Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-06068/USCOURTS-ca10-93-06068-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

-.,. --·, D Unitect'S~te~~ of Appeals Tenth Orcuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 8 1993 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM T. USELTON; W.D. HUPP; C.J. ) 

DOWLING; KENNETH MILES; G.D. JEFFCOAT; ) 

JACK WILSON; K.D. WITT; PAULA ROSA; ) 

JOHNNY S. HUNT; JAMES A. MASON; ) 

ROBERT E. STUART; JERRY DON CASEY; ) 

MAURICE UHRMACHER; LOYD A. DUNCAN; ) 

VERNON JORDAN; HUBERT D. WILLIAMSON; ) 

J. W. HARIS; D.L. HARALSON; HARVEY LEO ) 

HESS; WOOD G. ISHMAEL; HAROLD W. ) 

SUMMERS; CHARLES E. STOCKTON; JOE C. ) 

GRAY; EARL G. JACKSON; E.L. WHILHOCK; ) 

MELVIN CARPENTER; ROBERT T. KEENER; ) 

TROY G. CARSON; JACK L. BLANKINSHIP; ) 

CARLL. DAVIDSON; J.F. MAXWELL; PAUL M. ) 

WARREN; JAY W. HARNED; E. H. COULTER; ) 

EARL E. WHITE; CLEO C. MCDANIEL; ) 

BOBBY F. STANSBURY; BILL J. ANDERSON; ) 

DANIEL A. DENNY; CARL LEE WILSON; LEROY ) 

BARRETT; JAMES E. LEE; DONALD L. BUTLER;) 

L.W. GONZALES; DAISY "MAURENE" DAVIS; ) 

KEITH W. BRAUL; JERRY L. EDGEMON; ) 

GILBERT L. ROBLES; LOYD E. COURTNEY; ) 

HOLLIS M. MAULDIN; JOHNNY L. JOHNSON; ) 

CARMEL M. DOERN; TOM THELKELD; T.L. ) 

JONES; KENNETH W. HAYS; JACKIE JONES; ) 

WILLIAM DONLEY; HOWARD L. MITCHELL; ) 

EARL D. DENTON; STANLEY R. GOMES; ) 

JACK P. ROWLAND; K.L. BILLINGSLEY; ) 

EARL L. WOFFARD; D. TD. FRIZELL; H.W. ) 

RICHARDSON; DONALD KENDRIX; BETTY COX; ) 

JAMES M. WOODWARD; FRANK THOMAS ) 

DONALD R. WINTER; JACK YARBROUGH; ) 

FINIS M. YOCUM; TOMMY L. KIRKLAND; ) 

JOHN A. MOYSHEN; HAROLD ALLISON; MARION ) 

MCCLELLAND; LESLIE R. WALCHER; LLOYD ) 

FORTUNE, SR.; B.C. EVANS; RAYMOND B. ) 

HORN; LEEHA MCCORMICK; PETE WOLF; LEON ) 

HANCOCK; WILLIAM ANDERSON; ROBERT G. ) 

PORTER; ELDON W. BISHOP; E.B. COPELAND; ) 

D.K. HANSHUE; E.G. DEDMON; LESLIE R. ) 

WALCHER; CARL L. HOLMAN; KENNETH W. ) 

JACKSON; JOEL ROBINSON; CHARLES ) 

PEMBERTON; BRUCE 0. SMITH; T.D. JACK; ) 

JAMES T. JOHNSON; WILLIE G. LOUDERMILK; ) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 93-6068 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 1 
RAYMOND HORN; GEORGE C. TSOODLE; ) 

GEROLD L. GOAD; B.J. BURRELL; D.Y. ) 

QUALLINE; FRANCES M. MCKYE; ALONZO ) 

ANDERSON; HOARCE E. REEVES; BETTY MOORE;) 

BILLY R. JENKINS; JERRY A. WARREN; C.J. ) 

WOMACK; JOHNNY BALLARD; KELLEY RUMINER; ) 

DEBORAH YANDELL; ROBERT FERGUSON; ) 

CLAUDIE C. WEAVER; JOHN 0. STANLEY; ) 

WILLIAM R. BRICKER; ELEN H. SPIVA; ) 

PHILLIP HORNE; EARL V. GRIFFIN; ANNA M. ) 

BURKETT; JAMES E . NEAL; JAMES ) 

MCCAMPBELL; VALORIE BOOKER; J.W. ) 

RACKLEY; RONNIE J. STEWARD; CLARENCE ) 

BURNS ; JOHN L . KNAPP; RAMON L . WOLFE ; ) 

W. A. SMITH; ALAN PRUDHOME ; JAMES E . ) 

THOMPSON; HENRY S. BAXTER; PATSY R. ) 

BROCK; LARRY JOE STAFFORD DANIEL LOONEY;) 

DONALD T. KENDRIX, RUEL L. ) 

MONROE; RANDALL JOHNSTON; DOUGLAS WEBB; ) 

ROGER L. SMITH; BENNY SHUMWAY; BOBBY ) 

JOHNSON; THEAL CREWS; ARNETT ) 

RICHARDSON; JUNIOR LEE GOLDEN; JIM BOB ) 

KEITH; BOB L. WILKERSON; JERRY R. ) 

KENNEDY; JAMES L. FREEMAN; MARVIN E . ) 

MEEK; LEROY GRAY; LEROY HILL; LEALUS ) 

THOMAS; A.W. BARNETT; DONALD L. ) 

MAYFIELD; JIMMIE MASTERS; JMWA E. ) 

POERWE; JAMES E. YOUNG; RICKEY D. ALLEN;) 

WILLIAM W. PARTIN; JAMES E. VAP; ) 

EDITH J. VAP; JOHN REYNOLDS; ARTHUR ) 

GOLDEN; JOE C. NIXON; WILLIE JOSEPH; ) 

JOHN H. HEIL; DONALD H. BRECHINSEN; ) 

JAMES ALTIZEN; WILLIAM T. WIMMER; I.B. ) 

BOYD; E. FERRELL BUSSING; JIMMIE L. ) 

WILLIAMS; ROY J. SASSANO, SR.; ) 

ELEANOR C. MOWERY; EUGENE D. RIDER; ) 

GEORGE W. BALDWIN; GARLAND R. HOOPER; ) 

EARL JOSLIN; KAREN NYDICK; GEROLD ) 

WAGNER; L.V. FOREMAN; DON LEPLEY; E.J. ) 

FIDLER; CLAUDE W. WORLEY; FRED M. ) 

SILVER; HERBERT L. KEITH; CARL E. ) 

DAVIS; PAUL GOODMAN; RONALD C. CAUDILL; ) 

WILLIAM P. DODD; DENNIS W. CREWS; ) 

WILLIS D. KEESEE; JERRY D. BASS; R.T. ) 

SKELTON; DELBERT D. UTSLER; DON E. ) 

BAILEY; HOWARD WHITTENBERG; MARCIA C. ) 

LONG; A.C. PHILLIPS; JO ANN MARTIN; ) 

LEON COMBS; JERRY C. FORBES; J.R. BISHOP) 

BILLY REEVES; FARRELL J. PICKENS; JAMES ) 

RUSHING; RICHARD HOWELLS; LAWRENCE ) 

SHELTON; CHARLES HUCKABEE; JMWA ) 

AXHEOWSWE; THOMAS JARAMILLO; J. DAVID ) 

SMITH; W.T. YOUNG; CARL H. DAVISON; ) 

SHARON KEY HARRIS; LEW F. FRESDONKE; JOE) 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 2 
KNAPP; LESLEY E. CHAPMAN; R.D. BIVINS, 

GEORGE W. BARTON; MARION A. NEAL; 

REBECCA CRAWFORD; DEATRON I. MORGAN, 

W.H. NEVELS; JIM OLIVER; CLARENCE E. 

SMITH; ROBERT WILSON; LINDA LEKAWSKI; 

MICHAEL P. FUNDSTEIN; JERRY L. BENDER; 

WILLIAM D. BEERY; DONALD M. LARSON; 

WILLIAM J. AZLIN; DWIGHT W. ROGERS; ) 

JUDY A. ROGERS; WALTER R. LEWIS; CHARLES) 

HUCKABOY; BARBARA HARWELL; REBECCA ) 

PEARSON; MOLLY HOFFMAN; PATRICIA ) 

MCCANLIES; K.E. STERRETT; THURMAN B. ) 

NELSON; NELDA M. CARROLL; JOHNNY ) 

WALLACE; GUADALUPE RODRIGUEZ; RAYMOND ) 

DAVEY; L.V. DAVIS; BOBBY D. PRICE; ) 

GARY L. PASSON; LANORA WORKMAN; JOHN ) 

DAVENPORT; JIMMIE D. JENNINGS; LEO ) 

SCRUGGS; DALLAS NIBLOCK; LEO SUGGS; ) 

STANLEY W. MOORE; JOHN D. HORN; ANTHONY ) 

SPITZLEY; MANUEL SENA; JAMES F. AYRES; ) 

DANIEL A. SIKORSKY; ALBERT E. OYOS; ) 

C.D. RIDGLEY; EARL GREENE; SALVADOR C. ) 

PEREZ; CESAR B. SHEEN; JOE MANUEL; ) 

BENJAMIN SAENZ; ARTURO C. MARQUEZ; ) 

EDWARD LAVELLE; ROBERT ROGNON; BERNARDO ) 

SAENZ; PROTACIO S. ABREGO; STEVEN ) 

MOYLAN; CARL M. LAVENDER; RUBEN D. COTA;) 

MANUEL F. GAMEZ; NARCIZO REAZA; FRANK M.) 

HERNANDEZ; RONALD MURDOCK; JESSE ) 

TERRAZAS; JIMMIE RODRIGUEZ; MANUEL R. ) 

BARRERA; HOWARD WING; ROBERT R. ) 

CONTRERAS; JOE C. NIXON; OSCAR J. MUNOZ;) 

THERESA A. WRIGHT; DORA PERKINS; ) 

W.H. HOHENSEE; W.R. GUNN; BOB KWNNIXURR;) 

KENNETH D. WILLIAMS; JAVIER ADAME; ) 

MANUEL M. HOLQUIN; HARRY HILL; RICK ) 

SKINNER; HAROLD MITCHELL; VINCE ) 

WOLPOFF; WARREN YODER; WILLIAM SALINAS; ) 

JOHN D. LENT; CARL CHRISTIANSEN; J.M. ) 

FEREZ; LISARDO JARAMILLO; HENRY L. ) 

HOSKISON; BILL BASS; BOB ROGNON; FRED ) 

WALLING; HECTOR R. MENDOZA; MARTIN ) 

BAUTISTA; DANIEL A. MERKLE; ROGER A. ) 

PETERSON; JACK L. BYNUM; JOEL E. ) 

HENDERSON, SR.; MARVIN L. WRIGHT; C.R. ) 

BLADES; ROLONDO L. GALINDO; ESEQUIEL ) 

BARCENA; FLOYD L. BIDDLECOME, SR.; ) 

RAMON A. RODRIGUEZ; RUBEN WILLIAMS; ) 

ALVA J . CHANEY, JR. ; CEASAR VAL VERDE; ) 

GILBERT HERNANDEZ; VICTOR JUAREZ; ) 

JOHN L. WASHINGTON; DAVID L. CARNEY; ) 

THOMAS JARANILLE; JAMES D. WESTON; ) 

RONALD R. MURDOCK; TONY C . GONZALES ; ) 

RICHARD A. SANCHEZ; SHIRLEY F. BENNETT; ) 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 3 
BOBBY DERRING; FULTON MARKS, JR.; ) 

ADOLFO ELIAS, JR.; D. PATRICK WRIGHT; ) 

NORMAN E. CARDWELL; ROBERT M. FERGUSON; ) 

DON R. WHEELER; J. BRANNON; ROBERT A. ) 

WESLEY; ALVIN D. FITZGERALD; JAMES E. ) 

ROWE; ALFRED M. MARTINEZ; BERRY R. ) 

RAYMONDO; CARROLL C. ABEL; OSCAR G. ) 

POWELL, JR. ; ALVIN W. GREEN; HUEY A. ) 

FREDEIU; BEN SAENZ; HAROLD R. DAGNE; ) 

BRITT INGRID KEITH; ROBERT M. TURNER; ) 

BYRON A., CARL F. DAVIS; JERRY I. ) 

POINDEXTER; LEE ROY HOUSTON; CLINTON H. ) 

REYNOLDS; NIB E. HILL; DAVID R. HINES; ) 

C.G. OLSON; CLEOPHOS FROST; BOBBY G. ) 

