# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 31 91

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ro be rt M cKeag e; Jan et McKea ge , on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

TMBC , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

Track er Ma rin e Ret ai l, LLC; Bas s Pr o Ou td oo r W or ld , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 32 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ro be rt M cKeag e; Jan et McKea ge , on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

TMBC , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll eeTrack er Ma rin e Ret ai l, LLC; Bas s Pr o Ou td oo r W or ld , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 22 , 20 16
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 13 , 20 17 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, BRIGHT, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ro be rt an d Ja ne t McKe ag e br ou gh t th is c l a s s act io n la wsu it to ch al le ng e

TMBC ’s na ti on wid e pr act ic e o f ch arg in g a do cu m en t fee whe n se ll in g bo at s an d

2

tra il ers un de r fo rm co nt ract s go ve rn ed by Mi ss ou ri la w. Afte r ap pr ov in g cl as s

cert ifi cat io n, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at TMBC pr ep ared le ga l do cu m en ts

at te nd an t to it s sa l e s a n d th at ch arg in g a fee fo r th os e do cu m en ts co ns ti tu te d

un au th or iz ed la w bu si ne ss in vi ol at io n of Mo

. Rev

. St at

. §§ 48 4.0 10 an d 4 8 4.0 20

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e cl as s an d award ed tre bl e

The Hon or ab le Myron H. Bri gh t di ed on Decem be r 12

, 20 16

. Thi s op in io n is 1

be in g fil ed by th e rem ai ni ng ju d ge s of th e pa ne l pu rs ua nt to 8t h Ci r. Ru le 47 E. It
in co rp or at es in la rg e pa rt th e vi ews ex pr es se d by Ju dg e Bri gh t du rin g th e pe nd en cy of th is cas e.

TMBC

, LLC’ s pa ren t co m pa ny is Trac k e r Mar in e Ret ai l, LLC. Track er 2

Mar in e Ret ai l, LLC’s pa ren t co m pa ny is B as s Pr o Gro up , LLC.

-2

-da m ag es in th e a mo u n t of $2 1,7 35 ,75 4. The di st ric t co ur t al so award ed at to rn ey s’

fees to cl as s co un se l in th e am ou nt of $2 ,42 5,3 59

, to be pa id ou t of th e co m m on fu nd

.

TMBC fil ed an ap pe al ch al le ng in g th e cl as s cert i f ic at io n, gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t, an d ap pl ic at io n o f M i s s o u ri la w to sa le s th at oc cu rred ou ts id e Mi ss ou ri.

The McKe ag es fil ed a cro ss ap pe al to en fo rce th e fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n in TMBC ’s

co nt ract an d to ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s cal cu la ti on of fees ba se d on th e am ou nt

of un tre bl ed da m ag es rat he r th an th e en ti re co m m on fu nd

. W e affi rm th e di st ric t

co ur t on th e m ai n ap pe al

. W e rev ers e an d rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in g s on th e

cro ss ap pe al

.

I

TMBC is a co rp or at io n he ad qu art ered in Sp rin gf ie ld

, Mi ss ou ri. It se ll s bo at s

an d t rai le rs th ro ug h d eal ers hi ps acro ss th e n at io n, m os t o f whi ch are l oc at ed wit hi n

Bas s Pro Sh op s. On May 23

, 20 08

, Ro be rt an d Ja ne t McKe ag e pu rch as ed a bo at 3

fro m TMBC at th e Tr ack er Bo at Cen te r lo cat ed in si de th e Bas s Pro Sh op in St

. Ch arl es , Mi ss ou ri. The pu rch as e was m em or ia li zed in a st an d a r d f o rm co nt ract

TM B C h as us ed si nc e 20 07

, whi ch ha s a ch oi ce-o f-l aw pr ov is io n th at st at es , i n

rel ev an t p art :

GOVERNING LAW

. THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THI S
AGRE EM EN T SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAW S OF
MIS SOURI. The ve nu e fo r an y act io n o r pr oc eed in g a ris in g fr om th is Agr eem en t

. . . sh al l be in Green e C o u n ty, Mi ss ou ri. The pr ev ai li ng

p a r ty in an y su ch act io n or pr oc eed in g sh al l be en ti tl ed to reco ve r a l l
li ti ga ti on co st s an d ex pe ns es , in cl ud in g reas on ab le at to rn ey s’ fees at al l
le ve ls of l it ig at io n . . . .

As of 20 08

, TMBC op erat ed se ve nt y -th ree de al ers hi ps na ti on wid e. Fi fty-two 3

of th os e de al ers hi ps were lo cat ed wit hi n Ba ss Pro Sh op s, an d twen ty-on e were free st an di ng de al ers hi ps

.

-3

-As pa rt of th e co nt ract

, TMBC ch arg ed th e McKe ag es a $7 5 “ do cu m en t fee.” TMBC

ch arg ed th e fee to co ve r th e co st of pr ep ari ng an d/ or co m pl et in g do cu m en ts su ch as

th e fo rm co nt ract it se l f ( s o met im es refe rred to by th e pa rti es as th e Ord er

Ack no wled gm en t an d Agr eem en t of Sal e, or OAAS fo rm ); a bi ll of sa le ; a po wer of

at to rn ey for m ; an d t it le , li cen se , and reg is tra ti on do cu m en ts

.

U nha ppy wit h th ei r pu rch as e, th e McKe ag es co nt act ed an at to rn ey to he lp th em

res ci nd th e sa le

. Afte r rev ie win g th e co nt ract

, co un se l fo r th e McKe ag es f i le d su it

ag ai ns t TMB C in the Ci rcu it Co ur t for St. Ch arl es Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri. Am on g o th er

th in gs , th e McKe ag es al le ge d th at TMBC ’s pr act ic e of ch a r g i ng a do cu m en t fee

co ns ti tu te d un au th or iz ed la w bu si ne ss in vi ol at io n of Mo

. Rev

. St at

. §§ 48 4.0 10 an d

48 4.0 20

. Pu rs ua nt to th e co nt ract ’s c ho i c e-o f-l aw pr ov is io n, ve nu e was th erea fte r

4

tra ns ferr ed to Green e Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri.

Sect io n 4 84 .01 0 s ta te s i n re le va nt pa rt: 4

The “ la w bu si ne ss ” is he reb y de fin ed to be an d is th e ad v i si ng or

co un se li ng fo r a va lu ab le co ns id erat io n of an y pe rs on , fir m , as so ci at io n,

or co rp or at io n a s t o a ny secu la r la w or th e d rawi ng or t he pro cu rin g o f

or as si st in g in th e dr a w i n g f o r a va lu ab le co ns id erat io n of an y pa pe r, do cu m en t o r in st ru m en t af fect in g o r rel at in g t o s ecu la r ri gh ts

. . . .

