Camp Drug Store, Incorporated v. Cochran Wholesale Pharmaceutic, 897 F.3d 825

Cochran, a small Georgia pharmaceutical distributor, sent unsolicited marketing faxes to ~17,000 businesses; Camp Drug Store and ARCare sued as class representatives under the TCPA.
Parties mediated early (before substantive litigation or discovery) and reached a claims-made settlement: Cochran would make up to $700,000 available for claims; unclaimed funds would revert to Cochran.
Claimants could submit forms for $125 each; 1,765 claims were submitted and Cochran paid $220,625 to claimants.
Settlement contemplated up to $233,333.33 (one-third of $700,000) for class counsel and $15,000 incentive awards to each named plaintiff; Cochran did not object to the requested amounts but did not guarantee payment beyond court award.
The district court preliminarily approved but expressed concerns about (1) lack of discovery/early-stage settlement, (2) reversion of unclaimed funds, and (3) magnitude of fee and incentive requests relative to work done.
At final approval, the district court concluded the arrangement was a "claims-made" settlement (not a common fund), awarded fees equal to 33.3% of the amount actually paid to claimants ($73,468.13), and reduced each incentive award to $1,000. Camp Drug Store appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $700,000 pledge constituted a common fund for fee calculation	The settlement created a common fund; Boeing requires fees be measured against the fund available (one-third of $700,000)	The arrangement was claims-made with reversion; no sum certain was surrendered to the class	Settlement was not a common fund; district court correctly treated it as claims-made
Whether the requested attorney fee (one-third of $700,000) was reasonable	One-third of the settlement fund is customary; Boeing supports measuring fees against the fund	Fee was disproportionate to the work done given early-stage settlement and scarce litigation activity	Court reasonably reduced fee to one-third of actual recovery (33.3% of $220,625) given limited work and market considerations
Appropriate method to assess reasonableness of fees in such settlements	Use percentage-of-fund approach tied to available fund	Compare fees to actual recovery and lodestar cross-check considering risk and work performed	District court properly considered market price, lodestar as cross-check, and compared fees to amount actually paid to class; no abuse of discretion
Whether $15,000 incentive awards were appropriate	$15,000 is commensurate with awards in other TCPA cases	Named plaintiffs’ participation was minimal; $15,000 was excessive	District court reasonably reduced incentive awards to $1,000 each based on limited time/effort; affirmed

Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) (common-fund doctrine: attorneys who create a common fund are entitled to reasonable fees assessed against the fund)
Holtzman v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2013) (TCPA class actions often stem from discrete injuries and may not create a common fund)
Holtzman v. Turza, 828 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2016) (follow-up framing TCPA claims as individual rather than common-fund injuries)
Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191 (7th Cir. 1996) (factors for evaluating fairness of class settlements)
Reynolds v. Beneficial Nat’l Bank, 288 F.3d 277 (7th Cir. 2002) (district judge’s fiduciary role in settlement-phase review)
Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) (limits on including administrative costs in the fee-vs-class-recovery comparison)