Hendricks v. Starkist Co, 4:13-cv-00729

Plaintiff Hendricks settled a class action with Starkist for $12 million ($8M cash, $4M vouchers); court approved $3,445,012.35 in attorneys’ fees, $155,779.96 in expenses, and $5,000 service award; final approval and judgment entered Sept. 29, 2016.
The court previously awarded objectors Moore and Gore $154,987.65, deducted from class counsel’s fee award.
Objector Eric Lindberg moved after judgment for $102,000 in attorneys’ fees (Florida and California counsel), $2,845.30 in costs, and a $1,000 incentive award, asking these be paid from the common fund and deducted from class counsel’s fee award.
Plaintiff and Defendant opposed Lindberg’s motion; Lindberg filed a reply. Several parties (including Lindberg and Plaintiff) filed notices of appeal from the final approval order and/or judgment while the fee motion was pending.
The court denied Lindberg’s motion on two independent grounds: (1) it was effectively a motion for reconsideration in violation of Local Rule 7-9, and (2) the court lacked jurisdiction because the final approval order was on appeal and the requested relief would alter that order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lindberg’s post-judgment fee motion was procedurally proper	Motion was permissible to reallocate fees from common fund	Motion is a disguised motion for reconsideration and violated Local Rule 7-9	Denied: motion was effectively for reconsideration, filed without required leave and after judgment; final order not interlocutory
Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant the motion after notices of appeal	Granting fees is collateral and district court retains jurisdiction	Appeal divests district court where relief would alter appealed final approval order	Denied: appeals divested district court because granting relief would amend the order on appeal
Whether an attorneys’ fees request here is collateral to the merits	Fees are collateral and can be decided post-judgment	Fees would alter allocation decided in the appealed final approval order	Denied: fees request was not collateral because it sought to augment the order on appeal
Whether the court should exercise discretion to deny relief while appeal pending	Motion merits separate consideration despite appeal	Court may deny relief when appeal divests jurisdiction	Denied: court exercised discretion to refuse relief under these circumstances

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (appeal divests district court of control over matters involved in the appeal)
Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (distinguishing when fee determinations are collateral versus part of the merits)