The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-12533•Laura Faught, et al. v. American Home Shield Corporation
10-12533Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitOct 26, 2011
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 26, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-12533
D. C. Docket No. 2:07-cv-01928-RDP
LAURA FAUGHT,
STEVEN FAUGHT,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
JOHN HOWE, et al.,
Intervenors-Plaintiffs,
MIRIAM CHAPON,
JOHN CHAPON,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs-
Appellants,
versus
AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
TODD PETTITT,
SHARON LEE,
Interested-Parties-Appellants.
-- 1 of 3 --
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
(October 26, 2011)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES, Circuit Judge, and SANDS, District*
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Consolidated Objecting Class Members (the “objectors”) appeal the district
court’s order denying an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Even putting aside timeliness issues presented by the Appellees, the
objectors are entitled to attorneys’ fees only in the event that they can show either
(1) that they conferred some benefit on the class or (2) that they substantially
improved the settlement under consideration. See, e.g., Uselton v. Commercial
Lovelace, Inc., 9 F.3d 849, 855 (10th Cir. 1993); City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.,
560 F.2d 1093, 1098 (2d Cir. 1977). The burden is on the objectors to show one
of these criteria has been met. The district court, in a well reasoned opinion,
concluded that they had not carried that burden.
Honorable W. Louis Sands, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia,*
sitting by designation.
2
-- 2 of 3 --
This court reviews such findings for abuse of discretion. Haitian Refugee
Ctr. v. Meese, 791 F.2d 1489, 1496 (11th Cir. 1986). The district court laid out in
detail how the objectors’ claims were based on speculation that is unsupported by
the record. We agree with these findings; therefore, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the denial of attorneys’ fees and costs.
AFFIRMED.
3
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.