Charles T. Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC
975 F.3d 1244
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiff Charles Johnson sued NPAS Solutions under the TCPA for autodialer calls to reassigned cell numbers and pursued a class settlement.
- Parties agreed a non-reversionary $1,432,000 common fund; notice disclosed class counsel would seek 30% in fees and Johnson would seek a $6,000 incentive award.
- The district court set the objection deadline before class counsel filed their Rule 23(h) fee motion; only objector was Jenna Dickenson.
- The district court approved the settlement, awarded 30% fees (and $3,475.52 costs) and granted Johnson the $6,000 incentive, issuing a brief, boilerplate order.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held the Rule 23(h) sequencing violated the Rule but was harmless on this record; it reversed the incentive award as barred by Supreme Court precedent and vacated/remanded the approval and fee findings for fuller explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dickenson) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson/NPAS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sequencing of objection deadline vs. fee motion (Rule 23(h)) | Rule 23(h) requires fee motion to be filed before objections; district court violated Rule 23(h) and due process | Class notice disclosed fee percentage; Dickenson could object and argue at hearing; any error harmless | District court violated Rule 23(h), but on these facts the error was harmless because objector had opportunity to respond and raised same arguments later |
| 2. Legality of a class-representative incentive award | Incentive award compensates personal services/bounty and creates conflict; Greenough and Pettus forbid such payments from a common fund | Incentive awards are routine, scrutinized for fairness; Holmes and other circuit precedent permit awards if they do not create conflict | Reversed: Supreme Court cases Trustees v. Greenough and Pettus bar incentive awards that compensate a plaintiff for personal services or bounty; $6,000 award vacated |
| 3. Sufficiency of district-court findings on fees, objections, and settlement approval | Court issued boilerplate rulings without findings; appellate review impossible; Rule 52/23(h)(3) require findings | District court carefully considered submissions and summarized objections at hearing; brief order was adequate | Vacated and remanded: district court must make factual findings and reasoned legal conclusions sufficient for meaningful appellate review (apply Rule 52/23(h)(3), Cotton, Home Depot) |
| 4. Attorneys’ fees methodology and disclosure | Objector urged lodestar or fuller explanation and documentation | Percentage-of-fund is the accepted approach (Camden I) and Perdue does not abrogate Camden I | Remanded for the district court to explain its fee award with principled reasons and show calculations (apply Camden I; Perdue not controlling for common-fund cases) |
Key Cases Cited
- Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882) (approved reimbursement of litigation expenses but rejected payment for plaintiff's personal services or salary)
- Central R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885) (reinforced Greenough rule disallowing payment from fund for personal services)
- Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010) (fee-motion must be filed before objection deadline under Rule 23(h))
- Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) (same; objectors handicapped without fee petition)
- Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) (Rule 23(h) sequencing error; harmlessness analysis)
- Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1983) (review standard for class settlements and scrutiny of preferential treatment to named plaintiffs)
- Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1977) (trial court must set forth on the record a reasoned response to objections)
- Camden I Condo. Ass'n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768 (11th Cir. 1991) (percentage-of-fund method and requirement that court explain factors supporting fee percentage)
- In re Home Depot Inc., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019) (district court must provide concise but clear explanation for fee awards to permit meaningful appellate review)