Albright et al v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to recover expenses in the amount of $14,022.21 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' request for approval of incentive p ayments in the amount of $2,500.00 to each of the two class representatives, Nancy Albright and Sarah Rodhouse is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorney's fees is GRANTED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall receive an attorneys fee award in the amount of $176,571.50 to be apportioned among the three law firms as set forth in this Memorandum. (Doc. No. 52.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 9/11/2013. (NCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NANCY ALBRIGHT and SARAH
RODHOUSE, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly
THE BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE MISSOURI–ILLINOIS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT d/b/a
Case No. 4:11CV01691 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Plaintiffs Nancy Albright and
Sarah Rodhouse, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, for approval of their requests for attorney’s fees on behalf of Plaintiffs’ counsel
(“Class Counsel”), costs and incentive payments to each of the class representatives.
The motion is fully briefed and the parties presented argument to the Court at a
fairness hearing on July 29, 2013. Defendants do not object to the amounts proposed for
costs and incentive payments. In the absence of objection by Defendant, the Court will
award Plaintiffs the requested costs in the amount of $14,022.21. Plaintiffs have also
presented evidence regarding the contributions made by the named class representatives
to the action, and the time commitment involved. The Court does not believe that such
incentive payments should be granted simply as a matter of course. In light of the
evidence presented in this case, however, the Court shall also approve an incentive award
of $2,500.00 to each of the class representatives, based on their contributions to the case.
Class Counsel, Matthew Armstrong, Richard Doherty and Chant Yedalian, have
presented the Court with a request for fees in the amount of $408,764.59. Defendants
seek a 75% reduction in the amount of attorney’s fees contending that the hours billed
and the rates charged are unreasonable in light of the simplicity of the case and the value
of the relief obtained in the settlement, $742.50, as compared to the requested fee award.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court approves a reduction in the amount of
attorney’s fees and awards $176,541.50.
Class Counsel, Matthew Armstrong, Richard Doherty and Chant Yedalian, move
for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $408,764.59. In this case, Plaintiffs
asserted a single claim against Defendant, the Bi-State Development Agency of the
Missouri – Illinois Metropolitan District (“MetroLink”), for violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681(c)(g)(1), a provision of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The remedies available under the FCRA apply
to claims under the FACTA and are embodied in 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Bateman v.
American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 623 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 2010). “[I]n the case of any
successful action,” the FCRA expressly provides for an award of “reasonable attorney’s
fees as determined by the court.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3).
This case was filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Saint Louis on August 15,
2011. Counsel took the case on contingent fee basis and all three firms have been
involved in the case since the outset. Plaintiffs assert that the settlement of this action
was the “culmination of nearly two years of research, investigation, evaluation and
litigation . . . at a very significant risk.” (Doc. No. 53 at 1.) The record establishes,
however, that within hours of the filing of the suit, MetroLink ceased its alleged illegal
conduct, the disclosure of credit card expiration dates on credit card receipts for the
purchase of MetroLink tickets. In light of this prompt response, Plaintiffs assert that they
achieved the FACTA’s statutory goal, protection from the risk of identity theft. The
complaint alleged not only a technical but also a willful violation of the FACTA, but the
parties also now acknowledge that Defendant committed only a technical violation of the
statute and that there was no evidence of actual damages or willful conduct.
