DORIS GAMBRELL VS. HESS CORPORATION, INC.(L-7761-12, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4001-15T3

Background

After Superstorm Sandy in 2012, Hess sold mislabeled diesel as gasoline at three stations; Hess admitted the error and reimbursed customers over $1 million pre‑litigation.
Doris and Eugene Gambrell (original named plaintiffs) and Falguni Patel sued Hess on behalf of a putative class asserting TCCWNA, Consumer Fraud Act, Motor Fuel Retail Sales Act, breach of contract and related claims; Patel later became a named class representative.
The parties mediated in February 2014, signed a memorandum of understanding, and eventually executed a class settlement (effective April 15, 2015) covering 583 persons and 645 transactions, providing gift cards and individual payments to the class representatives.
The settlement permitted Class Counsel to apply for attorneys’ fees and allowed Hess to object; the trial court awarded $274,576.50 in fees and full costs on final approval (September 30, 2015), while reserving the right to consider a supplemental fee application for post–July 31, 2015 work.
Class Counsel sought a supplemental fee award of $42,556.50 (plus costs) for work after July 31, 2015; the trial court denied supplemental fees (but awarded costs) finding prior fees were generous and post‑July 31 work was unnecessary or subsumed in the earlier award.
Patel appealed the denial of supplemental fees and sought application of current rates; the Appellate Division affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Class Counsel’s supplemental fee application for post‑July 31, 2015 work	Patel: supplemental hours were compensable; prior award didn’t cover post‑July 31 work and the settlement allowed seeking additional fees	Hess: prior award was reasonable and generous; post‑July 31 work was unnecessary, anticipated, or subsumed	Denied — trial court acted within discretion; additional fees were unreasonable under circumstances
Whether the court must award fees for time spent preparing/applying for the supplemental fee petition	Patel: fees for fee‑application work should be awarded	Hess: initial award already included fee‑application time; supplemental fee petition work not compensable absent showing of reasonableness	Denied — initial award accounted for fee‑application time; no entitlement to supplemental fee time
Whether the trial court impermissibly rewrote the settlement by denying supplemental fees	Patel: refusal to award post‑July 31 fees conflicts with settlement’s provision permitting supplemental fee requests	Hess: settlement only permits application; court retains discretion to award only reasonable fees	Denied — court’s decision consistent with settlement which authorizes awarding only reasonable fees
Whether appellate court should itself award supplemental fees/apply current rates instead of remanding	Patel: appellate award and updated rates appropriate	Hess: matter fits within trial court’s discretion and factual findings	Denied — appellate court declined to grant relief and affirmed trial court; no remand necessary

Key Cases Cited

Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (1995) (establishes lodestar method and adjustments for reasonable hours and rates)
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177 (3d Cir. 1990) (hours not reasonably expended include excessive, redundant or unnecessary time)
Packard‑Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427 (2001) (appellate review of attorney fee awards)
Grubbs v. Knoll, 376 N.J. Super. 420 (App. Div. 2005) (fee award overturned only for clear abuse of discretion)