11th Circuit Scraps $15M Attorney Fee Award in Home Depot Data Breach Litigation
The panel found the award should only have used hourly rates and time spent litigating the case, and should not have included a financial enhancement.
July 26, 2019 at 03:45 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
A federal appeals court has vacated a $15.3 million legal fee award and remanded it with instructions to reduce it in litigation stemming from a 2014 data breach that impacted 56 million Home Depot customers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined Thursday that the fee award to counsel representing a slate of financial institutions that sued Home Depot over the breach should have been based solely on the lawyers' hourly rates and time spent litigating the case and should not have included any financial enhancement.
Holding that the legal fees were part of a separate contractual deal not included in the final settlement, Chief Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote that, “It was an abuse of discretion to use a multiplier to account for risk in a fee-shifting case.”
Tjoflat was joined by Judge William Pryor and Judge Ronald Lee Gilman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Ken Canfield, a partner at Atlanta's Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, and co-class class counsel for the financial institutions, declined to comment on the ruling. Canfield argued the case at the 11th Circuit and is co-lead counsel for the consumer plaintiffs in the Equifax data breach litigation.
Cari Dawson, a partner at Alston & Bird and co-counsel for Home Depot, could not immediately be reached for comment.
The legal fees at issue were calculated as a lodestar, which is based on lawyers' hourly rates and time but traditionally includes a financial enhancement to compensate plaintiffs lawyers for the risk they assumed when they signed onto the litigation.
The multidistrict litigation on behalf of financial institutions that sought damages stemming from the data breach settled in 2017 for $25 million. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Thrash Jr., who presided over the Home Depot data breach cases, set the fee award after plaintiffs attorneys agreed, at the request of Home Depot lawyers, to negotiate the specifics of “reasonable legal fees,” costs and expenses after closing the settlement deal.
But Home Depot reserved the right to object to any fee request—and ultimately did so after class counsel requested $18 million, according to Tjoflat. Home Depot countered that reasonable legal fees should be about $5.6 million.
Thrash stepped in after lawyers on both sides were unable to agree on a dollar amount. He accepted the lodestar proposed by class counsel—about $11.7 million—as “an appropriate measure of the time expended by the plaintiffs in this case,” Tjoflat said. Thrash then applied the same 1.3 multiplier that had been used in a parallel settlement compensating Home Depot consumers whose financial and personal data had been compromised by the breach, bringing the total to $15.3 million.
“The Home Depot argued that class counsel was not entitled to a multiplier,” Tjoflat said. “Home Depot did not suggest that a multiplier was prohibited, only that it was not warranted” and that financial institution lawyers “did not achieve a great result.”
Thrash also rejected arguments by Home Depot lawyers that counsel for the financial institutions should be the same as the fees paid to consumer class counsel
Thrash said in awarding the fees that financial institution counsel expended more effort and more time than consumer lawyers in settling the cases and that “dealing with [banks] rather than consumers added difficulty to the process of litigating this case.”
Thrash also cross-checked his lodestar award, including the fee enhancement, against a separate percentage calculation based on the class settlement benefits. Thrash ultimately found that the $15.3 million award was only slightly more than one-third of the settlement benefits, which Thrash determined was reasonable.
“It is hard to imagine how the settlement agreement could be any clearer that Home Depot will pay the attorney's fees, and that payment will not come out of the class fund,” Tjoflat said. “A settlement agreement is a contract, … and the parties' intent seemed to be for the fees to be paid separately by Home Depot—i.e., a fee-shifting arrangement.”
“The District Court's only stated reason for using a multiplier was the exceptional risk taken by counsel in litigating the case,” Tjoflat continued. “And risk, according to the Supreme Court, is not an appropriate basis for enhancing an attorney's fee in statutory fee-shifting cases.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: Kirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
How Senior Litigators Are Dealing With the 'Biden Effect'
'Clear the Runway': Bill Lee's Longtime Focus on Succession Planning
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250