Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitsettlementplaintifflitigationattorney
settlementplaintiffattorneyliabilityclass action

Related Cases

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40, 31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1169, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,618
View Case »
Glaser v. Cincinnati Milacron, Inc., 808 F.2d 285, 55 USLW 2423, 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 737
View Case »
In re Shearin, 765 A.2d 930
View Case »
McCullough v. Waterside Associates, 102 Conn.App. 23, 925 A.2d 352
View Case »
Vega v. Bloomsburgh, 427 F.Supp. 593
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Sulzer Hip Prosthesis and Knee Prosthesis Liability Litigation, 268 F.Supp.2d 907

Facts

Sulzer Orthopedics, a manufacturer of orthopedic implants, recalled certain products due to a manufacturing defect that caused post-operative complications. Following the recall, numerous lawsuits were filed against Sulzer Orthopedics, leading to the consolidation of these cases into a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Ohio. The MDL resulted in a settlement agreement that included provisions for attorney fees to be paid from the settlement fund, which was capped at $50 million for common benefit attorney fees.

Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc. (“Sulzer Orthopedics”) is a Texas-based designer, manufacturer, and distributor of orthopedic implants for hips, knees, shoulders, and elbows.

Issue

Whether the attorney fees awarded from the common fund were reasonable and properly documented, and whether they advanced the interests of the entire plaintiff class.

a given attorney fee was reimbursable only if it actually advanced the interests of the entire plaintiff class; the court did not allow reimbursement of fees at certain rates listed by several applicants; and attorney fees in common fund products liability class action were not reimbursable if the attorney did not document them properly.

Rule

The court applied the Ramey standards within the context of the lodestar method and the percentage-of-the-case method, determining that attorney fees must be reimbursable only if they advanced the interests of the entire plaintiff class and were properly documented.

the court used Ramey standards primarily within the context of the lodestar method of its two-pronged analysis, but also considered those standards in the context of the percentage-of-the-case method.

Analysis

The court analyzed the applications for attorney fees by assessing the contributions of the attorneys to the common benefit of the plaintiff class. It considered the lodestar method, which calculates fees based on the number of hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and the percentage-of-the-case method, which looks at the total settlement amount. The court ultimately determined that the fees awarded were justified based on the significant benefits conferred to the class through the attorneys' efforts.

the court analyzed the applications for attorney fees by assessing the contributions of the attorneys to the common benefit of the plaintiff class.

Conclusion

The court awarded attorney fees totaling $30,232,300, finding that the fees were reasonable and appropriately documented, and that they advanced the interests of the entire plaintiff class.

the court awarded attorney fees totaling $30,232,300.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the plaintiff class, as the court awarded substantial attorney fees that recognized the contributions of the attorneys in achieving a favorable settlement for the class.

the prevailing party was the plaintiff class, as the court awarded substantial attorney fees that recognized the contributions of the attorneys in achieving a favorable settlement for the class.

You must be