Eversheds Sutherland 11th Circuit Business Blog
content top

ERISA’s Fee-Shifting Provision Permits Awards Against Parties, Not Attorneys

Does ERISA’s fee-shifting provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), permit a court to award fees against a party’s counsel?  Deciding this issue of first impression that has divided district courts within and without the Eleventh Circuit, the court in Peer v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 2021 WL 1257440 (11th Cir. Apr. 6, 2021), held that it does not.  Although the...

No Multiplier for Home Depot Class Action Lodestar Fee Award

In a class action settlement, one of the most difficult issues for negotiation is often how—and how much—class counsel will be paid.  In many cases, a cap on the fee is negotiated:  the defendant agrees not to object to a fee application within the cap, which can be a percentage of the so-called “common fund” received by the class in the settlement, or a fixed amount.  Less common is...

Loan Servicer’s “Obvious” Willful Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Warrants Revival of Plaintiffs’ Claims for Emotional-Distress and Punitive Damages

Last week, in Marchisio v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, 2019 WL 1320522 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2019), the Eleventh Circuit, taking a somewhat exasperated tone, addressed claims against a mortgage servicer whose repeated misreporting of a consumer account—even after a history of litigation and two settlement agreements—was an “obvious” violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The...

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari on Copyright Issue

The Supreme Court this morning granted certiorari on a circuit split involving the Eleventh Circuit.  The Eleventh Circuit (along with the Eighth) has previously held that the fee provisions of the Copyright Act, which allow recovery of the “full costs” of attendance, do not displace general statutes that limit awards to taxable costs.  Artisan Contractors Ass’n of America, Inc. v....

Bankruptcy Debtors Can Recover Attorneys’ Fees Spent in Enforcing Stay and Seeking Damages, Including for Appeals

Richard and Patricia Horne filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. After the bankruptcy was filed and the automatic stay imposed by Section 362(a)(1) went into effect, Mary Mantiply, an attorney, filed a state court action against the Hornes on behalf of Mantiply’s client. Mantiply repeatedly refused to dismiss the case, even after being informed of the...

« Older Entries