Sect io n 4 84 .02 0 s ta te s i n re le va nt pa rt:

No pe rs on sh al l en ga ge in th e pr act ic e of la w or do la w bu si ne ss

. . .
un le s s he sh al l ha ve be en du ly li cen se d th eref or an d whi le hi s li cen se th eref or is in fu ll fo rce an d effe ct

. . . . Any pe rs on , as so ci at io n,

pa rtn ers hi p, lim it ed li ab il it y co m pa ny or co rp or at io n wh o s ha ll vi ol at e th e fo reg oi ng pr oh ib it io n of th is se ct io n

. . . sh al l be su bjec t to be su ed
fo r tre bl e th e am ou nt whi c h s h a l l ha ve be en pa id hi m or it fo r an y

se rv ic e ren de red in vi ol at io n he reo f by th e pe rs on , fir m , a s s o c i a t io n,

pa rtn ers hi p, l im it ed li ab il it y co m pa ny or co rp or at io n . . . .

-4

-The McKe ag es as ke d th e st at e co ur t to cert ify a na ti on wid e cl as s act io n. The

st at e co ur t cert ifi ed a cl as s, bu t lim it ed it to cu st om ers who se pu rch as es oc cu rred in

Mi ss ou ri. The McKe ag es so ug ht rev ie w fro m t h e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t,

co nt en di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve cert ifi ed a na ti on wid e cl as s. The

Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t ag reed

, no ti ng th at TMBC ch os e Mi ss ou ri la w fo r t he

st an da rd iz ed fo rm co nt ract s it us ed na ti on wid e. St at e ex rel

. McKe ag e v. Co rd on ni er,

3 5 7 S .W .3d 59 7, 60 1 (Mo . b an c 20 12 ). Pu rs ua nt to th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co u r t ’s

de ci si on , th e st at e tr ia l co ur t t he n c ert ifi ed a na ti on wid e cl as s.

In Mar ch 20 12

, TMBC rem ov ed th e act io n to fed eral di st ric t co ur t pu rs ua nt to

th e Cl as s Acti on Fai rn es s Act of 20 05

, 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 ( d ) ( 8 )

. Afte r rem ov al

, TMBC br ou gh t a m ot io n to de cert i f y t h e cl as s. Ext en si ve li ti ga ti on fo ll owe d ov er

wh e t he r a cl as s act io n was ap pr op ria te

, an d ev en tu al ly th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e

m ot io n to de cert ify. Afte r TMBC un su cces sf ul ly pe ti ti on ed th is co ur t fo r pe rm is si on

to ap pe al th e de ni al of it s m ot io n to de cert ify th e cl as s, TMBC as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t

to reco ns id er. Ult im at el y , th e di st ric t cou rt req ui red th e McKe ag es ’ co un se l to hi re

rev ie wers to m an ua ll y in sp ect each of TMBC ’s cu st om er fil es in or de r to de te rm in e

whi ch co nt ract s co nt ai ne d a Mi ss ou ri ch oi ce-o f-l aw pr ov is io n, th e in cl us io n of whi ch

fo rm ed th e ba si s fo r th e na ti on wid e cl as s. Afte r th e do cu m en t rev ie w, th e cl as s was

de te rm in ed to co ns is t o f ap pr ox im at el y 10 0,0 00 m em

be rs

.

The pa rti e s f

il ed cro ss m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. As rel ev an t to th e

is su es no w on ap pe al

, TMBC arg ue d th at ch arg in g a do cu m en t fee di d no t am ou nt to

un au th or iz ed la w bu si ne ss be cau se TMBC ’s em pl oyees di d no t e xe rci se le ga l
jud gm en t wh en fil li ng ou t do cu m en ts for cu st om ers . TMBC al so arg ue d t ha t s om e

in di vi du al s ha d be en im pr op erl y id en ti fie d as cu st om ers who si gn ed co nt ract s

go ve rn ed by Mi ss ou ri la w. TMBC fu rth er arg ue d th at Mi ss ou ri la w sh ou ld no t be

ap pl ie d na ti on wid e to cu st om ers who si gn ed co nt ract s wit h TMBC ou ts id e Mi ss ou ri.

Fi na ll y , TMBC a r g u e d th at da m ag es sh ou ld no t be cal cu la te d ba se d on th e en ti re

-5

-do cu m en t fee b e c a u s e po rti on s of th e fee wen t to se rv ic es th at di d no t co ns ti tu te

un au th or iz ed law b us in es s.

The d i s t r i ct co ur t reject ed TMBC ’s arg um en ts an d gr an te d th e McKe ag es ’

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e cl as s m em be rs

were pr op erl y id en ti fie d, TMBC ’s c o n d u c t in ch arg in g a do cu m en t fee co ns ti tu te d

un au th or iz ed la

w busi ne ss, Mi sso ur i la w ap pl ie d to tra ns act io ns th at oc cu rred ou ts id e

Mi ss ou ri, a n d d a mages sh ou ld be award ed ba se d on th e en ti re do cu m en t fee. The

di st ric t co ur t th en award ed tre bl e da mag e s pu rs ua nt to Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 48 4.0 20

. Bas ed on th e nu m

be r of m em

be rs in th e cl as s, th e am ou nt of da m ag es was cal cu la te d

at $2 1,7 35 ,75 4.

Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, th e McKe ag es fil ed a

m ot io n fo r at t o r n e ys ’ fees

. Alt ho ug h th e pa rti es ’ co nt ract pr ov id ed th at “ [t]he

pr ev ai li ng pa r t y in an y [act io n or pr oc eed in g ari si ng fro m th e ag reem en t] sh al l be

en ti tl ed to reco ve r

. . . reas on ab le at to rn ey s’ fees at al l le ve ls of li ti ga ti on ,” th e di st ric t

co ur t de te rm in ed th at “ ev en in cas es whe re a fee sh ift in g pr ov is io n m ay be ap pl ic ab le

,
at to rn ey ’s fees sh ou ld co m e fr o m t h e c om m on fu nd .” The di st ric t co ur t us ed th e

percen ta ge -o f-t he -b en efi t m et ho d to cal cu la te the fe es an d de te rm ine d tha t thi rt y -t hr ee

pe rcen t was ap pr op ria te in th is cas e. Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at th e co m m on

fu nd in cl ud ed $7 ,34 9,5 74 in act ua l da m ag es an d $1 4,3 86 ,18 0 in st at ut or y in te res t an d

tre bl e da m ag es

. Bas ed on a tri lo gy of Eig ht h Ci rcu it cas es in vo lv in g tre bl e da m ag es

un de r Sect io n 4 of th e Cl ay to n Act— Twent ie th Cen tu ry -Fo x Fi lm Co rp

. v. Bro ok si de

The at re Co rp ., 19 4 F.2d 84 6 (8t h Cir. 19 52 ); Int ern at io na l Travel Arran ge rs , In c. v.

W es te rn Airl in es , In c., 62 3 F.2 d 12 55 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ); an d Ro se Co nf ect io ns , In c. v.

