Edward Huyer v. Steven Buckley, 849 F.3d 395

Plaintiffs filed a 2008 class action against Wells Fargo alleging improper automatic property-inspection charges on delinquent mortgages; litigation included extensive motion practice and discovery over seven years.
Parties settled in 2015 for a $25,750,000 total settlement fund; $3,250,000 of that was earmarked for notice and administration, leaving a $22,500,000 net fund for distribution (if admin costs exceed $3,250,000 they reduce the net fund; if less, leftover admin funds go to class members).
Class counsel sought attorneys’ fees equal to one-third of the total settlement fund; objectors (Buckley, Deachin, Dunmore) opposed, arguing fees should be calculated on the net fund and that the requested percentage was unreasonable.
The district court approved the settlement and awarded $8,583,332.48 (one-third of the total fund) in fees, and the objectors appealed.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, applying the percentage-of-the-benefit method and cross-checking with the lodestar multiplier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether administrative/notice costs may be included in the common fund when calculating percentage fees	Buckley: administrative costs do not benefit class; fees should be based on net fund	Court/Wells Fargo: total fund reasonably represents the common benefit including justified admin costs	Eighth Circuit: district court did not err; administrative costs may be included absent a showing they are unjustifiable
Whether one-third of the total fund is a reasonable fee percentage	Objectors: one-third (or resulting percentage of net fund) is excessive	Class counsel: one-third is reasonable given litigation length, results, contingency, and counsel experience	Held: one-third was reasonable under percentage method
Whether the district court abused discretion by not explaining selection of total vs. net fund	Objectors: court needed to justify using total fund	Court: omission not reversible where record shows review and no showing admin costs unjustified	Held: no abuse of discretion despite lack of explicit explanation
Whether the fee award is reasonable under lodestar cross-check	Objectors: fee too high relative to hours and rates	Class counsel: lodestar multiplier is within accepted range for protracted litigation	Held: lodestar multiplier (~1.82) was reasonable; cross-check supports award

Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for fee awards)
Johnston v. Comerica Mortg. Corp., 83 F.3d 241 (8th Cir. 1996) (describing percentage-of-benefit and lodestar methods)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding defendant-paid notice costs can be included in common fund calculation)
Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) (cautioned scrutiny of administrative costs for class benefit)
Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2000) (net vs. gross recovery should yield a reasonable end result)
In re U.S. Bancorp Litig., 291 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2002) (upholding fee awards up to 36% in class settlements)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) (recognizing higher lodestar multipliers in prolonged class litigation)
Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (factors for assessing reasonableness of attorney fees)