Board of Trustees v. Parker
113 So. 3d 64
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Parker, a retired Tampa firefighter, sued the Board over failing to issue the 13th check for FY 2004.
- Parker was certified as class representative for other 13th check recipients; 243 opted out.
- Settlement approved after Board acknowledged error in not issuing the 13th check.
- Parker sought attorney’s fees for himself and the class, including a contingency multiplier; court granted multiplier of 2.0.
- Trial court based fees on Florida statutes 175.061 and 185.05 and the substantial benefit doctrine; Board challenged both the source and amount.
- Special Law creates the 13th check program unique to the City of Tampa and not governed by general pension statutes
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common fund applies to attorney’s fees. | Parker; fund exists and benefits the class | Board; statutes control or no fund | Common fund applies; 175/185 inapplicable |
| Whether the court properly applied a contingency multiplier. | Multiplier appropriate given risk and market | No basis to apply multiplier | Contingency multiplier affirmed; supported by evidence |
| Whether the 13th check program falls under special law vs. general statutes. | Special Law unique to Tampa; not governed by chs. 175/185 | Statutory framework should govern | Special Law governs; not general statutes |
| Whether the award should be remanded for proper application of the common fund doctrine. | Remand to apply common fund doctrine; certify question of public importance | ||
| Whether the fee award was otherwise legally sound. | Fees reasonable and properly calculated | Fees excessive or improperly sourced | Fees upheld; remand for proper application of doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Costello v. Odell, 693 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1997) (development of the common fund doctrine; foundational authority)
- Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982) (common fund framework; pecuniary benefit to class)
- Sprague v. N at’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1939) (root of substantial benefit doctrine; federal view)
- Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1973) (substantial benefit doctrine application in securities context)
- Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1970) (discussion of substantial benefit doctrine)