DECKER; JAMES LONG; LORITA A. GOYA; ) 

WAYNE T. WELLS; GERALD A. LUTON; HAROLD ) 

SHEA; JOHNNIE T. HENSON, JR.; OPAL ) 

LEE BROUSSARD; HOMES KIMBLE; JERRY ) 

NOHNAGER; JUDY A. ROGERS; ILONA ) 

GARRISON; EDWARD A. KING, ALYCE L. KING;) 

EVERT L. CARROLL; BEN H. MARSHALL; ) 

SHIRLEY J. LAMB; JOHN WILLIAM EDWARDS; ) 

MAURICE CANNON; LEROY PHELPS; J.D. ) 

BURKHALTER; RICKKI L. BARNES; ) 

BOB J. SHARBER; WILLIAM D. SANDELL; ) 

WILLIAM E. SHOCKLEY; DON CUTLER; ) 

NANCY A. BOMHOFF; VAUGHN BRYANT; ) 

WARREN REX CHAPIN; HERMAN L. KLAUS; ) 

WILLIE L. WIXOM; BILLY 0. HAWKINS; ) 

JACK D. EDWARDS; RITA HENRY; CARL ) 

HOLIDAY; DOUGLAS MESSEL; DIANE J. TRIGG;) 

TOMMY A. HOWARD; NORVELL LANCASTER; ) 

BOBBY BOWLING; P.J. WARREN; ROBERT C. ) 

ANDERSON; DOYLE C. ADAMS; GLENN D. ) 

CHRISTIANS; WILLARD TERRY; BILL STEWART;) 

JIMMY KING; RICHARD BORNE; JOHNNY ) 

WARMOTH; FRANKLIN A. NIELEY CHARLES ) 

NORTON; GLEN LAYTON; LEO THOMPSON; D.L. ) 

LOMAN; MARLAND GLOVER; BOBBY BENNETT; ) 

JERY CHRONISTER; LAWRENCE WHITE; ) 

DONALD FITZ; ODIS WARD, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

" . ) 

) 

COMMERCIAL LOVELACE MOTOR FREIGHT, INC.,) 

doing business as Lee Way Motor Freight,) 

Inc., also known as C.L. Motor Freight; ) 

M.T. ALCOX; W.D. PERSAVICH; C.C. ) 

MCCRACKEN; N.L. INGRUM; H.J. HILL; ) 

G.W. MCINTYRE; PEPSICO, INC., doing ) 

business as Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.,) 

a Delaware corporation, indi"idually; ) 

4 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 4 
S.E. SCHRODER; LAWRENCE F. DICKIE; 

JUDY NORMAN DAVIS; JAMES ENGLISH; 

RICHARD CAMPBELL, 

Defendants, 

and 

E.W. KELLER; JOSEPH C. LONG; TRENT W. 

KELLER, 

Movants-Appellants, 

v. 

DOUGLAS EASON, 

Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. CIV-84-2807-L) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Joseph C. Long, Norman, Oklahoma, and E.W. Keller and Trent Keller 

of Keller, Fernald & Keller, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for movantsappellants. 

David Pomeroy of Fuller, Tubb & Pomeroy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

for objecting class members. 

Before LOGAN and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and KANE,* District 

Judge. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

* The Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior United States District 

Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 

sitting by designation. 

5 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 5 
This appeal concerns the proper award of attorneys' fees out 

of a common fund created when the plaintiff class settled its 

underlying litigation with defendants. Class counsel, appellants 

herein, submitted a fee request for fifty percent of the settlement fund, which was formally opposed by 

representing class members who objected 

separate counsel 

1 to the request. 

Following a hearing, the district court awarded class counsel 

twenty-nine percent of the fund, or $507,500. Class counsel moved 

for reconsideration of that award, while objecting counsel 

requested a fee for services in preserving the common fund for the 

benefit of the whole class. The district court denied class 

counsel's motion and awarded objecting counsel a fee of 

$14,427.49. Class counsel appeal from both rulings. 2 We affirm. 

