DOJ Tells Court: Class Lawyers Already Got $60M in Fees. Now They Want More?
The U.S. Justice Department is resisting a supplement fee request on top of the $60.8 million class counsel was awarded for their work in a Native American farmer and rancher Obama-era settlement with USDA.
August 20, 2018 at 03:00 PM
5 minute read
A fight over legal fees is brewing between the U.S. Justice Department and plaintiffs lawyers who oversaw a landmark $680 million settlement for Native American farmers and ranchers in their discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Justice Department is opposing a supplemental award of fees and costs totaling $3.2 million, an amount on top of the $60.8 million earlier awarded to the attorneys who represented the class in the case Keepseagle v. Perdue. The litigation began nearly 19 years ago. The government paid $680 million into a settlement fund in 2011. An additional $80 million was earmarked for debt relief.
Class counsel—Joseph Sellers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Jessica Amunson of Jenner & Block—recently told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington that the supplemental fee award was necessary to pay for services and expenses that arose “only after an unexpectedly large amount of settlement funds were unclaimed, which the settlement agreement provided be distributed in a cy pres distribution.”
The lawyers said they devoted more than 5,000 hours to that additional work involving the cy pres distribution, they wrote. So-called “cy pres” payments are funds that are given to persons or entities that are not direct parties to the dispute. In the Keepseagle case, $380 million was unclaimed.
The nature of that work, they told the court, was “wholly distinct” from the work encompassed by the initial fee petition and none of it was anticipated at the time the initial fee petition was submitted. Under the 2011 settlement agreement, attorney's fees and costs paid to the firms involved in the case totaled $60.8 million.
The Justice Department, in response to the supplemental fee request, argued that the settlement did not permit the award of additional compensation. The settlement agreement authorized the court to award between 4 percent and 8 percent of $760 million, and the court awarded class counsel fees at the top of the range, Justice Department lawyers in the federal programs branch wrote on Aug. 17.
“Fee requests are reviewed for reasonableness,” the Justice Department said. “An additional award of fees, on top of the massive $60.8 million fee award that class counsel has already received, would not be reasonable.”
The government also argued that the size of the cy pres award undercut the supplemental legal-fee request. “Indeed, the $380 million in unclaimed funds indicates that the initial settlement was larger than it should have been and, by extension, that the percentage-based award of attorneys' fees was similarly inflated,” government lawyers wrote. “No further fees are warranted.”
Marilyn Keepseagle, lead class representative, also seeks $566,537.50 in fees generated by Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz, whom she retained separately in order to assist her in seeking an additional award of damages from the unclaimed settlement funds to class members who were successful in their initial claims. That firm is seeking seeking payment for $6,987.56 in unreimbursed expenses associated with representing Keepseagle.
The Keepseagle plaintiffs alleged that beginning in 1981, the Agriculture Department systematically denied Native American farmers and ranchers nationwide the same opportunities as white farmers to obtain low-interest rate loans and loan servicing, causing them hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses.
Sullivan, the presiding judge, approved a $760 million settlement in April 2011, but payments issued on the initial round of claims in 2012 left roughly $380 million of the settlement undisbursed. The U.S. Supreme Court in March refused to hear appeals to distribution of the unclaimed $380-million cy pres award.
The Justice Department had urged the justices to deny review even though the agency—led by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions—previously had called the third-party agreement “regrettable” in the lower appellate court. The Justice Department in June announced a new policy that generally prohibits government attorneys from entering into settlement agreements that require “cy pres” payments.
Read more:
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 AllWill the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
End of an (Chevron) Era: DC Circuit Tackles Challenge to Fishing Monitor Rule, Again
'Major Change'? 6th Circuit Steps Into Fight Over NLRB's Expanded Money Remedies
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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