Defendant removed the case to this Court on September 28, 2011. Thereafter the
parties engaged in some limited discovery and fully briefed a motion to dismiss. The
motion to dismiss alleged that Plaintiffs’ complaint did not meet the requirements under
Twombly and Iqbal for alleging willfulness under FACTA. Soon after briefing on the
motion to dismiss was completed, the parties engaged in mediation. On March 23, 2012,
in a day-long, Court-ordered mediation session, the parties achieved a settlement in
principle of the class claims, but did not resolve the matters of attorney’s fees and
incentive payments. The parties thereafter requested a stay of all proceedings to permit
them to continue their settlement discussions. In light of the parties’ settlement
discussions, the motion to dismiss was dismissed without prejudice, to be refiled if
To address the logistics of finalizing the settlement, incentive payments and
attorney’s fees, the parties participated in another day-long mediation session on July 11,
2012. From that date until March 4, 2013, when they requested Court approval of the
final Settlement, the parties’ principal efforts in the case focused on their unsuccessful
attempt to resolve the issue of attorney’s fees. The parties resolved the substantive issues
in the case after approximately seven months and then spent the next year finalizing the
settlement agreement and attempting to reach agreement on attorney’s fees. Despite this
significant investment of time, the parties ultimately failed to resolve the fee issue. See
Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 50-1, § 2.4.1.)
The terms of the settlement were communicated to the class pursuant to a plan
negotiated by the parties and preliminarily approved by the Court on March 4, 2013.
(Doc. No. 51.) Defendant published the notice of settlement, prominently posted the
settlement notices on MetroLink ticket vending machines, and kept the notices in place
through the claims submission deadline. Defendant also established a website that
contained all the settlement information, permitted the filing of electronic claims, and
established a toll-free telephone number for use by class members seeking additional
information. Having executed these measures, the parties received fifty-two claims and
no requests to opt out of the settlement or objections to its terms.
The action resulted in the correction of a technical violation of the FACTA and
provided compensation to claiming class members of either $30 in cash or up to a $72
value in MetroLink tickets. Of the fifty-two class submitted claims, eight were rejected
for inadequate documentation and one claim was initially rejected as untimely. At the
July 29, 2013 hearing, the parties agreed to accept and pay the untimely claim. Thus, at
the time of final approval, forty-four claimants were approved to receive a total of
$742.50 either in cash or in ride tickets, as a result of the settlement.
The Settlement Agreement provides for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and incentive
awards to be paid separately by Defendant so as to not diminish the relief provided to the
Class and permits Class Counsel to petition the Court for an award of reasonable
attorneys’ fees and expenses. (Doc. No. 50-1, § 2.4 & § 2.7.)
The general principles governing an award of attorney’s fees are well settled. “A
request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.” Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). It is preferable that the litigants settle on the
amount of a fee. Where settlement is not possible, the party seeking fees bears the
burden of establishing and documenting the time reasonably expended on the case and
reasonable hourly rates.1 Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 & 437.
The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a
reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation
multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. This calculation provides an
objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of a
lawyer’s services. The party seeking an award of fees should submit
evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed. Where the
documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the
Hensley involved an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, but the Hensley
Court clearly stated that “[t]he standards set forth [here] are generally applicable in all
cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a ‘prevailing party.’”
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 n. 7 (internal quotation s omitted).
The district court also should exclude from this initial fee calculation
hours that were not “reasonably expended.” Cases may be overstaffed, and
the skill and experience of lawyers vary widely. Counsel for the prevailing
party should make a good-faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours
that are excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary.
Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938, 956-57 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at
433) (internal citations omitted); see also Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir.
2005). If the plaintiff satisfies this burden and demonstrates to the court’s satisfaction
that the hours claimed and the hourly rates are reasonable, the lodestar “‘provides an
objective basis on which to make initial estimate’ of the value of a lawyer’s services.”
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.
Calculation of the lodestar does not, however, end the inquiry. Id. at 434. Various
considerations may lead a district court to adjust the fee upward or downward,” but many
of these considerations will have been “subsumed within the initial calculation of hours
reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 & n. 9
(internal citation omitted); see also Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662,
1673 (2010). The factors to be considered are:
the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the
question, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly, (4)
the preclusion of other employment due to acceptance of the case, (5) the
customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time
limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount
involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation and ability
of the attorneys, (10) the undesirability of the case, (11) the nature and
length of the professional relationship with the client and (12) awards in
St. Louis Fire Fighters Ass’n., 96 F.3d 323, 332 n. 10 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Thorne v.
