Opinion
96 C 7717.
February 16, 2005
STATEMENT
Suzanne Tongring was one of the attorneys who assisted in representing the plaintiffs in this case in its early stages. She effectively abandoned the case in or around 1999, leaving it to the primary class counsel and others assisting that counsel to prosecute the case to a point where settlement became possible. After having no role in the case for a number of years, Tongring resurfaced literally at the final moments the case was pending, showing up in court on the day the settlement was set for approval, waiting until the Court was prepared to make its ruling, and then presenting, with no advance notice, a petition for fees. Despite Tongring's inappropriate manner of proceeding, the Court considered her petition and awarded her fees of $57,662.50 and a modest amount of expenses that she showed she had incurred. The Court rejected, among other things, Tongring's claim that she had advanced two $10,000 payments for costs on the case, holding that she had failed to show that she had made payments that had anything to do with this case. See Jones v. R.R. Donnelley Sons, No. 96 C 7717, 2005 WL 14923 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2005).
Tongring thereafter moved for reconsideration, making four arguments. The Court summarily rejected two of the arguments and directed class counsel to respond to the other two, which concerned the two purported $10,000 payments. Class counsel has done so, and Tongring has replied.
Having reviewed the submissions on reconsideration, the Court once again finds that Tongring has failed to support her contention that she advanced two $10,000 payments for expenses relating to the Jones case, in July 1996 and October 1997. With regard to the July 1996 payment, Tongring submitted a copy of check payable to class counsel Candace Gorman for that amount. But Tongring has failed to show that this payment had anything to do with the Jones case. The Court is persuaded by Gorman's representation that the payment could not possibly have had anything to do with this case, as the basis for this case was not even uncovered until October 1996, when certain documents were produced by the defendant in other litigation. With regard to the purported October 1997 payment, Tongring has submitted no evidence showing that she made any such advance to Gorman. As of the date of her reply, she had over two and one-half months since the date of the final approval hearing (as well as the time before that hearing) to obtain and produce a copy of a check or other evidence of payment if it existed. But she has not done so. In view of with the absence of supporting evidence from Tongring, as well as an affidavit from Gorman stating that she has no recollection of receiving such a payment and that her bank records do not reflect such a deposit, the Court is unwilling to assume, let alone find, that the payment was made.
For these reasons, the Court denies Tongring's motion for reconsideration.