Opinion ID: 3011727
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complexity and Duration of Litigation

Text: In April 1998, Cendant announced past accounting irregularities and stated that its financial statements for certain past years would be restated. 51 F .Supp.2d at 539. On behalf of the Cendant PRIDES class, Kirby filed an Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint on November 11, 1998, accompanied by a motion for class certification, a motion for summary judgment, and a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Less than two months later, on January 7, 1999, the parties announced that they had reached an agreement in principal[sic], and the parties presented a proposed settlement agreement to the District Court on March 17, 1999. 51 F.Supp.2d at 540. As the District Court observed, [t]his stage of the _________________________________________________________________ 18. The District Court did indicate in its opinion that it was using the bid to which Kirby had agreed as a benchmark of reasonableness in setting the fee. 51 F.Supp.2d at 541. However , a preliminary bidding process cannot replace subsequent analysis of the factors listed in Gunter. The circumstances and progression of every case are different, and these unique factors must be taken into account by district courts awarding attorneys' fees. Therefor e, though the result of a bidding process may be of use to a district court in awarding fees at the end of the case, it cannot supplant post-settlement analysis to determine a reasonable fee. 21 litigation, notwithstanding that Lead Counsel has moved for summary judgment, is what would be normally the discovery period, very early on in the litigation. 51 F.Supp.2d at 541. The District Court also noted that Kirby spent approximately 5,600 hours on this action. In setting Kirby's fee award, the District Court apparently turned a blind eye to the following factors: 1) the case was relatively simple in terms of proof, in that Cendant had conceded liability and no risks pertaining to liability or collection were pertinent; 2) the case was settled at a very early stage of the litigation, with an agreement being announced two months after Kirby filed for class certification and a proposed settlement being submitted to the District Court two months after that; 3) ther e was a minimal amount of motion practice in this case--before settlement, Kirby submitted only the Complaint and three motions, all on the same day; 4) discovery was virtually nonexistent--indeed the District Court did not mention any depositions taken or document review conducted by Kirby; and 5) Kirby spent a relatively small amount of time on this case compared to the amount of time expended in most other large class actions.