Welk Inv., Inc., 197 F.3d 1205, 1213 (8th Cir. 1999).
A. Plaintiffs’ Lodestar Calculation
Here Plaintiffs seek a fee award of $408,764.59; the lodestar is derived using the
amounts set forth below:
Armstrong Law Firm:
Bock Law Firm, LLC
Chant and Co.
205.20 hours x $650.00 per hour = $133,380.00
383.40 hours x $408.88 per hour = $156,764.59
215.42 hours x $550.00 per hour = $118,481.00
Lodestar = $408,764.59
Defendant seeks a 75% reduction in the lodestar figure proposed by Class
Counsel. In order to obtain a reduction of the lodestar, a defendant may show that any of
the factors noted above render either or both components of the lodestar unreasonable.
Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1673. For example, the party objecting to the lodestar may show
that the hourly rate is not justified by results obtained, that the hours claimed are
excessive or improperly documented, or that the hours or the billing rates are
unreasonable. Id.; see also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437; Quigley, 598 F.3d at 959. After an
examination of the factors noted above the Court concludes that Class Counsel’s lodestar
figure is unreasonable and should be reduced.
B. Hours Billed
In assessing the reasonableness of the lodestar, district courts are to consider
whether the hours of work claimed by counsel were in fact reasonably expended. A
district court properly excludes from the lodestar calculation hours claimed on the
grounds that they are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley, at 434;
see also El-Tabech v. Clarke, 616 F.3d 834, 841 (8th Cir. 2010).
Here Class Counsel contends that it exercised billing judgment to eliminate
duplicative billing and reduced the hours claimed before submitting the request to the
Court. Nonetheless, the Court’s review of the documentation submitted persuades it that
there are numerous redundant and duplicative entries, and that the hours claimed were not
reduced sufficiently to account for the inefficiencies engendered by the involvement of
three law firms in the case. Seven attorneys and two paralegals billed hours in this case,
including three senior lawyers from different firms. In light of its relative simplicity, the
Court finds that the case was overstaffed and an inordinate amount of time was spent on
communications between the Plaintiffs’ attorneys. See, e.g., Stutzka v. McCarville, 243
Fed. App’x 195 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming district court’s reduction of $103,274.45 fee
request to an award of $3,000.00 due to relative lack of complexity of case); H.J. Inc. v.
Flygt Corp., 925 F.2d 257, 260 (8th Cir. 1991) (affirming district court’s 50% reduction
in lodestar based on limited results and simplicity of case as sound exercise of
Plaintiffs offer no persuasive reason for the involvement of three law firms in this
case.2 The time sheets do not indicate a division of duties and responsibilities among the
firms designed to achieve efficiencies, and counsel offered no such division of
responsibilities at the hearing. As a result, it appears that attorneys at each of the three
At the hearing, class counsel offered only the justification that it is helpful to small or
solo practitioners to have other counsel with whom to discuss issues.
firms often reviewed and revised the same documents. They also expended a great deal
of time communicating and coordinating with one another on issues that could have been
resolved by one of the firms rather than all three. See Doc. No. 54-3 (more than half of
time entries for Armstrong refer to reviewing email from, and coordinating with, cocounsel).
For example, entries for the period from September 23 through 28, 2011, show
that all three counsel reviewed and conferred with respect to a proposed motion for
extension of time, expending a total of 7.25 hours on two exceedingly simple tasks.
Similarly, in late September and early October 2011, counsel expended a total of 7.5
hours of attorney time at the highest applicable rate on the administrative task of
submitting two requests for admission pro hac vice. See Doc. Nos. 54-1 at 2; 54-2 at 1516; and 54-3 at 2.
There is no dispute that overall Class Counsel provided an acceptable level of
legal services and a good result to the Class. But there is no evidence that the
involvement of three firms improved the level of services delivered or led to a more
favorable outcome. Rather the involvement of multiple law firms led to redundancy and
In addition, Class Counsel claim the highest level of experience and expertise in
class action cases and consumer cases, but nonetheless billed large amounts of time for
tasks that counsel with expertise would be expected to handle with ease. See, e.g., Doc.
