Background
This appeal arises from multidistrict litigation concerning Seresto flea and tick collars. Plaintiff-appellant Laura Revolinsky and her attorneys sought compensation for pre-transfer work and untimely reported hours after the district court approved a settlement and allocated fees based on a strict time and expense protocol.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing prior orders establishing procedures for seeking fees. The appellant’s attorneys failed to object to the fee request or the protocol before the deadline passed. The court noted that allowing late objections would prejudice other attorneys given the fixed nature of the settlement fund.
The district court did not abuse its discretion, however, by enforcing its prior orders establishing procedures and requirements for seeking attorney fees and expenses.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the requirement for plaintiffs’ counsel to adhere strictly to court-ordered time and expense protocols in multidistrict litigation. It clarifies that late objections to fee allocations are generally barred if the deadline for objections has passed.