Am br os ia Ch oc ol at e Co

., 81 6 F.2 d 38 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 )—t he di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d

th at cal cu la ti ng th e fee award “ fro m th e act ua l da m ag es [rat he r th an tre bl e da m ag es ]

. . . i s p r e f

e r a b l e be cau se it be tt er refl ect s th e po li ci es be hi nd a co m m on fu nd

reco ve ry [.]” As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t awar d e d c l as s co un se l $2 ,42 5,3 59 .42 in

-6

-at to rn ey s’ fees to be pa id fro m th e co m m on fu nd

, rep res en ti ng th irt y -th ree pe rcen t of

th e u nt reb le d d am ag es

.

TMBC ti m el y ap pe al ed

, co nt en d i n g : ( 1 ) th e cl as s sh ou ld no t ha ve be en

cert ifi ed be cau se in di vi du al iz ed pr oo f was req ui red to de te rm in e whe t h er each

cu st om er’s co nt ract co nt ai ne d a M i s s o u ri ch oi ce-o f-l aw pr ov is io n; (2 ) th e di st ric t

co ur t m is in te rp ret ed Mi ss o u r i cas e la w reg ard in g un au th or iz ed la w bu si ne ss in

gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t to th e cl as s; an d (3 ) th e d is tri ct co ur t erred in ap pl y in g

Mi ss ou ri la w to co nd uc t wh ic h oc cu rred ou ts id e Mi ss ou ri. The McKe ag es fil ed a

ti m el y cro ss ap pe al co nt en di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve en fo rced t h e feesh ift in g p ro vi si on in TMBC’s s ta nd ard for m co nt ract an d th at th e fee award sh ou ld

ha ve be en ba se d o n t he en ti re co m m on fun d ra th er t ha n t he un tre bl ed da m ag es

.

II

A

TMBC fir st co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it cert ifi ed a cl as s. W e

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on t o c e rti fy a cl as s fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n, bu t

rev ie w de no vo an y is su es of la w in vo lv ed in th e cl as s c e r t i f i c a t i on

. In re St

. Ju de

Med ., Inc ., 42 5 F .3d 11 16 , 11 19 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

TMBC arg ue s th at th e McKe ag es fai le d to sa ti sf y t h e co m

m on al it y an d

pr ed om in an ce req ui rem en ts of Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 23 (a)( 2) an d (b )(3 ).

See Fed . R . C iv . P . 2 3( a)(2 ) (s et ti ng fo rth th e pr ereq ui si te to cl as s cert ifi cat io n th at

th ere be “q u e s t i o n s o f la w or fact co m m on to th e cl as s” ); Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 23 (b )(3 )
( s e t ti ng fo rth an ad di ti on al req ui rem en t th at th ere be “ qu es ti on s of la w or f a c t

c o mm o n to cl as s m em

be rs [th at ] pr ed om in at e ov er an y qu es ti on s affe ct in g on l y

in di vi du al m em

be rs ”). Mo re sp eci fic al ly, TMBC arg ue s in di vi du a l i ss ue s

-7

-pr ed om in at ed ov er co m m on is su es du rin g th e hi gh ly in di vi du al iz ed pr oc es s th e

di st ric t co ur t u se d t o i de nt ify clas s m em be rs

.

TMBC ’s co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t an in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry rel at e to bo th th e

id en ti fic at io n o f th e cl as s m em be rs an d t he ev id en ce n eces sa ry to est ab li sh li ab il it y

on ce a cl as s ha s be en id en ti fie d

. TMBC ’s arg um en t th us im pl ic at es no t on ly th e

co m m on al it y an d pr ed om in an ce req ui rem en ts, but al so Ru le 23’ s im pli ci t re qui re m en t

th at a cl as s “ ‘m

us t be ad eq u a t e ly de fin ed an d cl earl y as cert ai na bl e.’” San du sk y

W el ln es s Ct r. v. Med to x Sci

., In c., 82 1 F.3 d 99 2, 99 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Ih rk e

v. N. St at es Po wer Co., 45 9 F.2d 56 6, 5 73 n.3 (8t h C ir.) , vac at ed as m oo t, 4 09 U.S.

81 5 (1 97 2) ). Tho u g h a s c e r t ai na bi li ty is an im pl ic it req ui rem en t th at ou r co ur t

en fo rces th ro ug h “ a rig or ou s an al y si s of th e Ru le 23 req ui rem en ts ,” id

., a di sp ut e

reg ard in g th e m et ho d fo r id en ti fy in g cl as s m em be rs cal ls fo r a n i n d ep en de nt

di sc us si on of wh et he r a cl as s i s as cert ai na bl e.

A cl as s m ay be as cert ai na bl e whe n it s m em be rs m ay be id en ti fie d by refe ren ce

to ob jecti ve cri te ria

. See id

. at 99 7– 98 . In Sa nd us ky, the pl ai nt iff s al le ge d Med to x

Sci en ti fic vi ol at e d th e Tele ph on e Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Act (TCPA) by se nd in g

un so li ci te d fax es wit ho ut th e op t-o ut no ti ce req ui red by th e TCPA. W e id en ti fie d th e

“ fax lo gs sh owi ng th e n u mb e r s th at rece iv ed each fax ” as “ ob jecti ve cri te ria th at

m ak e th e reci pi en t clea rly as cert ai na bl e.” Id

. at 99 7. We con cl ud ed th at th e di st ric t

co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g cl as s cert ifi cat io n, de sp it e th e fact th at th e lo gs

m ay ha ve id en ti fie d so m e fax reci pi en ts “ who do n’t ha ve rig ht s un de r th e [TCPA],”

n o ti ng th at th os e cl as s m em be rs “ jus t wou ld n’t be en ti tl ed to sh are in th e da mag e s

award ed to th e cl as s by a jud gm en t o r se tt le m en t.” I d. at 998 (al te rat io n in or ig in al )
(q uo ti ng Ch ap m an v. Wagen er Eq ui ti es , Inc ., 74 7 F .3d 48 9, 4 92 (7t h C ir. 2 01 4) ).

Here, cl as s m em

be rs were id en ti fie d by rev ie win g TM B C ’s cu st om er fil es

acco rd in g to ob

jecti ve cri te ria

. The pu rp os e of th e rev ie w pr oc es s was to id en ti fy fo r

cl as s m em

be rs hi p th e cu st om ers w ho se fil es co nt ai ne d an OAAS fo rm or a te rm s- an d-

-8

-co nd it io ns sh eet wit h a Mi ss ou ri ch oi ce-o f-l aw pr ov is io n. The di st ric t co ur t ad op te d

an in t e n s iv e fil e-b y -fi le rev ie w pr oc es s sp eci fic al ly fo r th e pu rp os e of ex cl ud in g

cu st om ers who se co nt ract s di d no t co nt ai n th e Mi ss ou ri ch oi ce-o f-l aw pr ov is io n an d

who th eref

or e di d no t ha ve rig ht s un de r Mi ss ou ri la w. In de ed

, ou r ex am in at io n of th e

reco rd in di cat es th at rev ie w pr oc es s wor ke d, an d th at m os t cu st om ers who m ay ha ve 5

be en su bjec t to TMBC ’s in di vi du al de fen se s were ex cl ud ed fro m th e cl as s du rin g th e

rev ie w pro ces s.