Nos. 54-1 at 4-5; 54-2 at 15-16; and 54 -3 at 7-8 (reflecting that in late May and early
June 2012 counsel spent a combined total of 40 billable hours developing the initial draft
of their fairly standard 22 page class action settlement agreement). The notice thereafter
had to be amended after the Court pointed out certain errors or omissions. Additionally,
between one-third and one-half of the 789 hours billed in the case were logged after
March 23, 2012 when the parties reached a settlement in principle of the main claim in
the case. See Doc. Nos. 54-1, 54-2 and 54-3; see also Doc. No. 33. Further, Plaintiffs
billed for work performed before the class representatives bought the MetroLink tickets
on which their claims are based.3
Plaintiffs charge that Defendant “over-lawyered” the case and engaged in
unwarranted “aggressive tactics” that increased the number of hours Plaintiffs had to
expend on the case. See Morales v. Farmland Foods, Inc., No. 8:08CV504, WL 2013
WL 1704722, *8-9 (D. Neb. Apr. 18, 2013) (holding that a defendant cannot complain
about “over-lawyering” when it “was aware that its litigation strategy would generate
legal work, billing and fees” and the hours expended by plaintiffs’ attorneys were
“necessitated by the defendant’s aggressive tactics”). Specifically, Plaintiffs cite to
allegedly lengthy discovery battles, a “multi-pronged” motion to dismiss, and “two entire
days” spent in court-ordered mediation. Doc. No. 60. A review of the Court file
indicates that Plaintiffs overstate the complexity of the discovery disputes and the motion
to dismiss which the parties eventually withdrew. The motion to dismiss was a very
simple one addressing the standard for pleading willfulness – an issue with which
Based on information provided by Class Counsel at the hearing, it appears the
violation was first noticed by one of the Class Counsel, who thereafter coordinated with
the second law firm. Those attorneys thereafter contacted St. Louis counsel, who went to
the Metro-Link station, confirmed the violation, and discussed with consumers who
purchased tickets their willingness to serve as class representatives.
- 10 -
experienced Class Counsel should have been well-versed. In addition, two days spent in
mediation pale in comparison to the many months devoted almost exclusively but
unsuccessfully to settlement of the attorney’s fees issue. Therefore, the Court does not
agree Defendant employed unwarranted excessive and aggressive tactics to inflate the
number of hours expended on the case.
On the basis of the forgoing, the Court finds that the fee requests are replete with
unnecessary and duplicative billings, caused primarily by counsel’s involvement of three
law firms. As such, the Court will reduce by one-half the number of hours claimed by
each law firm.
C. Hourly Rates
Class Counsel billed its contingency class action services at the following hourly
Armstrong Law Firm: $650.00/hr.
Bock Law Firm, LLC (blended rate): $408.88/hr.
Chant and Co.: $550.00/hr.
Under Eighth Circuit precedent, the Court properly considers whether the hourly
rates Plaintiffs request are reasonable in light of prevailing rates in the community for
comparable services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and
reputation. See Moore v. City of Des Moines, 766 F.2d 343, 346 (8th Cir. 1985). When
determining reasonable hourly market rates, district courts may rely on their own
experience and knowledge of prevailing rates in the community. See Warnock v. Archer,
397 F.3d 1024, 1027 (8th Cir. 2004); Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2005). “A
- 11 -
reasonable [attorney’s] fee is ‘one that is adequate to attract competent counsel, but . . .
[that does] not provide windfalls to attorneys.”’ McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456,
1458 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984)).
The Court previously found that Class Counsel had sufficient expertise, skill and
experience to handle this matter and that some of them had been successful at litigating
class actions in the past. See Doc. No 51. The Court also has considered the declarations
and biographical material submitted by lead counsel with respect to their expertise,
experience and qualifications to handle this matter. See Doc. Nos. 53-2, 53-3 and 53-4.
