PREMIER CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
JULIO R. SERRANO ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CROSS APPELLANTS

5th Cir. | 1978-08-17
No. 76-2049
578 F.2d 566 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the district court's award of attorneys' fees was not an abuse of judicial discretion and therefore would not be disturbed on appeal.


Facts & Procedural History

Following a class action settlement where the defendant agreed to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, the defendant appealed the amount awarded by the Dis…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

In this case, the District Court fixed the amount of attorneys fees to be awarded the attorneys for class action plaintiffs after a settlement had been approved. As a part of the settlement, the defendant agreed to pay a reasonable fee but it was dissatisfied with the amount assessed. It appealed. After oral argument, we directed a limited remand to the District Court, Premier Corp. v. Serrano, 5 Cir. 1977, 565 F. 2d 1353. The District Court promptly complied with the remand. After various preliminaries, which need not be detailed here, the Court entered an order, again fixing the attorneys fees at the amount originally specified.

Premier Corporation vigorously claims, not altogether without justification from an argumentative standpoint, that the amount of the award was excessive, a position disputed with equal vigor by the beneficiaries of the award. The dispute has been pursued on both sides with what amounts almost to unprecedented acrimony. Aspersions have been showered upon opposing counsel in a fashion not customarily seen in, or tolerated by, a court of appeals — or, for that matter, by any other court. In the bloated condition of the case load in this Circuit, however, and in view of the fact that we do have a complete record before us, we have decided that the interests of justice would be better served if we ascribe these activities of counsel to excessive zeal, however overdone, and proceed to decide the appeal.

We have carefully weighed the merits of the situation. We find that the District Judge did consider the guidelines prescribed in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 5 Cir., 1974, 488 F. 2d 714. Whatever our individual views might have been had we been sitting on the case in the first instance, from an over-all evaluation of the record we are persuaded that the award was not an abuse of judicial discretion. Consequently, we cannot disturb it on appeal.

All pending post-appeal motions and counter-motions are denied. The appeal involves nothing more than a dispute over the amount of an attorneys’ fee award. Before we could confidently dispose of the case, the appellant prevailed to the extent of obtaining a remand. Accordingly, we have further concluded that no attorneys’ fees are due the class action attorneys in connection with this appeal and the parties will bear their own costs.

AFFIRMED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw