Reynolds v. Marymount Manhattan College
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-06846
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Reynolds v. Marymount Manhattan College, Judge Schofield awarded fees and expenses and granted in part and denied in part the service-award request.
Class counsel received a $390,000 fee award and $7,037.18 in expense reimbursement. The six class representatives received $1,000 each, and the settlement class’s fund was reduced by these payments.
What happened
In Reynolds v. Marymount Manhattan College, the court reviewed the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and payments to the six class representatives after a class settlement. The settlement included a $1.3 million cash fund and an optional one-year credit-monitoring service.
The court found that $390,000 in attorneys’ fees was reasonable. It also approved $7,037.18 in litigation expenses. The court concluded that the credit-monitoring service was not a coupon covered by the relevant federal law and would not change the fee award.
Judge Lorna Schofield granted in part and denied in part the request for service awards. She awarded $1,000 to each of the six class representatives, for $6,000 total, instead of the requested $3,500 each. The fees and service awards must be paid after most class members receive their cash awards; the expenses may be paid immediately.
The detailed version
- Reynolds v. Marymount Manhattan College · No. 1:22-cv-06846
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 23, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards to the six class representatives: Patrick Reynolds, Daniel Lewis, Lucia Marano, Kristen France, Abbey Abrecht, and Jahidah Diaab. The motion followed a settlement involving a $1.3 million gross cash settlement fund. The settlement provided class members with cash benefits of up to $750 for ordinary losses and up to $7,500 for other documented losses, as well as an optional one-year credit-monitoring service.
Attorneys’ Fees
The court awarded class counsel $390,000 in attorneys’ fees, to be paid from the settlement fund. The court found that amount fair and reasonable under the factors used for class-action fee awards, including the time and labor required, the litigation’s complexity and risks, the quality of representation, the fee’s relationship to the settlement, and public-policy considerations.
The award equals 30% of the $1.3 million cash fund. The court compared that percentage with empirical fee awards in Fair Credit Reporting Act cases and common-fund settlements of similar size. As a cross-check, the court calculated a lodestar—the reasonable hours worked multiplied by reasonable hourly rates—of $360,920.70. The $390,000 award represents a multiplier of approximately 1.1, which the court found reasonable. The court declined to increase or decrease the benchmark based on litigation risk, the quality of representation, or public-policy considerations.
The court also held that the settlement’s credit-monitoring service was not a coupon under the Class Action Fairness Act’s fee provision. Class members did not have to do business with Marymount Manhattan College to use the service, the service could be obtained from providers chosen by class members, and it provided utility to people affected by the theft of personal or financial information. The court further stated that, even if the service qualified as a coupon, the fee request was based only on the cash fund and the lodestar supported the same award.
Expenses and Service Awards
The court ordered reimbursement of $7,037.18 in litigation expenses. That amount was to be paid from the settlement fund and could be paid immediately.
The court granted in part and denied in part the request for service awards. It awarded $1,000 to each class representative, for a total of $6,000, rather than the requested $3,500 per person. The court found the reduced amount reasonable because it was comparable to the recovery available for ordinary losses, reflected the representatives’ work—including meetings with counsel and reviewing documents and pleadings—and recognized the personal risks and burdens associated with suing under their own names after identity-theft and privacy problems. The service awards were to be paid from the settlement fund after a majority of class members received their cash awards.
Disposition
The court awarded $390,000 in attorneys’ fees, ordered reimbursement of $7,037.18 in expenses, and granted in part and denied in part the service-award request. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 56.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.