In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation

81 F.R.D. 499, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14907
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 23, 1979
DocketMDL 293; Civ. Nos. 76-1500, 77-699 and 77-1049
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 81 F.R.D. 499 (In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation, 81 F.R.D. 499, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14907 (M.D. Pa. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION

MUIR, District Judge.

I. Introduction.

Before the Court is the joint application of the following counsel [hereinafter jointly [501]*501referred to as “petitioning firms”] for an award of attorneys’ fees of $930,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses of $44,252.98: Berger and Montague, P.C.; Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin & Creskoff; Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien and Frankel; Batzell, Nunn & Bode; Hepford, Zimmerman & Swartz; and Henry P. Perciballi.

These three related cases were assigned to the undersigned judge on August 22, 1977 and November 16,1977 for the purpose of conducting pre-trial proceedings. The cases have been settled as temporary class actions on behalf of dealers and industrial purchasers, respectively. The proposed settlements were approved by the undersigned judge by Opinion dated September 29, 1978 and by Final Order entered October 14, 1978.

Counsel for the class representatives filed a joint petition for award of attorneys’ fees and costs on October 24, 1978. Following the mailing of notices to all customers of the defendants who might be members of the classes, an evidentiary hearing was held on November 27, 1978 concerning the joint petition for award of fees and costs. Fox-Rothschild filed a supplement to the appen-. dix to their petition on December 4, 1978 which contained an analysis of the time spent by J. Victor O’Brien in Civil No. 76-1500. On December 8, 1978, counsel for the Plaintiffs filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to their application for counsel fees accompanied by a supplemental memorandum relating to the question of whether law clerks’ and paralegals’ services are properly subject to a multiplier and a supplemental affidavit of counsel. On December 14, 1978, four coal dealers filed counterproposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accompanied by a memorandum in opposition to the petition for counsel fees. The Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December 26, 1978. The following represent the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to a fair and reasonable award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs.

II. Findings of Fact.

1. Berger and Montague, P.C. (“Berger and Montague”), of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Batzell, Nunn and Bode (“Bode firm”) of Washington, D. C., were counsel in action No. 77-1049, in which Colonial Fuel Company was one of two class representatives which had filed class actions on behalf of anthracite coal dealers.

2. Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin and Creskoff (“Adler-Barish”) of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Hepford, Zimmerman and Swartz (“Swartz”) of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were counsel in action No. 77-699 in which Steven J. Hartz, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Neast & Company, was the other class representative which filed a class action on behalf of anthracite coal dealers.

3. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien and Frankel (“Fox-Rothschild”) of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Henry P. Perciballi (“Perci-balli”) of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, were counsel in action No. 76-1500 in which Wilkes-Barre Steam Heat Company was the class representative on behalf of industrial purchasers of anthracite coal.

4. Prior to the assignment and coordination of these cases to the undersigned judge, each petitioning firm acted separately in investigating, filing and prosecuting its respective case.

5. Upon the assignment and coordination of these cases to the undersigned judge, the petitioning firms coordinated their efforts in order to act efficiently and to avoid duplication of effort and expenses.

6. Pursuant to this Court’s practice and procedure orders issued in each of these cases, each petitioning firm has filed with the Court the following information concerning its involvement in these cases:

6.1 An analysis of the work performed by each attorney by date, description of services and amount of time expended;
6.2 An analysis of the work performed by each paralegal employee and law clerk employed by a petitioning firm by date, description of services and amount of time expended;
[502]*5026.3 An analysis of the time expended by each attorney and by paralegals and law clerks generally as to the category of work performed;
6.4 A detailed listing of all expenses incurred, including the date of incur-rence, the type of expense and the amount of expense;
6.5 A description of the status or standing at the Bar of each petitioning firm and of the particular attorneys who worked at these cases;
6.6 A statement of the normal billing rates of each petitioning firm for each attorney involved in these cases; and
6.7 A narrative description of the proceedings in these eases and of the services which each petitioning firm performed in these proceedings together with their asserted impact upon the results obtained.

7. The joint petition and the supporting papers were complete and fully satisfied the requirements of this Court.

8. At the evidentiary hearing on November 27, 1978, H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Esq., testified on behalf of all petitioning firms generally and on behalf of Berger and Montague and the Bode firm specifically; Arnold Levin, Esq., testified on behalf of the Adler-Barish firm and the Swartz firm; and Victor Wright, Esq., testified on behalf of the Fox-Rothschild firm and Mr. Perci-balli.

9. Two attorneys, Richard F. Stevens, Esq. and Robert Lazorchick, Esq. representing four members of the dealer class who had filed a notice of intention to appear and show cause, appeared at the hearing and Mr. Stevens cross-examined witnesses; no other class members or counsel therefor appeared at the evidentiary hearing and none filed objections to the joint petition for award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

10. The main counsel in these settled cases were Berger and Montague, Adler-Barish and Fox-Rothschild.

11. Where the interests of the dealer and industrial classes diverged, Berger and Montague and Adler-Barish represented the dealer class and Fox-Rothschild represented the industrial class particularly with respect to discovery and class briefing.

12. The Court had declined to appoint liaison counsel for Plaintiffs in September, 1977 and by mutual consent of the petitioning firms, Berger and Montague acted as liaison counsel for Plaintiffs in these class actions throughout the consolidation of these three cases. As such, H. Laddie Montague, Jr., who was in charge of the litigation for Berger and Montague, was responsible for coordinating all pretrial activities, including discovery, the class action briefing and hearing, and the negotiation of the settlements.

13. With the consent of other counsel, Mr. Montague acted as lead counsel in preparation of and at the hearing on class certification, at settlement negotiations, at the hearing on approval of the proposed settlements and at the hearing on approval of the proposed plan of allocation.

14. The petitioning firms have received no counsel fees to date and have been retained only under contingent fee arrangements.

15. Berger and Montague maintained contemporaneous daily time sheets for all of its attorneys, law clerks, and paralegals, and recorded time on computer print-outs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones v. Muir
515 A.2d 855 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1986)
Weiss v. York Hospital
628 F. Supp. 1392 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1986)
In Re Jensen-Farley Pictures, Inc.
47 B.R. 557 (D. Utah, 1985)
International Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Inc.
598 F. Supp. 299 (D. South Carolina, 1984)
Municipal Authority v. Pennsylvania
527 F. Supp. 982 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1981)
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, ETC. v. Com. of Pa.
527 F. Supp. 982 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1981)
In Re Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation
526 F. Supp. 494 (District of Columbia, 1981)
Harnischfeger Corp. v. Paccar, Inc.
503 F. Supp. 102 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1980)
Gonzales v. Van's Chevrolet, Inc.
498 F. Supp. 1102 (D. Delaware, 1980)
Powell v. Henry
592 S.W.2d 107 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 F.R.D. 499, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anthracite-coal-antitrust-litigation-pamd-1979.