Relying on a recent state-wide billing rate survey, Plaintiffs assert that the rates
claimed here are reasonable and typical of the rates charged in the Saint Louis
metropolitan area by partner-level plaintiff attorneys in class action litigation. Defendant
asserts that the requested rates are excessive given the experience and expertise of Class
Counsel and that the rates closely approach the highest rates paid to any attorney in the
Citing to a survey recently published in the Missouri Lawyers Weekly entitled
“Billing Rates 2013,” Class Counsel assert that partner-level plaintiffs’ attorneys’
contingency fee rates in Missouri (including class action litigation) range from $750 to
$450 per hour. See “Billing Rates 2013” Missouri Lawyers Weekly, June 17, 2013.
(Doc. No. 53-5 at 10.) They further assert that “class action partner-level attorneys bill
between $650 to $600 per hour.” Doc. No. 53, at 7. But the $750 per hour rate is
charged by only one attorney, Edward “Chip” Robertson, Jr., a former Chief Justice of
the Missouri Supreme Court, who lists that rate for appellate work. And the “$650 to
- 12 -
$600” rate cited appears to relate to only two partner-level attorneys in one firm.
Plaintiffs provide no information from which the Court could conclude that the
experience level of and type of litigation handled by those two attorneys is comparable to
that of Class Counsel. Class Counsel offer no affidavits, other than their own, to attest
that the rates requested are reasonable. Further, rates at the highest level listed in the
survey appear anomalous and unwarranted in this relatively simple, straightforward
FACTA case where there was no real question as to liability, and Plaintiffs offered no
evidence, whatsoever, of any willful violation.
There is no indication that the services provided here were exceptional or that the
case involved complex or difficult questions. Although class actions are generally
viewed as complex cases, this particular class action was fairly simple and was not hard
fought or protracted except with respect to the question of attorney’s fees. Moreover, the
case involved a relatively small class of local claimants. See Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d
at 958-59. In addition, the Court finds the requested hourly rates unreasonable given the
lack of complexity in the case and the minimal amount of time devoted to litigation of the
substantive issues in the case.
The lack of complexity also makes plain a second factor that causes the rates
charged to be excessive. Much of the work necessary to Plaintiffs’ case consisted of
fairly routine tasks, such as modification of form complaints, review of basic discovery,
and the drafting of fairly standard settlement documents and notices. Such work can and
should be performed by attorneys and, when appropriate, paralegals, at significantly
lower rates, under the supervision of a more experienced attorney at a higher rate. And
- 13 -
yet, Plaintiffs made little effort here to achieve any such efficiencies. For example, the
Armstrong timesheets show on August 15, 2011, 0.7 hours researching and circulating to
co-counsel pro hac vice procedures; 1.4 hours preparing summonses and cover sheets for
state filing; and 1.6 hours to travel to court, file the petition, pay fees and submit
summonses, for a total of 3.7 hours. This work, which could have been done by a
paralegal, is all billed at $650 per hour, for a total of $2,405.00.
Only the Bock Firm used attorneys at lower billing rates, but the hours charged at
lower rates are for less than those charged by Attorney Doherty. The time records reflect
163.90 hours by Dougherty at $585 per hour, while Smith billed 63 hours at $395 per
hour, Ludwig billed 8.3 hours at $300 per hour, Vincent billed 64.8 hours at $300 per
hour, and Bullimore billed 16.4 hours at $245 per hour. While the Bock Firm’s billing
does reflect some paralegal time, the bulk of the entries with respect to one of the two
paralegals appear to relate to research and activities regarding the request for attorneys’
Indeed, notwithstanding the strong opposition to the fee request, Plaintiffs offered
no explanation at the hearing for why this case required staffing by three senior lawyers,
at rates of $550, $585, and $650 per hour. The Court can see no reason why this case
required that the vast majority of the work be done by three senior attorneys, especially
where, as here, counsel assert that rates as high as $650 per hour – which are among the
highest in the area – are justified because of counsels’ extensive experience with this very
type of class action case. And such staffing is especially unjustified here, as counsel
- 14 -
were in a position early on to determine there was no question of liability, no evidence of
actual damages, and apparently little if any evidence of willfulness.