I 

In Brown v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 838 F.2d 451 (lOth Cir.), 

cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822 (1988), this court distinguished common 

fund cases from statutory fee cases and recognized the propriety 

of awarding attorneys' fees in the former on a percentage of the 

fund, rather than lodestar, basis. Id. at 454-56; accord Swedish 

Hosp. Corp. v. Shalala, Nos. 92-5061, 92-5155, 1993 U.S. App. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

2 Although only class counsel E.W. Keller and Joseph Long were 

named in the notice of appeal, the third attorney representing the 

class, Trent W. Keller, was included as an appellant in the docketing statement. Because the latter was filed within the time 

allotted for commencing appeal, Trent W. Keller's participation in 

this appeal was thereby secured. See Hubbert v. City of Moore, 

923 F.2d 769, 772 (lOth Cir. 1991). 

6 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 6 
LEXIS 20292, at *32 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 10, 1993); Camden I Condominium Ass'n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 774 (11th Cir. 1991). We 

reconfirmed, however, the existing requirement that the district 

court determine the reasonableness of the fee and articulate 

specific reasons for its findings. Brown, 838 F.2d at 454. We 

also reaffirmed the relevance of the twelve factors originally 

developed for statutory fee determinations in Johnson v. Georgia 

Highway Express. Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), noting that their applicability and weight in common fund situations 

would undoubtedly be different. Brown, 838 F.2d at 454, 456. 

Class counsel urge us to revisit the common fund considerations addressed in Brown and reformulate our approach to the reasonableness question in addressing their fee claim. Specifically, 

class counsel advocate a three-pronged test (class benefit, litigation risk, and professional hours and expenses) they consider 

exemplified by In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litigation, 

148 F.R.D. 297 (N.D. Ga. 1993). Actually, the district court in 

Domestic Air did not limit its analysis to these points, but followed Eleventh Circuit precedent and determined the appropriate 

percentage of the fund fee in a manner quite similar to Brown. 

See 148 F.R.D. at 350-57 (examining several pertinent Johnson factors supporting award); see also Camden, 946 F.2d at 775 ("Johnson 

factors continue to be appropriately used in evaluating, setting, 

and reviewing percentage fee awards in common fund cases"). We 

will not involve the entire court in an attempt to improve upon 

the approach carefully set out in Brown. See United States v. 

Jones, 933 F.2d 807, 812 (lOth Cir. 1991) (prior panel decisions 

7 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 7 
are binding and may only be overruled en bane), cert. denied, 493 

u.s. 1049 (1990). 

Class counsel raise a second preliminary point, regarding our 

standard of review. Fee determinations are subject to reversal 

only for an abuse of discretion. Aguinaga v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 993 F.2d 1480, 1481 (lOth Cir. 1993). 

Class counsel assert that a less deferential review standard is 

appropriate when, as here, the district judge who made the fee 

award did not preside over the case for a significant period of 

time before making that award. We will not assume the district 

court was less able to render a decision consistent with the 

applicable law because that court presided over less than the 

entire proceeding. See Swedish Hospital CokP., 1993 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 20292, at *34 ("We can hardly imagine a more futile and 

foolhardy endeavor than struggling to review each district court's 

degree of familiarity with a case to decide how much deference to 

grant its findings and conclusions."). Accordingly, we consider 

only whether the district court "made a clear error of judgment or 

exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances." 

McEwen v. City of Norman, 926 F.2d 1539, 1553-54 (lOth Cir. 1991) 

(quoting United States v. Ortiz, 804 F.2d 1161, 1164 n.2 (lOth 

Cir. 1986), for abuse of discretion standard). We see nothing in 

the record to indicate the district court failed to carefully and 

adequately familiarize itself with this litigation before rendering the fee award. 

8 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 8 
II 

Class counsel contend that the district court erred in 

(1) failing to apply all of the Johnson factors, (2) relying on 

other, improper considerations, and (3) approving a fee devoid of 

support in the record. None of these objections is well taken. 

This court expressly recognized in Brown that "rarely are all 

of the Johnson factors applicable; this is particularly so in a 

common fund situation." Brown, 838 F.2d at 456. Further, the 

district court's findings, which are more extensive than those 

approved in Brown, reflect explicit consideration of all but two 

of the Johnson factors. See Supp. App. tab 26, at 108-16. We 

will not second guess the district court's judgment that those 

two, time constraints and the nature of counsel's relationship 

with the client, would have added little to its analysis. 

