Opinion ID: 2708888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rejection of Percentage Method

Text: Americana’s alternative argument is essentially that the district court committed legal error by choosing the lodestar method over the percentage method. This argument is contrary to the law of our circuit, which allows for either method. In Florin v. Nationsbank of Ga., N.A., we explained: [W]e do not believe that the lodestar approach is so flawed that it should be abandoned. Instead, we are of the opinion that both the lodestar approach and the 8 No. 13-2569 percentage approach may be appropriate in determining attorney's fee awards, depending on the circumstances. We therefore restate the law of this circuit that in common fund cases, the decision whether to use a percentage method or a lodestar method remains in the discretion of the district court. 34 F.3d 560, 566 (7th Cir. 1994). Whatever position our sister circuits might take, Florin is still good law. The district court did not err, much less abuse its discretion, by choosing the lodestar method in this case. Beyond the foregoing, counsel for Americana advance a few tangentially relevant arguments, which do not require our extended consideration. One concerns the “total benefit rule,” under which a court applying the percentage method to a common fund recovery should consider the total benefit available to class members (in this case, $6.1 million) rather than the total benefit paid (in this case, roughly $400,000) when fixing attorney fees. See, e.g., Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980). Because the district court in this case applied the lodestar method and not the percentage method, the total benefit rule is clearly inapplicable, and we need not reach the issue.