Opinion ID: 685182
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Opportunity to Make Fee Application and

Text: Denial of Fees 58 The Welches' attorneys argue that the district court erred in not awarding them any fees, and in refusing to permit them to make a fee application following the special master's recommendation that they receive some fee award. The special master recommended such an award because he found their arguments challenging the fee applications of various counsel were presented cogently and competently, and that some of their arguments resulted in reductions in the fees and expenses awarded to several of the applicants. Report at 31, Appellants' J.A. at 1487. Although the district court held that no factual finding of the special master was clearly erroneous, it implicitly rejected the master's findings concerning the effect of the Welches' counsel's arguments, concluding that [t]he legal arguments presented by objectors did not contribute to maintenance of the fund. Mem.Op. & Order at 17, Appellants' J.A. at 1521. 59 The district court failed to articulate why the special master's findings concerning the effect of the Welches' counsel's arguments were clearly erroneous. Further, the record supports the master's conclusion that those arguments did in fact result in a reduction of certain fee and expense awards, and thereby benefitted the class. We therefore reverse the district court's refusal to award any fees to the Welches' counsel, and we remand for entry of an amount awarded by the special master. In view of this decision, we need not address the propriety of the district court's refusal to permit the Welches' counsel to file a fee application. 16