Hawkins et al v. Cohen

Filing 135

ORDER granting 133 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees Settlement Approval. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 3/31/2023. (Collins, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Civil Case No.: 5:17-cv-00581-FL

ALICIA
FRANKLIN
and
REINA
GUZMAN, on behalf of herself and minor
child E.L., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KODY KINSLEY, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the North Carolina Department
of Health and Human Services,
Defendant.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
REGARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES
AND COSTS

This matter is before the Court based on the Parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of
their Settlement Agreement Regarding Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Having reviewed the
motion, agreement, and other filings, the Court now makes the following findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
1.

The Parties reached a Settlement Agreement regarding the amount of

attorney’s fees and costs to be paid to class counsel for the period ending January 13,
2023, the date of Court Approval of the Settlement of the Merits in this case. The
agreement calls for payment by Defendant of the sum of $725,000.00 to Plaintiffs’
Attorneys.
2.

The Court has reviewed the summary showing the number of hours

expended by attorneys and paralegals working on the case for the Plaintiffs, their

Case 5:17-cv-00581-FL Document 135 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 3

positions, and their years of experience, and the hourly rates requested for each of them
as well as contemporaneous time records for those working on the case for the Plaintiffs.
3.

The Court finds that the hourly rates requested by Plaintiffs are reasonable

and consistent with rates charged by other attorneys and paralegals of similar experience
working on complex litigation in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
4.

The Court finds that the number of hours expended by Class Counsel and

their staff were reasonable considering the excellent results obtained, the very large
number (over 2.8 million currently) of Medicaid beneficiaries protected from improper
termination or reduction of their benefits, and the large number and significant
complexity of the issues required to be addressed both during litigation and in the
extensive, protracted negotiations between the Parties. The reasonableness of the time
expended is also supported by Findings 3 and 4 of this Court’s January 13 Order
approving the settlement of the merits.
5.

The amount of attorney’s fees agreed to in the Settlement Agreement

represents a 13.3% reduction from the product of the hours expended multiplied by the
hourly rates requested. This supports the Court’s finding that the amount of fees is fair
and reasonable.
6.

This case sought and obtained only injunctive relief. Therefore, the fees

paid to Class Counsel in no way could have reduced any monetary recovery obtained by
class members. Moreover, the settlement of the merits was completed and approved by
the Court before any negotiations occurred regarding fees. This Court has previously
found that there was no collusion and that the results obtained for the class were
excellent. ECF No. 132, Finding 10. Thus, there is no risk that Class Counsel accepted a

2
Case 5:17-cv-00581-FL Document 135 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 3

lesser settlement on the merits in order to obtain fees for themselves. In these
circumstances, the underlying purpose of the Rule 23(h) requirement for court review of
the settlement of fees in a class action has been satisfied. See Braggs v. Dunn, 321 F.R.D.
653, 675 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (“[E]ven when both sides agree to an award of attorneys' fees,
the court has an independent responsibility to assess its reasonableness, in order to guard
against the risk that class counsel might agree to enter into a settlement less favorable to
their clients in exchange for inappropriately high fees.”)
7.

As required by Rule 23(h)(1), notice of the joint motion was “directed to

class members in a reasonable manner” by prominently posting a notice at the websites of
Class Counsel, where it remained for a period of four weeks. The notice included links to
the parties’ motion, the Settlement Agreement, and a summary of the time expended and
hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs, along with instructions for any class member who
wanted more information or who wished to file a written objection to approval of this
motion. The Court finds that this notice met the requirements of Rule 23(h)(1).
8. The deadline for filing objections was March 3, 2023. No written objections
have been filed.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), the Court hereby approves the
Parties’ Settlement Agreement Regarding Attorney’s Fees.

This the 31st day of May, 2023.
_______________________________
Louise Wood Flanagan
United States District Court Judge

3
Case 5:17-cv-00581-FL Document 135 Filed 05/31/23 Page 3 of 3