HOMER & BONNER, P.A., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Homer & Bonner, P.A. and other parties appealed a trial court's approval of a class action settlement involving parking surcharges paid to the City of Miami. The court affirmed the substantive portion of the $14 million settlement but reversed the trial court's award of $8.6 million in attorney's fees, finding a 3.8 multiplier unjustified.
The court affirmed the substantive settlement agreement and the use of the lodestar method for calculating attorney's fees, but reversed the award of fees because application of a 3.8 multiplier was inappropriate and excessive given the case was neither complex nor uncertain.
[1] A settlement creating a common fund for class members to claim refunds is substantively affirmed when it is reasonable and fair.
[2] The lodestar method is an appropriate method for determining attorney's fees in a class action suit.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A multiplier was excessive because this case was neither complex nor uncertain.”
Establishes the standard for when multipliers may be applied to lodestar calculations; here the case was straightforward once the statute was invalidated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo class action suits challenged the validity of parking surcharges imposed by the City of Miami under a statute later declared unconstitutional in C…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unconstitutional Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Homer and Bonner, P.A. (“H & B”); Park One of Florida (“Park One”); and Leonard and Sandra Rubin (“Rubin”)(collectively “appellants”) appeal the trial court’s final judgment approving the amended settlement in a class action suit filed against the City of Miami (“City”). We affirm the substantive portion of the amended settlement agreement. However, we reverse and remand the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees.
Two separate parties brought class action suits against the City challenging the validity of parking surcharges paid at City parking facilities.1 The surcharge was added pursuant to Section 218.503(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). After the surcharge statute was declared unconstitutional, see City of Miami v. McGrath, et al., 824 So. 2d 143 (Fla.2002), and after some negotiations, the parties reached an amended settlement agreement. The amended settlement agreement created a common fund of $14 million from which class members could claim a surcharge refund. We affirm this portion of the amended settlement.
The trial court also awarded $8.6 million in attorney’s fees. Using the lodestar method, the trial court awarded counsel hourly rates of $400 and $450 per hour. The trial court then applied a 3.8 multiplier. We agree that the court correctly used the lodestar method to determine the amount of attorney’s fees but find that it was inappropriate to apply a multiplier in this case. See Kuhnlein v. Dep’t of Revenue, 662 So. 2d 309 (Fla.1995).
A multiplier was excessive because this case was neither complex nor uncertain. See Kuhnlein v. Dep’t of Revenue, 662 So. 2d at 313. Once the statute was declared unconstitutional, the attorneys simply had to negotiate the best deal. Additionally, the class attorney admitted in open court that an hourly fee of between $400-$450 per hour was a more than adequate hourly wage. The Court, along with every attorney in the courtroom, agreed. We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a new final judgment awarding attorney’s fees in the amount of $952,389.75.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
. Patrick McGrath brought the original class action suit against the City challenging the validity of a parking surcharge at parking facilities in the City ("non-County parkers”). Miami Dade County ("County”), in a separate lawsuit, also challenged the validity of the surcharge imposed by the City on users of parking facilities owned or operated by the County but located in the City ("County par-kers”). The City, the County and class counsel agreed to settle both the McGrath case and the County’s case in a combined settlement resulting in the “amended settlement.” The appellants sought to intervene in the McGrath class action suit to assure any settlement was fair to all class members.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. McGRATH, 824 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 2002)
- Kuhnlein v. Dep't OF Revenue, 662 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1995)