In ad di ti on to th e cl as s be in g cl earl y as cert ai na b l e , t h e co m m on al it y an d

pr ed om in an ce req ui rem en ts of Ru le 23 (b ) are sa ti sf ie d he re. The cl as s id en ti fie d as

a res ul t of th e in te ns iv e fil e-b y -fi le rev ie w in cl ud ed TMBC cu st om er s t ha t en te red

in to a co nt ract id en ti cal or su b s ta nt ia ll y si m il ar to th e on e en te red in to by th e

McKe ag es

. In ad di t i o n , ev id en ce gl ean ed du rin g di sc ov ery sh owe d th at it was

TMBC ’s co rp or at e po li cy to req ui re al l cu st om ers to si gn th e st an da rd fo rm co nt ract

go ve rn ed by Mi ss ou ri la w. Thu s, th is cas e pr es en te d a “ cl as si c cas e fo r tre at m en t as

a cl as s act io n.” St ei nb erg v. Nati on wid e Mu t. In s. Co

., 22 4 F.R.D. 67

, 74 (E.D.N.Y.

20 04 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d) ; se e al so Fl an ag an v. All st at e In s. Co

., 24 2 F.R.D.

42 1, 4 28 (N.D. Ill

. 20 07 ) (“ Cl ai m s ari si ng ou t of fo rm co nt ract s are pa rti cu la rly

ap pr op ria te fo r cl as s acti on tre at m en t.”) ; Egge v. Healt hs pa n S erv s. Co

., 20 8 F.R.D

26 5, 26 9 (D. Mi nn

. 20 02 ) ( “Cl ai m s ari si ng fro m in te rp ret at io ns of a fo rm co nt ract

ap pe ar to pr es en t th e cl as si c cas e fo r tre at m en t as a cl as s act io n.” ) (al te rat io n om it te d)
(q uo ti ng Klei ne r v. Fi rs t Nat’l Ban k of Atl an ta

, 97 F.R.D. 68 3, 69 2 (N.D. Ga. 19 83 )).

As to th e cl as s memb e r s ev en tu al ly id en ti fie d, th e co m m on an d pr ed om in an t is su e

was whe th er TMBC ’s pr act ic e of ch arg in g a do cu m en t fee in th e s t a n d ard iz ed

co nt ract vi ol at ed Mi ss ou ri’s pr oh ib it io n on un au th or iz ed la w bu si ne ss

. Alt ho ug h th e

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed su m m ary jud gm en t as to 2,2 93 in di vi du al s who were 5

in it ia ll y in cl ud ed in th e cl as s aft er fin di ng th ere was a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact

as to whe th er th e tra ns act io ns of 68 of th os e in di vi du al s were go ve rn ed by Mi ss ou ri
la w, an d whe th er 2,2 25 of th os e in di v i d u a l s w h os e tra ns act io ns were go ve rn ed by
Mi ss ou ri l aw ha d a ct ua ll y pa id a do cu m en t fe e.

-9

-do cu m en ts TMBC pr ep ared fo r in di vi du al cu st om ers va ried at ti m es , th e di st ric t co ur t

corr ec tl y de te rm in ed th at th e va rie ty of se rv ic es an d th e di ffer en ces be twee n co nt ract s

were no t di st in ct en ou gh to de cert ify th e cas e as a c l a s s a c ti on

. See Ja ns on v. Leg al Zoo m .co m , In c., 27 1 F.R.D. 50 6, 51 0, 51 2 (W. D. Mo

. 20 10 ) (in vo lv in g a cl ai m

of un a ut ho riz ed la w bu si ne ss an d fin di ng th at Ru le 23 ’s co m m on al it y an d

pr ed om ina

nce req ui rem en ts were m et ev en whe n th e de fen da nt of fere d m or e th an 20 0

se pa rat e le ga l fo rm s, no ti ng th at va ria ti on in fo rm s di d no t ne ga te th e ov erar ch in g

c o mm on le ga l qu es ti on of “ whe th er Leg al Zoo m ’s pr ep arat io n of le ga l do cu m en t s

vi ol at es Mi ss ou ri l aw”).

W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n in fin di ng th at

th e cl as s as ul ti m at el y de fin ed m et th e req ui rem en ts of Ru le 23 an d cert ifyin g th e cas e

as a cl as s ac ti on

.

B

TMBC ne xt co nt en ds th at th e di st ri c t c o u r t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t to th e cl as s. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de

no vo . Green v. Di ll ard ’s, Inc ., 48 3 F .3d 53 3, 5 38 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

TMBC co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t m is co n s t r u ed Mi ss ou ri la w whe n it

co nc lu de d th at TMBC ’s pr act ic e of ch arg in g a do cu m en t fee co ns tit ute d una uth or iz ed

la w bu si ne ss un de r Mo

. Rev

. St at

. §§ 48 4.0 20 an d 48 4.0 10

. TMBC co nt en ds th at th e

di st ric t co ur t m is un de rs to od th at “ an act iv it y m us t fir st be th e pr act ic e of la w be fo re

ch arg in g fo r it s p erfo rm an ce b y a no n- la wy er ca n b e u na ut ho riz ed .”

Und er Mi ss ou ri la w, “ ch arg in g a se pa rat e fee fo r th e co m pl et io n of le ga l fo rm s by no n- la wy ers co ns ti tu te s th e un au th or iz ed pr act ic e of la w bu si ne ss .” Carp en te r v.

Co un trywide Hom e Loa ns , In c., 25 0 S.W .3d 69 7, 70 2 (Mo

. ba nc 20 08 ). Dete rm in in g

whe th er a pa rti cu la r fo rm is le ga l in na tu re req ui res th e co ur t to “ ba la nc e th e

-1 0-pr ot ect io n of th e pu bl ic ag ai n st a de si re to av oi d un ne ces sa ry in co nv en ie nc e an d

ex pe ns e.” Harg is v. JLB Co rp ., 35 7 S .W .3d 57 4, 5 84 (Mo . b an c 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng In

re Fi rs t Esc r o w , I n c

. , 8 4 0 S.W .2d 83 9, 84 3 (Mo

. ba nc 19 92 )). A ke y fact or in th is

in qu iry is th e le ga l jud gm en t or di sc ret io n req ui red to pr ep are th e fo rm

. See Harg is

, 35 7 S.W .3d at 58 4; In re Fi rs t Escr ow, In c., 84 0 S.W .2d at 84 3; Hul se v. Cri ge r, 24 7

S.W .2d 85 5

, 8 6 1 ( M o

. ba nc 19 52 ). Howev er, on ce it ha s be en de te rm in ed th at a

pa rti cu la r do cu m en t is le ga l in na tu re, th e act of ch arg in g a fee fo r th e pr ep arat io n or

co m pl et io n of th at doc um en t co nstit ut es un au th or iz ed la w bu si ne ss , ev en whe n a no nla wy er d oe s n ot ex erci se an y leg al jud gm en t i n c om

pl et in g t he for m

.

