Garwin Gerstein to Divvy Up $18M Fee Award Following Mushroom Antitrust Settlement
Though the 11-page order did not outline exactly how much should be allocated to each firm, the motion requesting attorney fees allocated the lion's share to New York-based Garwin Gerstein & Fisher.
January 10, 2020 at 02:45 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
The judge handling the litigation over allegations that mushroom farmers conspired to fix prices has agreed to award more than $18 million to class counsel, led by New York-based Garwin Gerstein & Fisher.
U.S. District Judge Berle Schiller of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Thursday agreed to award $18.23 million in attorney fees, plus $4.25 million in expenses to the 11 firms that served as class counsel in the litigation.
In August, the court granted preliminary approval of an agreement to settle seven claims for $33.7 million, after having previously approved settlements with three other defendants for nearly $12 million. The order should finalize the litigation.
"In prosecuting this action, class counsel have expended more than 42,000 hours of uncompensated time, and incurred substantial out of pocket expenses, with no guarantee of recovery," Schiller said in the order. "Class counsel's hours were reasonably expended in this highly complex case that was vigorously litigated for more than 13 years, and their time was expended at a significant risk of non-payment."
Schiller's class counsel award was the same amount that the parties had requested in the motion filed in November seeking attorney fees.
Though Schiller's 11-page order did not outline exactly how much should be allocated to each firm, the motion requesting attorney fees allocated the lion's share to Garwin Gerstein. According to the filing, the firm worked more than 11,000 hours on the case, with Odom & Des Roches working the second largest number of hours at nearly 9,000. The firm that spent the third largest amount of time on the litigation, according to the filing, was Philadelphia-based Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, with nearly 6,500 hours.
Schiller's motion directed Garwin Gerstein to allocate attorney fees and costs among the other firms serving as class counsel.
Several entities that directly purchased mushrooms originally filed the antitrust class action in 2006 against the members of the former Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in "naked price-fixing and conspired among themselves and in conjunction with [non-EMMC member] distributors to set artificially inflated [mushroom] prices." The plaintiffs also accused the cooperative of "'meeting and agreeing to fix the price of Agaricus mushrooms' and 'by collectively interfering with, penalizing and retaliating against any non-EMMC growers that sought to sell at prices that were below the artificially-inflated prices set by EMMC.'"
Defendants raised numerous challenges during the litigation, including a request to dismiss the action, claiming the plaintiffs' allegations were not specific enough to move forward and there were no differences in the allegations against the cooperative and the individual member farms. In April, Schiller rejected those arguments, saying that in the early stages of the litigation, it didn't matter.
One of the defendants also sought to have Schiller recuse from the case in May, saying he had participated in ex parte communications with some of the parties engaged in settlement talks. Schiller also denied that request.
Neither Bruce Gerstein of Garwin Gerstein, Barry Refsin of Hangley Aronchick, nor Andrew Kelly of Odom & Des Roches returned a call seeking comment.
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 AllTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
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