In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation
| Citation | 768 F. Supp. 912 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. MDL-721.,MDL-721. |
| Parties | In re SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, Ana Luisa Navarro, Liaison, Hato Rey, P.R., for plaintiff.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) Petition for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (docket No. 16172, filed under seal on January 31, 1991) as well as several additional proposals that were independently submitted by various PSC members1 and objections by individual plaintiffs' attorneys2 to the PSC's petition submitted pursuant to Order No. 308 ().3
On February 20 and 21, 1991 the Court held a closed hearing during which each PSC member, including the PSC liaison, attested to and justified the hours worked and tasks performed.4 Each member also presented the expenses accrued by themselves and their support staff since their appointment to the PSC.5 Objections to the evidence presented were subsequently filed by individual plaintiffs' counsel.6
The Court also ordered that any objections to the fees and expenses submitted by members of the Interim Plaintiffs' Investigative Committee (IPIC)7 be submitted in writing.8
The arson fire at the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel (Hotel) on December 31, 1986 resulted in ninety-seven (97) deaths and more than one-hundred (100) severe injuries. In total, two-hundred seventy-five (275) suits by two thousand three hundred thirty-seven (2,337) plaintiffs were filed in the Districts of Puerto Rico, California, Connecticut, New York and Texas. More than two-hundred fifty (250) defendants were sued including the limited partnership who owned and operated the Hotel, various insurers, manufacturers who had products in the Hotel, companies which provided various services to the hotel, and the Teamsters Union.
Subsequently, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found that all claims shared common questions of fact and that centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote a just and efficient trial.9 It was thereby ordered that all actions outside Puerto Rico be transferred to the District of Puerto Rico and the undersigned was appointed as the transferee judge. This Court consolidated all the transferred actions as well as those filed in this District for pretrial purposes.10 At the completion of discovery, transferred cases were consolidated for all purposes, including trial, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).11
Due to the large and unmanageable number of plaintiffs' retained counsel12 and pursuant to its inherent powers to manage and control disposition of causes on its docket, the Court appointed a Committee of lead counsel to coordinate all efforts on behalf of the several thousand plaintiffs. In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir.1977), and Rule 42(a) of the Fed.R.Civ.P.13 The main purpose of this Committee was the enlistment of a group of experienced and energetic attorneys to prosecute those portions of the case common to all plaintiffs and thus avoid excessive costs and overburdening of the Court's limited resources.
In prior mass disaster litigations and large class action suits, the stratagem of utilizing committees of attorneys has proven beneficial.14 Clearly, the full and active participation of all individual plaintiffs' counsel in pretrial activities and during trial would prove duplicative, overlapping and a gross waste of resources and could serve to unjustly delay access to judicial resources for others.15 Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc., 557 F.2d 759, 773 (9th Cir. 1977); In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 549 F.2d at 1013.
At the time, the Court found that the necessity and utility of employing this tool would promote the efficient and rapid completion of the case while providing the Court and the plaintiffs with responsible advocacy. The benefits derived from a committee of attorneys would outweigh any prejudices which could otherwise occur to individual counsel or their clients in limiting their participation. Full participation by each individual plaintiffs' counsel would likely result in numerous attorneys each vying for the attention of the Court, zealously representing the interests of their individual cases and possibly leading to the presentation of confusing and conflicting theories. Clearly, this would be detrimental to the interests of the larger group of plaintiffs. Experience has shown that this small cadre of attorneys, as compared to the free-for-all participation of all attorneys, has better served the interests of all parties as well as those of the Court.
The Court initially appointed the Interim Plaintiffs' Investigative Committee (IPIC) to conduct an immediate post-fire investigation of the hotel and to ensure the marking and preservation of all the necessary evidence.16 Shortly thereafter, the Court initiated a process among all interested plaintiffs' counsel for the formation of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC). This Committee would coordinate and conduct all pretrial and trial matters.17
The criteria employed by the Court for the selection of the PSC members included the availability of financial and physical (e.g. office facilities) resources, willingness to commit the necessary time to the case on a long-term basis, ability to work cooperatively and professional experience in similar cases. In addition, the Court sought to include both local and stateside counsel.
Approximately forty (40) applications were received.18 The names of all the applicants were published and a deadline was set for the filing of objections to the nominees. The Court then carefully reviewed and evaluated the credentials of each applicant until it was satisfied with the selection of the nine (9) members19 that formed the original Committee.20 Subsequently, two (2) more members21 were selected, upon an unanimous recommendation by the PSC members. These additional members were necessary to meet the demands of the increasingly complex litigation both in this forum and in the Commonwealth Court as well as for the coordination of ongoing settlement efforts.22
In addition, the Court established the terms of appointment for PSC members and set guidelines for the basic structure of the Committee including the appointment of officers, the duties and responsibilities of each officer, the calling of regular meetings and the creation of by-laws. The duties and responsibilities of the Committee were numerous and included initiating, coordinating and conducting pretrial liability and damage discovery on behalf of all plaintiffs; attending and acting as spokesperson(s) on behalf of all plaintiffs during all pretrial proceedings; submitting proposals, suggestions, schedules, motions and joint briefs on behalf of all plaintiffs pertaining to all pretrial and trial proceedings, coordinating all trial activity; exploring, developing and pursuing all settlement options, etc.
To assist the PSC's efforts, the Court ordered the appointment of a plaintiffs' liaison to head the PSC Office.23 The liaison was responsible for maintaining a document depository which included the establishment of a comprehensive and up-to-date filing and indexing system containing all the documents generated throughout the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nineteen Appeals Arising Out of San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, In re
...the settlement fund to the victims and their attorneys should not go forward at this time." In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 768 F.Supp. 912, 936 (D.P.R.1991) (hereinafter "Fees Op. "). The parties to these appeals--who agree on little else--do not dispute this assessment of t......
-
San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, In re
...$3,847,233 in claimed expenditures. The district court approved each Raben report as submitted. See In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 768 F.Supp. 912, 934 (D.P.R.1991), vacated on other grounds, 982 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1992). PSC members ultimately recovered $3,708,665. Id. each&......
-
Thirteen Appeals Arising Out of San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, In re
...through an enhancement of the lodestar to account for "the extraordinary results" achieved by the PSC. In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 768 F.Supp. 912, 932 (D.P.R.1991). Thus, the court premised the original award, in large measure, on its assessment of the role that the PSC ......
-
Smiley v. Sincoff
...granted to district court in reducing attorney's fees claimed under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1988)); In Re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 768 F.Supp. 912, 920 (D.P.R.1991) ("The District Court has broad equitable powers to supervise the collection of attorney fees and monitor conting......
-
Chapter § 4.04 LIABILITY OF HOTELS AND RESORTS FOR COMMON TRAVEL PROBLEMS
...eating act; hotel owes duty to prevent injury to guests from acts of performers); In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 768 F. Supp. 912 (D.P.R. 1991) (discussion of attorneys fees after settlement); In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 117 F.R.D. 30 (D.P.R. 1987)......
-
Ethics matters, too: the significance of professional regulation of attorney fees and costs in mass tort litigation.
...the role of courts in providing opportunities for public participation). (14) See, e.g., In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 768 F. Supp. 912, 922 (D.P.R. 1991) (modifying contingent fee contracts exceeding 25% for minors and incompetent plaintiffs and 33% for adult (15) See Resn......