity Class members were notified of the proposed
Settlement Agreement, their expected recovery, and Settlement Counsels’ request for
attorneys’ fees. Particularly, a paragraph was included in the Notice providing as follows:
8. How will Class Counsel be paid?
Class Counsel will ask the Court to give final approval of the Settlement at the
Final Fairness Hearing, and will also ask the Court for an award of attorneys’
fees, costs, and expenses up to a maximum of 25% of the Settlement Benefits.
The Court will make the final decision as to the amounts to be paid to Class
Counsel at or after the Final Fairness Hearing.
No objections were filed. “The lack of objections tends to show that at least from the class
members’ perspective, the requested fee is reasonable for the services provided and the
benefits achieved by class counsel.” Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 684 (D. Md. 2013).
e.

Awards in Similar Cases

“Attorneys’ fees awarded under the ‘percentage of recovery’ method are generally
between twenty-five (25) percent and thirty (30) percent of the fund.” Singleton, 976 F. Supp.
2d at 684 (citing Manual for Complex Litigation (“MCL”), § 14.121). “Fees awarded under
‘the percentage-of-recovery’ method in settlements under $100 million have ranged from
9

15% to 40%.” Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 685 (citing Stoner v. CBA Information Services, 352
F. Supp. 2d 549, 553 (E.D. Pa. 2005)). This Court in the Singleton case found that a
percentage fee award of 25% fell “within the range of awards deemed fair and reasonable by
courts within the Fourth Circuit.” Id. at 685. Even for a settlement such as this one, where
attorneys’ fees and costs are awarded out of the Common Fund, the requested award of 20%
of the Settlement Benefit to the Settlement Class (1/6 of the total Common Fund) is well
within the range of reasonable awards. See, e.g., Craft v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 624 F. Supp. 2d
1113, 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (awarding 25% fee plus costs to class counsel out of
$25,648,204 fund); In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL 1594403, at *18
(C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) (“attorneys’ fees equal to one third (33 ⅓%) of the common fund
($27,783,000.00), which totals $9,60,073.90 . . . is reasonable and appropriate.”).
f.

The Complexity and Duration of the Litigation

“ ‘In evaluating the complexity and duration of the litigation, courts consider not only
the time between filing the complaint and reaching settlement, but also the amount of
motions practice prior to settlement, and the amount and nature of discovery.’ ” Singleton,
976 F. Supp. 2d at 686 (quoting Jones, 601 F. Supp. 2d at 761). As discussed supra, Settlement
Counsel went to great lengths to identify potential Net Equity Class members and to obtain
the evidence necessary to prosecute this case, including retrieving records from Genuine
Title’s server. In order to maintain Genuine Title’s electronic database, Settlement Counsel
have indicated that they initially advanced approximately $20,000 and have advanced
approximately $4,000 per month to a technology provider. Mem. Supp. Mot., p. 24, ECF
No. 459-1.

Additionally, as discussed supra, Settlement Counsel engaged in extensive
10

discovery, including serving Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Net Equity and
requesting the bank records for two companies owned by Net Equity. Settlement Counsel
further noted the deposition of Net Equity’s President, although that deposition did not
ultimately occur as the parties had begun settlement discussions by that time. The length
and duration of this case weigh in favor of granting Settlement Counsels’ requested award.
g.

Public Policy

“ ‘The most frequent complaint surrounding class action fees is that they are
artificially high, with the result (among others) that plaintiffs’ lawyers receive too much of
the funds set aside to compensate victims.’ ” Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp.
2d 665, 687 (D. Md. 2013) (quoting Report on Contingent Fees in Class Action Litigation,
25 Rev. Litig. 459, 466 (2006)). “Thus, in assessing the reasonableness of the requested
attorneys’ fees, the court must strike the appropriate balance between promoting the
important public policy that attorneys continue litigating class action cases that ‘vindicate
rights that might otherwise go unprotected,’ and perpetuating the public perception that
‘class action plaintiffs’ lawyers are overcompensated for the work that they do.’ ” Id.
(quoting Third Circuit Task Force Report, 208 F.R.D. 340, 342, 344 (Jan. 15, 2002)). This
case does not pose serious concerns with respect to public policy because no Net Equity
Class member has objected to Settlement Counsels’ requested attorneys’ fees. For the
reasons discussed herein, Settlement Counsels’ requested award in the amount of 20% of the
Settlement Benefit to the Settlement Class or, alternatively, 1/6 of the entire Common Fund,
is a reasonable award. A lodestar cross-check confirms that this is a reasonable figure.

11

B.