Fo r ex am pl e, in Eis el v. Mi dwe st Ban kC en tre

, 23 0 S.W

. 3 d 3 3 5 ( M o. ba nc

20 07 ), ba nk em

pl oyees pr ep ared a nu m

be r of pr e-p rin te d do cu m en ts whe n pr oc es sin g

m or tg ag e lo an s. The pr e-p rin te d fo rm s in cl ud ed

, am on g ot he r th in gs , a de ed of tru st

an d a pr om is so ry no te

. Id

. at 33 7 n.3

. The Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t ha d pr ev io us ly

de te rm in ed th at de ed s of t r u s t a nd pr om is so ry no te s were le ga l do cu m en ts be cau se

th ei r pr ep arat io n req ui res th e ex erci se of le ga l jud gm en t or di sc ret io n. See id

. (ci ti ng

In re Fi rs t Es c r o w , 8 40 S.W .2d at 84 6)

. As a res ul t, th e co ur t fo un d it un ne ces sa ry

to co ns id er whe th er ba nk em pl oyees’ co m

pl et in g th e pr e-p rin te d fo rm s req ui red th e

ex erci se of le ga l jud gm en t or di sc ret io n. Rat he r, th e c ou rt he ld th e ba nk ’s p ract ic e

of ch arg in g a fee fo r co m

pl et in g th e pr e-p rin te d fo rm s was un au th or iz ed la w bu si ne ss

pr oh ib it ed by § 48 4.0 20

, ex pl ai ni ng th at “ ch arg in g of a s e p a r a t e ad di ti on al ch arg e

te nd s to pl ace em

ph as is on co nv ey an ci ng an d le ga l dr aft in g as a bu si ne ss rat he r th an

on th e b us in es s o f be in g a [ba nk er].” Id. at 33 9.

Th e f o r ms fo r whi ch TMBC ch arg ed a fee in cl ud ed fo rm s Mi ss ou ri ha s

de te rm in ed to be le ga l do cu m en ts —n a mel y , po wer of at to rn ey fo rm s— as well as

fo rm s th at ha ve y et to be an al y zed un de r Mi ss ou ri la w. See id

. (co m pa ni es an d th ei r

no n- la w ye r ag en ts pr oh ib it ed “ fro m dr awin g, pr ep ari ng , or as si st in g in th e

pr ep arat io n of tru st wor kb oo ks

, t r us ts

, wil ls

, an d po wers of at to rn ey fo r va lu ab le

co ns id erat io n” ) (ci ti ng In re Mi d

- A m. Liv in g Trus t Ass oc s., In c., 92 7 S.W .2d 85 5,

-1 1-87 1 (M o. b an c 1 99 6) ). As a co ns eq ue nc e, TMBC ’s pra ct ic e of ch arg in g a se pa rat e

fee fo r th e co m

pl et io n of th os e fo rm s was un au th or iz ed la w bu si ne ss un de r § 48 4.0 20

whe th er or no t th e act of co m pl et in g th e fo rm s req ui red th e ex erci se of le ga l jud gm en t

or di sc ret io n. Se e id

.

Rel y in g on Bray v. Bro ok s, 41 S.W .3d 7 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 01 ), TMBC fu rth er

co nt en ds th e di s t r i c t co ur t m is co ns tru ed Mi ss ou ri la w whe n it cal cu la te d da m ag es

ba se d up on th e en ti re do cu m en t fee, be cau se so m e of th e fo rm s fo r whi ch it ch arg ed

a do cu m en t fee were no t le ga l do cu m en ts

. TMBC co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t was

req ui red to pa rs e th e do cu m en t fee to de te rm in e wha t po rti on sh ou ld be al lo tt ed to th e

pr ep arat io n of le ga l do cu m en ts an d to cal cu la te da m ag es o n l y u p o n th at am ou nt

. Howev er, Bray do es no t m an da te su c h a pr oc ed ur e. Bray in vo lv ed a real es ta te

br ok er who ch arg ed a si ng le fee fo r al l of hi s se rv ic es , whi ch in cl ud ed th e

un au th or iz ed dr aft in g of a nu m be r of le ga l do cu m en ts as well as le gi ti m at e br ok er

se rv ic es , wit ho ut m ak in g a d e f i n ed se pa rat e ch arg e fo r do cu m en t pr ep arat io n. In

de ci di ng whe th er da m ag es fo r th e vi o la ti on of § 48 4.0 20 sh ou ld be ba se d up on th e

br ok er’s en ti re fee, th e Mi s s o u r i C ou rt of App eal s sa id a di st in ct io n m us t be m ad e

be twee n t he leg it im at e an d u na ut ho riz ed ser vi ces th e b ro ke r pr ov id ed . Id. at 14

.

As th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de te rm in ed , t he fact s of Bray dif fer fro m th os e

in vo lv ed h e re. TMBC di d no t ch arg e th e McKe ag es a si ng le co nt ract pr ic e fo r th e

sa le of th e bo at

. Rat he r, th e un au th or iz ed fee fo r do cu m en t pr ep arat io n was ch arg ed

se pa rat el y fro m th e le gi ti m at e p o rti on s of th e co nt ract

. Thu s, th ere was no ne ed to

a d d r e ss th e di le m

m a th e co ur t face d in Bray. In si tu at io ns whe re th e un au th o r i z e d

ch arg e is se pa rat e fro m th e le gi ti m at e p o r t i on s of th e pa rti es ’ tra ns act io n, da m ag es

m ay be ba se d up on th e en ti re un au th or iz ed fee, ev en if so m e of th e do cu m en ts are no t

le ga l i n n at ur e. See Ei se l, 2 30 S.W .3d at 3 37 n.3

.

Fi na ll y , TMBC co nt e n d s it ha d no no ti ce th at th e ch oi ce-o f-l aw cl au se in it s

co nt ract wou ld su bjec t it to tre bl e da m ag es

. W e di sa gr ee. See Carp en te r, 25 0 S.W .3d

-1 2-at 70 2 (“ Co un trywide ha d cl ear an d fai r no ti ce, bo th by st at ut e an d cas e la w, th at it s

act iv it ie s co ns ti tu te d th e un au th or iz ed pr act ic e of la w bu si ne ss an d th at th is co nd uc t

wou ld su bjec t i t t o t reb le th e am ou nt of f ees pa id in ex ch an ge for th os e se rv ic es .”);

Ja ns on v. Leg al Zoo m , In c., 80 2 F

. S u pp

. 2d 10 53

, 10 67 (W. D. Mo

. 20 11 ) (fi nd in g

ap pl ic at io n of Mi ss ou ri’s u n a u t ho riz ed pr act ic e of la w st at ut e di d no t vi ol at e th e

de fen da nt ’s c on st it ut io na l d ue pro ces s ri gh ts whe re Mi ss ou ri “ cas es su ch as Hul se , Fi rs t Escr ow, Mi d- Am eri ca, an d Eis el pu t [th e de fen da nt ] on no ti ce th at it co ul d no t

ch arg e a fee for th e p rep arat io n o f le ga l d oc um en ts ”).