Noting that much of the common fund monies at issue in this 

fee dispute were freed up by the failure of potential claimants to 

join the plaintiff class, the district court characterized its 

primary task as distributing this available money fairly between 

class counsel and the class. Id. at 116-17. The district court 

decided that the majority of the money should go to class members, 

who had lost the benefit of their funds for nearly ten years, 

rather than class counsel, who would still receive a fee comparing 

favorably with awards made in similar cases. Id. at 117-18. 

Class counsel object that this analysis is improper under our 

prior decisions. To the contrary, the district court appropriately assumed its role as "'fiduciary for the beneficiaries' of 

the fund," Brown, 838 F.2d at 456 (quoting Report of the Third 

9 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 9 
Circuit Task Force, Court Awarded Attorney Fees, 108 F.R.D. 237, 

251 (1985)), to properly "determine a reasonable fee by weighing 

the appropriate interests of the beneficiaries in light of the 

efforts of counsel on their behalf." Id. 

Following a reasoned discussion of pertinent considerations, 

the district court arrived at a percentage near the top of the 

range for comparable common fund cases. See Brown, 838 F.2d at 

455 n. 2 (collecting cases); Swedish Hospital Corp., 1991 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 20292, at *17-18 (same); H. Newberg, Attorney Fee 

Awards, § 2.08, §2.32 Chart (1986 & Supp. 1993) (same). Class 

counsel argue this determination is unsupported by the evidence. 

We have reviewed the record mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition that "[a] request for attorney's fees should not result in a 

second major litigation," Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 

(1983), and disagree. We affirm the district court's award. 

III 

After awarding the twenty-nine percent fee to class counsel, 

the district court found objecting counsel "entitled to attorney 

fees based on the valid objections . . . to class counsel's 

request for 50% of the settlement amount and on the benefit conferred upon the class as a whole." Supp. App. tab 23, at 2. 

Accordingly, the district court awarded objecting counsel 

$14,427.49 from the common fund. Class counsel assert several 

challenges to this award. We hold they lack standing to appeal 

this issue. 

Standing is a jurisdictional issue that may be raised by the 

court at any time. Board of County Comm'rs v. W.H.I .. Inc., 992 

10 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 10 
F.2d 1061, 1063 (lOth Cir. 1993). To have standing, one must be 

aggrieved by the order from which appeal is taken. Concorde 

Resources. Inc. v. Woosley (In re Woosley), 855 F.2d 687, 687-88 

(lOth Cir. 1988). Counsel have standing to appeal from orders 

issued directly against them, see, ~, Riggs v. Scrivner. Inc., 

927 F.2d 1146, 1149 (lOth Cir.) (sanction imposed against counsel), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 196 (1991), but not from orders 

applicable only to their clients, see, ~, Pontarelli v. Stone, 

978 F.2d 773, 775 (1st Cir. 1992) (client's entitlement to attorneys' fees from opposing party); Kapco Mfg. Co. v. C & 0 Enter., 

886 F.2d 1485, 1494 (7th Cir. 1989) (client's motion to disqualify 

opposing counsel); Warner Bros .. Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading. Inc., 

877 F.2d 1120, 1127 (2d Cir. 1989) (sanction imposed against client); Soliman v. Ebasco Servs .. Inc., 822 F.2d 320, 323 (2d Cir. 

1987) (client's entitlement to prejudgment interest), cert. 

denied, 484 U.S. 1020 (1988). Here, the fee awarded to objecting 

counsel carne out of the common fund remaining after payment of 

class counsel's fee. Only the plaintiff class, none of whose members is a party to this appeal, could be considered aggrieved by 

that award. Thus, this portion of class counsel's appeal is dismissed. 

IV 

Objecting counsel have requested an award of fees and costs 

for the successful defense of this appeal. "Those who object to 

. a fee award or who take an appeal may be entitled to attorneys' fees if the court in its discretion finds that the objections were valid or otherwise conferred class benefits, and ... 

11 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 11 
the appeal resulted in a 'net' benefit to the class." H. Newberg, 

Attorney Fee Awards § 2.24, at 86-87 (footnote with citations 

omitted). Objecting counsel are entitled to an award under this 

standard, and we remand for a determination of the appropriate 

amount. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part, the 

appeal is DISMISSED in part, and the cause is REMANDED for an 

award of appellate fees to counsel for objecting class members. 

12 

Appellate Case: 93-6068 Document: 01019300979 Date Filed: 10/28/1993 Page: 12