Heien v. Archstone, 837 F.3d 97

Plaintiffs (former/current Archstone tenants) filed a class action in Massachusetts challenging “amenity use fees” as unlawful security deposits and Chapter 93A violations; the case (Heien) was stayed pending resolution of related Hermida litigation.
In Hermida, the district court had already held that the same amenity fees violated the Massachusetts Security Deposit Statute and later approved a settlement with a reduced lodestar-based fee award to the same counsel.
Heien’s parties negotiated a settlement creating a $1,300,000 capped common fund for claims and fees; defendants agreed not to oppose up to 15% in fees, and only $180,480 was actually paid to claimants.
Class counsel sought $429,000 (33% of the fund), reporting a lodestar of $58,693; defendants objected, pointing to Hermida and the low lodestar.
The district court awarded $29,250 in fees (about half the lodestar counsel claimed), explaining that (1) the key legal issues were decided in Hermida, (2) Heien was stayed and involved little litigation, (3) defendants promptly settled, and (4) the court considered the actual benefit to class members.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the district court erred by (a) improperly relying on the portion of the fund actually claimed (citing Boeing) and (b) awarding an unreasonably low percentage of the common fund.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by considering the actual claimed benefit from the common fund when awarding fees	Boeing forbids tying fees to only the portion of the fund actually claimed; court should consider total common fund	Fee tied to lodestar and Hermida precedent; consideration of actual benefit is appropriate in lodestar-adjusted analysis	No error: court permissibly considered actual benefit as one factor in a lodestar-based award and Hensley permits consideration of results obtained
Whether award was an abuse of discretion because it was only ~2.25% of the common fund	The percentage is much lower than typical 20–30% POF awards and thus unreasonable	Unique procedural history and minimal work (stay, no discovery, Hermida decided issues) justify reduced fee	No abuse: court reasonably reduced fee given limited work and close relation to Hermida; amount consistent with lodestar reduction in Hermida

Hermida v. Archstone, 826 F. Supp. 2d 380 (D. Mass. 2011) (district court decided amenity-fee liability and provided lodestar analysis in related litigation)
Hermida v. Archstone, 950 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D. Mass. 2013) (district court reduced lodestar for travel, clerical tasks, and block billing in fee award)
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) (fees may be awarded from total class recovery benefiting absent class members)
In re Thirteen Appeals Arising Out of San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 56 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 1995) (percentage-of-fund is common in common-fund cases but can overcompensate when little work was done)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (fee awards may consider amount involved and results obtained)
Victor Corp. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 674 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (district courts need not provide exhaustive mathematical detail; findings must allow understanding of reasoning)