Laura Faught v. American Home Shield Corporation , 444 F. App'x 445 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                     FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    OCTOBER 26, 2011
    JOHN LEY
    No. 10-12533                      CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 2:07-cv-01928-RDP
    LAURA FAUGHT,
    STEVEN FAUGHT,
    on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
    Plaintiffs-Appellees
    JOHN HOWE, et al.,
    Intervenors-Plaintiffs,
    MIRIAM CHAPON,
    JOHN CHAPON,
    Intervenor-Plaintiffs-
    Appellants,
    versus
    AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    TODD PETTITT,
    SHARON LEE,
    Interested-Parties-Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Alabama
    (October 26, 2011)
    Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES, Circuit Judge, and SANDS, *District
    Judge.
    PER CURIAM:
    Consolidated Objecting Class Members (the “objectors”) appeal the district
    court’s order denying an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
    Even putting aside timeliness issues presented by the Appellees, the
    objectors are entitled to attorneys’ fees only in the event that they can show either
    (1) that they conferred some benefit on the class or (2) that they substantially
    improved the settlement under consideration. See, e.g., Uselton v. Commercial
    Lovelace, Inc., 
    9 F.3d 849
    , 855 (10th Cir. 1993); City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.,
    
    560 F.2d 1093
    , 1098 (2d Cir. 1977). The burden is on the objectors to show one
    of these criteria has been met. The district court, in a well reasoned opinion,
    concluded that they had not carried that burden.
    *
    Honorable W. Louis Sands, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia,
    sitting by designation.
    2
    This court reviews such findings for abuse of discretion. Haitian Refugee
    Ctr. v. Meese, 
    791 F.2d 1489
    , 1496 (11th Cir. 1986). The district court laid out in
    detail how the objectors’ claims were based on speculation that is unsupported by
    the record. We agree with these findings; therefore, we conclude that the district
    court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the denial of attorneys’ fees and costs.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-12533

Citation Numbers: 444 F. App'x 445

Judges: Dubina, Carnes, Sands

Filed Date: 10/26/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024