W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t err in gra nt in g t he cla ss m em be rs ’

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary ju d g men t or in cal cu la ti ng da m ag es ba se d up on th e en ti re

do cu m en t fe e.

C

Fi na ll y , TMBC co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in a p p l yi n g Mi ss ou ri la w to

s al es th at oc cu rred ou ts id e Mi ss ou ri. Thi s is su e in vo lv es th e in te rp ret at io n a n d

ap pl ic at io n of th e ch oi ce-o f-l aw pr ov is io n in TMBC ’s st an d a r d fo rm co nt ract

, an d

th us is an is su e of la w rev ie wed de no vo

. S e e S ch wan ’s Sal es Ent ers ., In c. v. SIG

Pack , Inc ., 47 6 F .3d 59 4, 5 95 –9 6 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ).

TMBC ch arac te riz es th is is su e as an un co ns ti tu ti on al ex tra -te rri to ria l

ap pl ic at i o n of Mi ss ou ri pe na l la w, arg ui ng th at “ [t]o al lo w Mi ss ou ri to co nt ro l th e

reg ul at io n of la w li cen se s an d de ci de wha t co ns ti tu te s th e pr act ic e of la w in ot he r

st at es is un pr eced en te d” an d vi ol at iv e of th e Co m m erce an d Fu ll Fai th an d Cred it

Cl au se s of th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. In m ak in g th is arg um en t, TMBC rel ie s on

th e fact th at § 48 4.0 20 (2 ) m ak es it a m is de m ean or to en ga ge in un au t h o r i z e d l aw

bu si ne ss an d th at th e Mi ss ou ri at to rn ey ge ne ral ha s th e rig ht to su e fo r tre bl e da m ag es

in th e ev en t th e pa rti es gr an te d a pr iv at e cau se of act io n un de r th e st at ut e “ ne gl ect an d

fai l t o s ue for or r eco ve r su ch tre bl e am ou nt .” Mo . Rev . Sta t. § 48 4.0 20 (2 ).

-1 3-The fu nd am en ta l fla w i n TMBC ’s a rg um en t i s t ha t M is so ur i i s no t a pa rty t o

th is act io n. Mi ss ou ri has no t char ge d TMBC with an y cri m es , no r ha s th e Mi ss ou ri

at to rn ey ge ne ral pu rs ue d a n a ct io n a ga in st TMBC fo r tre bl e d am ag es ari si ng ou t o f

it s co nt ract s wit h cl as s m em be rs

. Mi ss ou ri m ak es no at te m pt to en fo rce it s la w ex tra

te rri to ria ll y

. Thu s, whe th er Mi ss ou ri can co nt ro l th e reg ul at io n of la w li cen se s ex tra

te rri to ria ll y an d whe th er th e Mi ss ou ri at to rn ey ge ne ral can en fo rce § 48 4.0 20 ex tra

te rri to ria ll y

are i ss ue s n ot be fo re u s.

In st ead

, th e qu es ti on he re is whe th er a co rp or at io n he ad qu art ered in Mi ss ou ri

can ch oo se th at Mi ss ou ri la w go ve rn it s co nd uc t in st an da rd f o r m c on tra ct s it us ed

na ti on wid e. The re i s no th in g in he ren tl y un co ns ti tu ti on al ab ou t en fo rci ng a

co rp or at io n’s ch oi ce to ha ve it s co nt ract ua l du ti es go ve rn ed by th e la w of a pa rti cu la r

st at e. On th e co nt rary, “ [t]he ge ne ral ru le is t h a t c om pe te nt pe rs on s sh al l ha ve th e

ut m os t li be rty of co nt ract in g an d th at th ei r ag r e e men t s vo lu nt ari ly an d fai rly m ad e

sh al l be he ld va li d an d en fo rced in th e co ur ts .” Twin Ci ty Pi pe Lin e Co

. v. Hard in g

Glas s C o

. , 2 8 3 U .S. 35 3, 35 6 (1 93 1) ; St at e ex rel

. McKe ag e, 35 7 S.W .3d at 60 0
(“ Gen eral ly, pa rti es m ay ch oo se th e st at e who se la w wil l go ve rn th e in te rp ret at io n of

th ei r co nt ract ua l rig ht s an d du ti es

. A va li d ch oi ce of la w pr ov is io n in a co nt ract bi nd s

th e pa rti es .” (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d) ). Asi de fro m it s arg um en t th at ap pl ic at io n of
§ 48 4.0 20 in th is cas e co ns ti tu te s th e un co ns ti tu ti on al ex tra -te rri to ria l ap pl ic at io n of

Mi ss ou ri pe na l la w, TMBC do es no t ot he rwis e ch al le ng e th e va li di ty or en fo rcab il it y

of th e ch oi ce-o f-l aw cl au se

. W e th us co nc lu de th at th e d i s t ric t co ur t di d no t err in

ap pl y in g M is so ur i l aw to sal es th at oc cu rred ou ts id e Mi ss ou ri.

D

In th ei r cro ss ap pe al

, th e McKe ag es ch al le ng e th e di st ri ct co ur t’s award of

at to rn ey s’ fees

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s award of at to rn ey s’ fees fo r an ab us e

of di sc ret io n, bu t rev ie w de no vo an y ru li ng s of la w rel at ed to th e award of fees

. Ro em m ic h v . Eagl e Ey e Dev ., LLC, 526 F.3d 34 3, 3 54 –5 5 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ).

-1 4-W e fir st ad dr es s th e McKe ag es ’ co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n

it he ld th at th e at to rn ey s’ fees sh ou ld be pa id fro m th e co m m on fu nd rat he r th an pa id
by TMBC pu rs ua nt to th e co nt ract ua l fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n. I n c o n c lu di ng th at 6

at to rn ey s’ fees sh o u l d b e p a i d by th e cl as s m em be rs ou t of th e co m

m on fu nd ev en

th ou gh th ere was a fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n in TMBC ’s co nt ract

, th e di st ric t co ur t ci te d

th ree cas es : Ent erg y Ark an sa s, In c. v. Neb ra s k a , 22 6 F. Su pp

. 2d 11 74 (D. Neb

. 20 02 ); In re W or ke rs ’ Co m p e n s a t i o n In su ran ce Ant it ru st Lit ig at io n, 77 1 F. Su pp

. 28 4 (D. Mi nn

. 19 91 ); an d In re Ch ry sl er Mo to rs Co rp

. Ove rn ig ht Eva lu at io n Pro gr am

Lit ig at io n, 73 6 F. Su pp

. 10 07 (E.D. M o

. 1 9 9 0)

. Howev er, no ne of th es e cas es

in vo lv ed a co m

m on fu nd in a cl as s act io n in whi ch a co nt r a c t u al fee- sh ift in g

pr ov is io n pl ay ed a pa rt. See En t erg y Ark

., 22 6 F. Su pp

. 2d at 11 82 (n ot in g th e

co m m on fu nd do ct rin e ex is ts “ in de pe nd en tl y of the va rio us fee- sh ift in g st at ut es ,” an d

no t ad dr es si ng whe th er t h e pr es en ce of a co m m on fu nd ne ces sa ril y pr ecl ud es th e

en fo rcem en t of a c o n tra ct ua l fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n) ; In re W or ke rs ’ Co m p., 77 1 F.