Although Class Counsel undertook this case on a contingent basis, the Court
cannot conclude that the case presented a significant financial risk for Class Counsel in
light of the fact that technical violation of the FACTA would have been evident to
counsel with little expertise in the field. In addition, from the outset of the suit,
Defendant corrected its conduct to avoid future or continuing violations. Finally,
although Class Counsel may have committed substantial resources to the investigation,
prosecution, and settlement of the case there is no evidence that Class Counsel had to
forgo other opportunities in order to pursue and resolve this matter.
The Court concludes that based on the above facts, the requested hourly rates in
this case are unreasonably high under prevailing community standards. The Court does
not question the ethics or abilities of Class Counsel or their success in this case. The
Court is also mindful of the important public purpose that can be served by class action
litigation, especially in cases involving small amounts of loss by class members. And of
course, Congress had made the determination that litigants who are successful in claims
brought under consumer protection statutes should receive an award of fees, in part to
encourage private enforcement. But none of these commendable goals justify needless
involvement by multiple law firms, or work done at excessively high rates with little
effort to achieve efficiencies.
Taking into account all of the factors considered above, the Court concludes that a
fee of $500.00/hour for lead counsel from each firm is more than reasonable here. The
- 15 -
Court will employ this rate for Matthew Armstrong, Richard Doherty, and Chant
Yedalian. The Court will not employ the blended rate submitted on behalf of the Bock
Law Firm, but will adopt instead the individual rates noted for the other attorneys and
paralegals whose time was billed by the Bock Law Firm. 4
D. Revised Lodestar
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court approves an award of attorney’s fees
derived from a one-half reduction in the number of hours submitted by the parties
multiplied by an hourly rate of $500.00 for each of the three lead attorneys and by the
individual rates designated on the time sheets for all other personnel from the Bock Law
Firm. Even with this reduction, the three primary attorneys will receive a total of
$146,130 for a total of 292.26 hours of work, and Class Counsel overall will receive
$176,541.50, as set forth below. The Court finds this amount to be more than reasonable
in light of the nature and complexity of the case and the work required.5
Armstrong Law Firm
102.60 hours x $500 per hour = $51,300.00
Use of the blended rate for Bock Law Firm personnel results in a higher total fee than
does the use of individual rates. Because the individual rates more accurately reflect the
expertise of each individual who worked on the case, the Court declines to apply the
blended rate here.
Although the Court does not factor in the amount of the actual class recovery, the
total of which could not be known at the time of settlement, the Court notes, in passing,
that even as reduced, the attorneys’ fees are more than 237 times the amount of the class
- 16 -
Bock Law Firm, LLC
Smith: 31.5 hours x $395 per hour = $12,442.50
Ludwig: 4.15 hours x $300 per hour = $1,245.00
Vincent: 32.4 hours x $300 per hour = $9,720.00
Bullimore: 8.2 hours x $245 per hour = $2,009.00
Dougherty: 81.95 hours x $500 per hour = $40,975.00
Schneider: 16.05 hours x $150 per hour = $2,407.50
Findlay: 17.45 hours x $150 per hour = $2,617.50
Chant and Co.
107.71 hours x $500.00 per hour = $53,855.00
Total Revised Lodestar = $176,571.50
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to recover expenses in the
amount of $14,022.21 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ request for approval of
incentive payments in the amount of $2,500.00 to each of the two class representatives,
Nancy Albright and Sarah Rodhouse is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of attorney’s
fees is GRANTED, in part.
- 17 -
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall receive an attorney’s fee award
in the amount of $176,571.50 to be apportioned among the three law firms as set forth in
this Memorandum. (Doc. No. 52.)
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of September, 2013.
- 18 -
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?