108 F.4th 931
7th Cir.2024Background
- Quintin Scott filed a class action lawsuit against Sheriff Thomas Dart and Cook County, Illinois.
- Scott, the sole named plaintiff, settled his individual claim before class certification was decided.
- The district court declined to certify the class, but the appellate panel remanded for reconsideration of certification.
- Defendants petitioned for rehearing, seeking to revisit the ruling and the circuit's stance on "incentive awards" for class representatives.
- The panel denied rehearing, keeping in place circuit precedent allowing incentive awards to representatives who settle or prevail.
- There are conflicting approaches among federal circuits regarding the permissibility and source of payment for such incentive awards.
Issues
| Issue | Scott's Argument | Dart/Cook County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing post-settlement for class certification | Standing remains due to pursuit of incentive award | No standing: incentive award not injury redressable | Standing remains under circuit precedent |
| Legality of incentive awards for class reps | Permissible under existing circuit law (Espenscheid) | Incentive awards are improper after settlement | Permissible per Espenscheid; precedent maintained |
| Effect of conflicting circuit law (Johnson v. NPAS) | Maintain current circuit approach until SCOTUS resolves | Seventh Circuit should align with Eleventh Circuit | Maintain current circuit approach |
| Source of payment for incentive awards | Award can be paid from common class fund | Defendants can't be required to pay beyond damages | Source should be class members, not defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Childress v. Emory, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 642 (1823) (standing requires a real, redressable injury – discourages legal wagers)
- Alliance to End Repression v. Chicago, 820 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1987) (self-imposed losses do not confer standing for Article III)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) (statutory damages must redress a concrete injury for standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (plaintiffs must allege an injury-in-fact for standing in statutory damages cases)
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (standing isn't established by a general interest in vindicating the law)
- Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC, 688 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2012) (Seventh Circuit allows incentive awards to class representatives)
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council, 483 U.S. 711 (1987) (limits on attorney fee enhancements for risk under fee-shifting statutes)
- Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (risk enhancement not allowed in statutory fee awards)
- Florin v. Nationsbank of Georgia, N.A., 34 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 1994) (risk enhancements allowed for fees paid by common fund)