Su pp

. at 28 6 (h on or in g cl as s co un se l’s req ue st th at fees be pa id ou t of co m m on fu nd

rat he r th an un de r ap pl ic ab le st at ut or y fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io ns be cau se “ th e se tt le m en t

ag reem en ts co nt ai n an ex pl ic it te rm crea ti ng a co m m on fu nd ”); In re Ch ry sl er Mo to rs

Co rp ., 73 6 F. Su pp

. at 10 12 –1 3 (d is cu ss in g ot he r cas es i ni ti at ed pu rs ua nt to

We r eject TMBC ’s co nt en ti on , art ic ul at ed in it s rep ly br ie f, th at t h e 6

co nt ract ua l fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n do es no t ap pl y be cau se th is su it is no t an act io n or

pr oc eed in g ari si ng fro m it s ag reem en ts

. The $7 5 do cu m en t fee was pa rt of th e

co nt ract s, th is cl as s act io n was br ou gh t to ch al le ng e th e la wfu ln es s of th at pa rt of th e

co nt ract s— a de te rm in at io n th at rel at es to th e in te rp ret at io n of th e co nt ract —an d th us th is cl as s act io n ari se s fro m th os e ag reem en ts an d tri gg ers th e fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n. See Majo r v. McC al li st er, 30 2 S.W .3d 22 7, 23 1– 32 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 09 ) (“ Gen eral ly

sp eak i n g, whe th er a fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se th at by it s te rm s ap pl ie s to co nt ract

act io ns al so reac he s no n- co nt ract cl ai m s ‘dep en ds on whe th er th e res ol ut io n o f t he
cl ai m s rel at es to in te rp ret at io n of th e co nt ract .’ ” (q uo ti ng Man et t i -Far ro w, In c. v. Guc ci Am ., Inc ., 85 8 F .2d 50 9, 5 14 (9t h C ir. 1 98 8) ).

-1 5-fee- sh ift in g st at ut es in whi ch co m m on fu nd pr i n ci pl es were ap pl ie d to de te rm in e

fees ). Thes e cas es , whi le in fo rm at iv e, are n ot di sp os it iv e.

Th e qu es ti on he re is whe th er, in a cas e in whi ch bo th a co m m on fu nd an d a

co nt ra ct ua l fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n ex is t, at to rn ey s’ fees sh ou ld be award ed fro m th e

co m m on fu nd or pa id un de r th e co n t r a c t ’s te rm s. Our co ur t ha s y et to ad dr es s th is

qu es ti on

. In de ci di ng th is is su e, we fir st no te th at th e pr es en ce o f a fee- sh ift in g

st at ut e do es no t ne ces sa ril y pr ecl ud e award in g at to rn ey s’ fees ou t of a co m m on fu nd

. See 5 W il li am B. R

u b en st ei n, Newbe rg on Cl as s Acti on s § 15 :6 1 (5 th ed

. 20 16 )
( “[C ]o u n s el m ay in so m e cas es be ab le to se ek bo th st at ut or y fee- sh ift in g an d

co m m on fu nd fee- sp read in g.” ). In st ead

, th e pr es en ce of a fee- sh ift in g st at ut e

pr ecl ud es a co m

m on fu nd award on ly whe n th at res ul t is req ui red by th e s t at ut or y

sc he m e in vo lv ed

. See Alan Hirs ch et al

., Fed

. Ju di ci al Ct r., Award in g Att or ne y s’

Fees an d Man ag in g Fee Lit ig ., 7 8 & n.4 47 (3 d ed . 2 01 5) (“Th e S e c o n d, Thi rd , a nd

Sev en th Ci rcu it s ha ve he ld th at

, ab se nt

. . . a sh owi ng of le gi sl at iv e in te nt [to pr ecl ud e

a co m m on fu nd award ], th e fact th at a fee- sh ift in g st at ut e ap pl ie s to a pa rti cu la r cas e

do es no t pr ecl ud e r e c ov ery fro m a co m m on fu nd .”) (ci ti ng Su ffo lk v. Lon g Is la nd
Lig ht in g Co

., 90 7 F.2 d 12 95

, 13 27 (2 d Ci r. 19 90 ); Sk el to n v. Gen

. Mo to rs Co rp ., 86 0

F.2 d 25 0, 25 5 (7 th Ci r. 19 88 ); In re Fi ne Pap er Ant it ru st Lit ig

., 75 1 F.2 d 56 2, 58 3 (3 d

C i r

. 19 84 )); se e al so Hag ga rt v. W oo dl ey , 80 9 F.3 d 13 36

, 13 57 (Fed

. Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 6 S. Ct

. 25 09 (2 01 6) ( h o l d i n g t ha t fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n un de r se ct io n

30 4( c) of th e Uni fo rm Rel oc at io n Ass is ta nc e an d Rea l Pro pe rty Acq ui si ti on Po li ci es

Act pr ecl ud ed a co m

m on fu nd award be cau se th e st at ut or y sc he m e “ ex pr es sl y al lo ws

l a n d o wne rs to ret ai n th e fu ll co m pe ns at io n of th e va lu e of th ei r pr op ert y b y

m an da ti ng th e Gov ern m en t to as su m e th e li ti ga ti on ex pe ns es of co un se l” ). Bu t whe n

a pa rti cu la r st at ut or y sc he m e do es no t m an ife st co ng res si on al in t e nt to pr ecl ud e

eq ui ta bl e fee- sh ift in g un de r th e co m m on fu nd do ct rin e, co ur ts are affo rd ed gr eat er

di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g th e ap pr op ria te so ur ce of at to rn ey s’ fees

. See Hag ga rt, 80 9

F.3 d a t 1 35 9 (“ W e d o n ot for ecl os e th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e co m m on fun d d oc tri ne in

al l in st an ces in whi ch a fee- sh ift in g st at ut e is pr es en t. Equ it y m ay so m et im es de em

-1 6-it ap pr op ria te t o g i v e co un se l a pi ece of ei th er th e fin al jud gm en t or se tt le m en t

ag reem en t.”)

