Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., 847 F.3d 619

Four law firms filed consolidated TCPA class actions against Life Time Fitness alleging unsolicited text ads; parties settled for a guaranteed minimum of $10 million (up to $15 million), plus administration costs and court-awarded fees.
Settlement gave claimants choice of cash ($100, later adjusted to ~$160) or membership credit (three-month membership or $250 credit, later adjusted to ~$400) on pro rata basis after 29,843 valid claims.
Class counsel and Life Time could not agree on attorney fees; counsel initially sought $4.2M, then amended to $3M (30% of $10M); lodestar submitted was $687,928.75.
District court held a hearing, reviewed billing records in camera, and granted final approval of the settlement, awarding $2.8M (28% of $10M) in fees and expenses using the percentage-of-the-benefit method.
Thut (a class member) objected, arguing the award was excessive and that the court erred by delegating allocation of fees among the four firms; the court overruled the objection and allowed counsel to allocate the award among themselves.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, reviewing for abuse of discretion and rejecting challenges to the fee method, inclusion of administration costs in the fund, and the delegation of allocation absent a dispute among counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Thut)	Defendant's Argument (Life Time / Class Counsel)	Held
Appropriateness of fee calculation method	Court should not have used percentage-of-the-benefit; fee excessive	Percentage method appropriate for common-fund settlements; district court has discretion	Affirmed: percentage-of-the-benefit method was within district court discretion
Reasonableness of $2.8M award	$2.8M excessive given lodestar and records	Award reasonable given benefit to class, comparable TCPA settlements, risks, and work performed	Affirmed: $2.8M reasonable under the circumstances
Inclusion of administration costs in the common fund	Administrative costs should not be included in benefit used to calculate fees	Administrative costs were paid by defendant and conferred a benefit; inclusion acceptable	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion including approx. $750K admin costs
Delegation of allocation among class counsel	Court improperly delegated allocation without oversight; should monitor allocation	No dispute exists among class counsel; court may permit counsel to allocate among themselves	Affirmed: delegation acceptable here because no dispute among counsel and no showing of prejudice

Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review and discretion in class-fee awards)
Johnston v. Comerica Mortg. Corp., 83 F.3d 241 (8th Cir. 1996) (describing lodestar and percentage-of-benefit methods)
Galloway v. Kansas City Landsmen, LLC, 833 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2016) (district court discretion to choose fee method)
In re U.S. Bancorp Litig., 291 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2002) (approving percentage-of-fund award in settlement)
Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Union Ins. Co., 735 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court discretion in determining reasonable fees)
Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) (scrutiny of administrative costs before including in fee base)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (leaving inclusion of admin costs in fund to district court discretion)
In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prods. Litig., 517 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2008) (district court duty to scrutinize allocation when co-counsel dispute exists)