Case ID: f-appx_444/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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, v. AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, Todd Pettitt, Sharon Lee, Interested-Parties-Appellants.
    No. 10-12533.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2011.
    D. Frank Davis, John E. Norris, Tyler Vail, Wesley W. Barnett, Davis & Norris, LLP, Lea Bone, Bates & Bone, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    John W. Davis, Law Offices of John W. Davis, San Diego, CA, R. Shephen Griffis, Birmingham, AL, Charles Nutley, Kendrick Nutley, Pasadena, CA, for Interve-nor-Plaintiffs-Appellants, Interested-Parties-Appellants.
    Charles M. Thompson, Birmingham, AL, pro se.
    Scott Burnett Smith, John E. Goodman, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Huntsville, AL, Joel S. Feldman, Rachel B. Niewoehner, Julie Weber, Sidley Austin, LLP, Chicago, IL, Doy Leale McCall, III, Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, Montgomery, AL, Michael Dale McKibben, Michael R. Pennington, Jason A. Walters, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Patricia M. Tulinski, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for State of Texas.
    Frank H. Tomlinson, Frank H. Tomlin-son, Attorney at Law, Kearney Dee Hut-sler, III, Birmingham, AL, N. Albert Ba-charach, Jr., N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., PA, Gainesville, FL, for Intervenors-Plaintiffs.
    Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES, Circuit Judge, and SANDS, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable W. Louis Sands, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
    
   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.

This court reviews such finings 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 couit did not abuse its discretion and affirm the denial of attorneys’ fees and costs.

AFFIRMED.