.

I n cas es in vo lv in g co nt ra ct ua l fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io ns , th ere is no rel ev an t

un de rlyin g co ng res si on al in te nt th at m ig ht pr ecl ud e a co m m on fu nd award

. In st ead

, th e co ur t m

us t weig h th e eq ui ta bl e pr in ci pl es un de rlyin g th e crea ti on of th e co m m on

fu nd do ct rin e ag ai ns t th e fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n ag reed up on by th e p a r t i es

. See

Bo ei ng Co . v . Va n Gem ert , 4 44 U.S. 4 72 , 47 8 (1 98 0) (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e co m m on

fu nd do ct rin e is gro un de d i n e qu it y ).

The re is a di st in ct io n be twee n th e am ou nt a lo si ng pa rty m ay be req ui red to pa y

un de r an ag reed -u po n co nt ract ua l fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n an d th e am ou nt a c l as s

m em be r sh ou ld eq ui ta bl y be req ui red to pa y hi s or he r own la wy er un de r th e co m m on

fu nd do ct rin e. Cf. Gis br ech t v. Barn ha rt, 53 5 U.S. 78 9, 80 6 (2 00 2) (em ph as iz in g th at

th e lo de st ar m et ho d of award in g fees un de r a fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n “ was de si gn ed to

go ve rn im

po si ti on of fees on th e lo si ng pa rty

. . . . [b ut ] no th in g pr ev en ts th e at to rn ey

fo r th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty fr om ga in in g ad di ti on al fe es , p ur su an t to co nt ract , f ro m hi s

own cl ie nt .” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ); Ven eg as v. Mi tc he ll

, 49 5 U

. S

. 82

, 90 (1 99 0)
(ex pl ai ni ng th at th e rel ev an t st at ut or y fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n “ co nt ro ls wha t th e lo si ng

de fen da nt m

us t pa y , no t wha t th e pr ev ai li ng pl ai nt iff m us t pa y hi s la wy er”)

. In Nil se n

v. Yor k Co un ty, th e co ur t di sc us se d Ven eg as an d Gis br ech t in th e co nt ex t of a cl as s

act io n co m

m on fu nd cas e an d co nc lu de d th at “ [t]he se cas es , read to ge th er, un co up le

th e fee an al y si s in de te rm in in g an award ag ai ns t th e lo si ng de fen da nt

. . . fro m th e fee

an al y si s fo r de te rm in in g an award to th e la wy er fro m th e am ou nt th at he or sh e ha s

reco ve red .” 40 0 F . Sup p. 2 d 2 66 , 27 2 (D. M e. 20 05 ).

“ The fact th at a co m

m on fu nd ha s bee n creat ed is no t su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a

f i n d i n g th at th e co m

m on fu nd do ct rin e m

us t be ap pl ie d whe n award in g at to rn e y

fees

. . . .” Hag ga rt, 80 9 F. 3 d a t 1 3 5 6

. Th e co m m on fu nd do ct rin e is in te nd ed to

en su re th at cl as s co un se l rece iv es a fee si m il ar to wha t wou ld ha ve be en rece iv ed ha d

-1 7-a ret ai ne r ag reem en t be en in p l a c e w i t h a ll cl as s m em be rs , as well as to pr ev en t

“ pe rs on s who ob ta in th e be ne fit of a la wsu it wit ho ut co nt rib ut in g to it s cos t” —e.g .,
pa ss iv e cl as s m em

be rs —fr om be in g “ un

jus tl y en ric he d a t th e su cces sf ul li ti ga nt ’s

ex pe ns e.” Bo ei ng C o

. , 4 4 4 U.S. at 47 8. Paym en t of at to rn ey s’ fees un de r th e feesh ift in g pr ov is io n acco m m od at es bo th co nc ern s un de r l yi n g th e co m m on fu nd

do ct rin e: Fi rs t, lawy ers are ab le to reco up reas on ab le co m pe ns at io n. Seco nd

, th ere

is no ris k t h at na m ed pl ai nt iff s al on e wil l be req ui red to pa y th e cl as s’s la wy ers ,
t h ereb y un

jus tl y en ric hi ng pa ss iv e cl as s m em be rs by pr ov id in g th em th e be ne fi t o f

a po rti on of th e award wit ho ut th e bu r d en of li ti ga ti on co st s. Fu rth erm or e, th e

McKe ag es ’ co un se l su cces sf ul ly ob ta in ed a jud gm en t on be ha lf of t he cla ss ag ai ns t

a de fen da nt who free ly en te red i n t o a co nt ract co nt ai ni ng a fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n. Req ui rin g th e cl as s t o p ay th e en ti re at to rn ey s’ fee awar d fr om th e co m m on fu nd in

th is cas e is in eq ui ta bl e be cau se it nu ll if ie s th e cl as s’s co nt ract ua l rig ht

, as th e

pr ev ai li ng pa rty, “ to reco ve r al l li ti ga ti on co s t s a nd ex pe ns es , i nc lu di ng reas on ab le

at to rn ey s’ fees at al l le ve ls of li ti ga ti on ” fro m it s op po ne nt

. Enfo rcem en t of th e feesh ift in g pr ov is io n ho no rs bo th th e co nt ract an d the prin ci pl es un de rlyin g th e co m m on

fu nd do ct rin e.

Howev er, sh ou ld th e di s tri ct co ur t de te rm in e th at co un se l fo r th e cl as s is

en ti tl ed to ad di t i o n a l fees fro m th e co m m on fu nd

, ap art fro m th os e reas on ab le

ex pe ns es co ve red by th e fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n, it is no t p r o h ib it ed fro m award in g

ad di ti on al fees

. See Nil se n, 40 0 F. Su pp

. 2d at 27 2– 73 (fee an al y si s fo r de te rm in in g

an award ag ai ns t th e lo si ng de fen da nt is di st in ct fro m th e fee an al y si s fo r de te rm in in g

an award to th e la wy er fro m th e am ou nt th at a pl ai nt iff ha s reco ve red ). W e m ak e no

co m m en t wit h res pe ct to whe th er fees be y on d th os e res u l t in g fro m th e co nt ract ua l

fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io n sh ou ld be award ed in th is cas e, an d we le av e th at de te rm in at io n

to th e di st ric t co ur t’s so un d di sc ret io n. Sh ou ld it de te rm in e th at an ad di ti on al award

ou t of th e co m

m on fu nd is jus ti fie d in th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld lo ok to “ th e

fu nd as a who le ,” in cl ud in g th e tre bl ed da m ag es , Bo ei ng Co ., 4 44 U.S. a t 47 8, bu t

is free to award an y

po rti on of t he fun d t ha t i t d eem s ap pr op ria te

.

-1 8-III

Fo r th e reas on s st at ed

, we affi rm on al l is su es rai se d in th e pr im ary ap pe al

. W e

rev ers e an d rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n on th e is su es

rai se d i n t he cro ss ap pe al

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 9-