HESS v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., 398 P.3d 27

Class action over defective Jetta front spoilers; certified nationwide class of ~2.1 million owners but only 310 valid claims yielded $45,780 in total recovery.
Trial court initially awarded class counsel > $7 million in attorney fees; Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, directing deduction of fees from failed Florida litigation and rejecting a 1.9 multiplier, and remanded for recalculation.
On remand the trial court computed a raw lodestar of $3,278,722.50 (after deducting Florida fees) and reduced it by 70%, awarding $983,616.75 in fees plus costs and postjudgment interest.
Volkswagen appealed, arguing the remand award was excessive, violated due process, and that postjudgment interest should run from the prior (reversed) 2013 order rather than the 2015 remand order.
Plaintiffs cross-appealed, contending the reduction of the lodestar was erroneous and seeking full lodestar recovery.
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the fee amount (no abuse of discretion), rejected Volkswagen’s due process challenge, but held postjudgment interest on fees must run from the 2015 remand order date (June 18, 2015).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the remanded fee award (30% of lodestar, $983,616.75) is an abuse of discretion	Lodestar presumptively reasonable; full or significantly higher lodestar justified by time, novelty, and counsel skill	Award still excessive relative to tiny class recovery (≈21.5x) and therefore abuse of discretion	Not an abuse: trial court followed Hess guidance, considered Burk/§2013 factors, and permissibly reduced lodestar by 70%
Whether the fee award violates due process (excessive/punitive)	Fees are compensatory and required by prior mandate; no punitive purpose alleged	Award is so disproportionate it functions as punitive and should be constitutionally capped	Rejected: attorney fees are compensatory here; due process punitive-damages limits do not apply
Whether the reduction of lodestar on remand was improper	Reduction was improper; remand presumed lodestar reasonable per Supreme Court	Court had discretion to diminish lodestar given minuscule recovery	Held for court: remand allowed trial court to diminish award; reduction within discretion
Proper accrual date for postjudgment interest on attorney fees	Interest should run from original 2013 fee order (file date)	Interest should run from the 2015 remand order because the earlier award was reversed and unsettled	Held: interest on attorney fees accrues from the remand order date (June 18, 2015); interest on costs affirmed from 2013 date

Hess v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 341 P.3d 662 (Okla. 2014) (Supreme Court reversed prior fee order, instructed deduction for failed Florida litigation, rejected 1.9 multiplier, and emphasized lodestar presumption)
Arkoma Gas Co. v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 849 P.2d 392 (Okla. 1993) (trial court may substantially reduce lodestar where recovery is minimal and facts warrant)
Finnell v. Jebco Seismic, 67 P.3d 339 (Okla. 2003) (no per se percentage cap tying fees to judgment; reasonableness is fact-specific)
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Edwards, 401 P.2d 303 (Okla. 1965) (postjudgment interest runs from original date when judgment is affirmed as modified)
Thielenhaus v. Thielenhaus, 890 P.2d 925 (Okla. 1995) (distinguishes situations requiring re-valuation on remand where interest runs from post-remand entry)
May-Li Barki, M.D., Inc. v. Liberty Bank & Trust Co., 20 P.3d 135 (Okla. 1999) (distinguishes prejudgment and postjudgment interest principles)
Fisher Props., Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc., 798 P.2d 799 (Wash. 1990) (when remand requires trial court discretion rather than mere mathematical adjustment, interest runs from new judgment)
Action Marine, Inc. v. Cont'l Carbon Inc., 481 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2007) (attorney-fee awards are compensatory and not part of punitive damages subject to punitive limits)