Lodestar Cross-Check

As discussed supra, Settlement Counsel have requested an award of attorneys’ fees
and expenses in the amount of “20% of the amount of the Settlement Benefit to the
Settlement Class, specifically, $607,163.33.” Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees, p. 2, ECF No. 459.
After deducting Settlement Counsels’ total reported costs and expenses of $34,876.08, the
amount they seek for fees alone is $572,287.25. See Mem. Supp. Mot., p. 22, ECF No. 459-1.
Under the “lodestar” method, a district court identifies a reasonable fee award, or
lodestar award, by multiplying the reasonable hours expended by a reasonable hourly rate.
See Xiao–Yue Gu v. Hughes STX Corp., 127 F. Supp. 2d 751, 764 (D. Md. 2001). The court
may then adjust that award by employing a “multiplier.” See Whitaker, 2010 WL 3928616 at
*4. “The purpose of a lodestar cross-check is to determine whether a proposed fee award is
excessive relative to the hours reportedly worked by counsel, or whether the fee is within
some reasonable multiplier of the lodestar.” Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d
665, 688 (D. Md. 2013) (citing In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d at 306). “Importantly,
‘where the lodestar fee is used as a mere cross-check to the percentage method of
determining reasonable attorneys’ fees, the hours documented by counsel need not be
exhaustively scrutinized by the district court.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Royal Ahold N.V. Sec. &
ERISA Litig., 461 F. Supp. 2d 383, 385 (D. Md. 2006)). “Courts have generally held that
lodestar multipliers falling between 2 and 4.5 demonstrate a reasonable attorneys’ fee.”
Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 689 (citing Goldenberg v. Marriott PLP Corp., 33 F. Supp. 2d 434,
439 (D. Md. 1998)). Here, Settlement Counsel Michael Paul Smith of the law firm Smith,
Gildea & Schmidt, LLC (“SGS”) and Veronica Nannis of the law firm Joseph, Greenwald &
12

Laake, P.A. (“JGL”) have each submitted affidavits documenting their firms’ respective fees
and expenses. See Smith Aff., ECF No. 459-2; Nannis Aff., ECF No. 459-3.
a.

Settlement Counsels’ Reported Fees and Expenses
i.

Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC

From the date of opening the file on this case through June 14, 2016, the date of
conditional settlement with Net Equity, SGS has spent numerous hours “generally applicable
to all defendants” which, when billed at the rates provided in this Court’s Local Rules, would
yield $622,550.00. Smith Aff., ¶ 34, ECF No. 459-2. Applying the same formula used in
previous settlements in this case, SGS has calculated that $162,406.08 of that amount
represents Net Equity’s proportionate share of the fees. Id. Additionally, from the opening
of the file through the filing of the pending Petition for Attorneys’ Fees, SGS has spent
numerous hours “specific to Net Equity” which, when billed at the rates provided in this
Court’s Local Rules, yield $52,162.50. Id. ¶ 35. Accordingly, SGS attributes a total of
$214,568.58 in fees to Net Equity. Id. ¶ 36. The total amount of costs attributable to Net
Equity by SGS is $22,751.71. Id. ¶ 39.
ii.

Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

From the date of opening the file on this case through June 14, 2016, the date of
conditional settlement with Net Equity, JGL has spent numerous hours “generally applicable
to all defendants” which, when billed at the rates provided in this Court’s Local Rules, would
yield $227,884.00. Nannis Aff., ¶ 16, ECF No. 459-3. Applying the same formula used in
previous settlements in this case, JGL has calculated that $69,985.36 of that amount
represents Net Equity’s proportionate share of the fees. Id. Additionally, from the opening
13

of the file through the filing of the pending Petition for Attorneys’ Fees, JGL spent
numerous hours “specific to Net Equity” which, when billed at the rates provided in this
Court’s Local Rules, yield $19,210.00. Id. ¶ 17. Accordingly, JGL attributes a total of
$89,195.36 in fees to Net Equity. The total amount of costs attributable to Net Equity by
JGL is $12,124.37. Id. ¶ 20.
Therefore, the grand total of attorneys’ fees for both firms with respect to Net Equity
is $303,763.94. As this Court has explained in Singleton, 976 F. Supp. at 688 “ ‘where the
lodestar fee is used as a mere cross-check to the percentage method of determining
reasonable attorneys’ fees, the hours documented by counsel need not be exhaustively
scrutinized by the district court’ ” (quoting In re Royal Ahold N.V. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 461
F. Supp. 2d at 385). The grand total of expenses is $34,876.08.
b.

Lodestar Cross-Check Multiplier

As discussed supra, Settlement Counsels’ requested award of 20% of the Settlement
Benefit to the Settlement Class equals $607,163.33. Subtracting their costs and expenses,
Settlement Counsel seek an award of $572,287.25 for fees alone. Accordingly, accepting a
lodestar of $303,763.94, based on Settlement Counsels’ affidavits discussed supra, Settlement
Counsel are proposing a lodestar cross-check multiplier of approximately 1.88, well within
the range of reasonable multipliers. As discussed supra, this Court has previously held that
“lodestar multipliers falling between 2 and 4.5 demonstrate a reasonable attorneys’ fee.”
Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 689 (citing Goldenberg v. Marriott PLP Corp., 33 F. Supp. 2d 434,
439 (D. Md. 1998)).

14

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is this 15th day of June, 2017, HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Settlement Counsels’ Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (ECF No. 459) is
GRANTED in the full requested, and unopposed, amount of $607,163.33, an award
equal to 20% of the Settlement Benefit to the Settlement Class or, alternatively, 1/6
of the entire Common Fund;

2.

Pursuant to Sections 7.1 & 13 of the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 412-2),
payment of this award shall come from the Common Fund, with the exception of the
final $42,980.00 which shall be paid by Net Equity pursuant to a Confessed Judgment
Promissory Note payable to Class Counsel for said amount, payable in twelve (12)
equal monthly payments with no interest accruing; and

3.

The Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy of this Memorandum Order to Counsel.

__/s/_____________________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge

15