§Why CasetextPricing

Mehling, et al v. New York Co, et al

MOTION for Attorney Fees Petition of Class Counsel for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses and for Award of Special Payments to Named Plaintiffs Maane and Bowers

34 Cited authorities

  1. Blum v. Stenson

    465 U.S. 886 (1984)   Cited 8,815 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”

  2. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert

    444 U.S. 472 (1980)   Cited 1,029 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly assessed attorney's fees based on the total fund available to the prevailing class rather than the amount actually recovered

  3. In re Prudential Insurance Company

    148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,365 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court acted well within its discretion in denying an objector's request for discovery where the objector was able to present his arguments to the court during the fairness hearing and where the court found the objector "had ample opportunity to avail himself of the substantial discovery provided to Lead Counsel but failed to do so, and that additional discovery was unnecessary because [the objector] focused primarily on legal issues"

  4. In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank

    55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 1,136 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that nothing in Rule 23 "can be read to authorize separate, liberalized criteria for settlement classes"

  5. In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation

    396 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 434 times
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the absence of substantial objections by class members weighed in favor of approval

  6. Sprague v. Ticonic Bank

    307 U.S. 161 (1939)   Cited 1,041 times
    Holding that because a petition for fees is "an independent proceeding supplemental to the original," the suggestion "that it came after the end of the term at which the main decree was entered and [is] therefore too late" was unavailing

  7. Cook v. Niedert

    142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 421 times
    Holding that, because a case had been pending before the district court for five years and the district court had seen the parties throughout the case, the district court was "'far better suited than an appellate court to assess a reasonable fee'" (quoting Harman v. Lyphomed, Inc., 945 F.2d 969, 973 (7th Cir. 1991)(alterations omitted))

  8. Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp.

    223 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 393 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding risk of non-payment to be high when "the defendants were close to insolvency"

  9. Lindy Bros. Bldrs., Phila. v. Am. R. S. San

    487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973)   Cited 875 times
    Finding "value of an attorney's time generally is reflected in his normal billing rate"

  10. Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Am. Radiator

    540 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1976)   Cited 617 times
    Holding that the inquiry into the proper fee should not "assume massive proportions . . . dwarfing the case in chief."

  11. Section 1132 - Civil enforcement

    29 U.S.C. § 1132   Cited 26,279 times   170 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner