Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc.
Decision Date | 28 October 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 93-6068,93-6068 |
Parties | William T. USELTON; W.D. Hupp; C.J. Dowling; Kenneth Miles; G.D. Jeffcoat; Jack Wilson; K.D. Witt; Paula Rosa; Johnny S. Hunt; James A. Mason; Robert E. Stuart; Jerry Don Casey; Maurice Uhrmacher; Loyd A. Duncan; Vernon Jordan; Hubert D. Williamson; J.W. Haris; D.L. Haralson; Harvey Leo Hess; Wood G. Ishmael; Harold W. Summers; Charles E. Stockton; Joe C. Gray; Earl G. Jackson; E.L. Whilhock; Melvin Carpenter; Robert T. Keener; Troy G. Carson; Jack L. Blankinship; Carl L. Davidson; J.F. Maxwell; Paul M. Warren; Jay W. Harned; E.H. Coulter; Earl E. White; Cleo C. McDaniel; Bobby F. Stansbury; Bill J. Anderson; Daniel A. Denny; Carl Lee Wilson; Leroy Barrett; James E. Lee; Donald L. Butler; L.W. Gonzales; Daisy "Maurene" Davis; Keith W. Braul; Jerry L. Edgemon; Gilbert L. Robles; Loyd E. Courtney; Hollis M. Mauldin; Johnny L. Johnson; Carmel M. Doern; TomThelkeld; T.L. Jones; Kenneth W. Hays; Jackie Jones; William Donley; Howard L. Mitchell; Earl D. Denton; Stanley R. Gomes; Jack P. Rowland; K.L. Billingsley; Earl L. Woffard; D.TD. Frizell; H.W. Richardson; Donald Kendrix; Betty Cox; James M. Woodward; Frank Thomas; Donald R. Winter; Jack Yarbrough; Finis M. Yocum; Tommy L. Kirkland; John A. Moyshen; Harold Allison; Marion McClelland; Leslie R. Walcher; Lloyd Fortune, Sr.; B.C. Evans; Raymond B. Horn; Leeha McCormick; Pete Wolf; Leon Hancock; William Anderson; Robert G. Porter; Eldon W. Bishop; E.B. Copeland; D.K. Hanshue; E.G. Dedmon; Leslie R. Walcher; Carl L. Holman; Kenneth W. Jackson; Joel Robinson; Charles Pemberton; Bruce O. Smith; T.D. Jack; James T. Johnson; Willie G. Loudermilk; Raymond Horn; George C. Tsoodle; Gerold L. Goad; B.J. Burrell; D.Y. Qualline; Frances M. McKye; Alonzo Anderson; Hoarce E. Reeves; Betty Moore; Billy R. Jenkins; Jerry A. Warren; C.J. Womack; Johnny Ballard; Kelley Ruminer; Deborah Yandell; Robert Ferguson; Claudie C. Weaver; John O. Stanley; William R. Bricker; Elen H. Spiva; Phillip Horne; Earl V. Griffin; Anna M. Burkett; James E. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Joseph C. Long, Norman, OK, and E.W. Keller and Trent Keller, Keller, Fernald & Keller, Oklahoma City, OK, for movants-appellants.
David Pomeroy, Fuller, Tubb & Pomeroy, Oklahoma City, OK, for objecting class members.
Before LOGAN and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and KANE, * District Judge.
This appeal concerns the proper award of attorneys' fees out of a common fund created when the plaintiff class settled its underlying litigation with defendants. Class counsel, appellants herein, submitted a fee request for fifty percent of the settlement fund, which was formally opposed by separate counsel representing class members who objected to the request. 1 Following a hearing, the district court awarded class counsel twenty-nine percent of the fund, or $507,500. Class counsel moved for reconsideration of that award, while objecting counsel requested a fee for services in preserving the common fund for the benefit of the whole class. The district court denied class counsel's motion and awarded objecting counsel a fee of $14,427.49. Class counsel appeal from both rulings. 2 We affirm.
In Brown v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 838 F.2d 451 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 66, 102 L.Ed.2d 43 (1988), this court distinguished common fund cases from statutory fee cases and recognized the propriety of awarding attorneys' fees in the former on a percentage of the fund, rather than lodestar, basis. Id. at 454-56; accord Swedish Hosp. Corp. v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 1261, 1268 (D.C.Cir.1993); Camden I Condominium Ass'n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 774 (11th Cir.1991). We reconfirmed, however, the existing requirement that the district court determine the reasonableness of the fee and articulate specific reasons for its findings. Brown, 838 F.2d at 454. We also reaffirmed the relevance of the twelve factors originally developed for statutory fee determinations in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974), noting that their applicability and weight in common fund situations would undoubtedly be different. Brown, 838 F.2d at 454, 456.
Class counsel urge us to revisit the common fund considerations addressed in Brown and reformulate our approach to the reasonableness question in addressing their fee claim. Specifically, class counsel advocate a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fox v. Pittsburg State Univ.
... ... Georgia Highway Express, Inc. , which include: (1) the time and labor ... , 838 F.2d 451 (10th Cir. 1988). 39 Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc. , 9 ... ...
-
In re Thornburg Mortg., Inc. Sec.Litig.
... ... (RPAs) 3 the issuance of asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP), 4 and the issuance of collateralized debt ... E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 ... Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 9 F.3d 849, ... ...
-
In re N.M. Indirect Purchasers Microsoft
... ... In re Copley Pharm., Inc., 1 F.Supp.2d 1407, 1409 (D.Wyo.1998) (citing ... , 64 F.3d 1439, 1445 (10th Cir.1995); Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 9 ... ...
-
Gottlieb v. Barry
... ... Shea ... Co., Inc.; William R. Timken; Arthur Rock; H & Q ... United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 993 F.2d 1480, 1482 (10th ... Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 9 ... ...