Klein v. Salvi

Second Circuit

Klein v. Salvi

115 F. App'x 515

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 2004

DocketNo. 04-1943-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 F. App'x 515 (Klein v. Salvi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Klein v. Salvi, 115 F. App'x 515 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff appeals the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees in this shareholder derivative action. Because the district court was permitted to use the lodestar method in calculating reasonable attorneys’ fees, and because it correctly identified and carefully weighed the relevant factors and made no clearly erroneous factual findings, we see no abuse of discretion in its award of 145 percent of counsel’s lodestar figure. See Goldberger v. Integrated Res., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir.2000); Smolowe v. Delendo Corp., 136 F.2d 231, 241 (2d Cir.1943). The district court was not obligated to use the percentage method, nor are we aware of any authority supporting the application of the business judgment rule in this specific context. Furthermore, the district court’s identification of counsel’s possible inefficiencies (which may have led to an inflated lodestar) was entirely appropriate.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff appeals the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees in this shareholder derivative action. Because the district court was permitted to use the lodestar method in calculating reasonable attorneys’ fees, and because it correctly identified and carefully weighed the relevant factors and made no clearly erroneous factual findings, we see no abuse of discretion in its award of 145 percent of counsel’s lodestar figure. See Goldberger v. Integrated Res., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir.2000); Smolowe v. Delendo Corp., 136 F.2d 231, 241 (2d Cir.1943). The district court was not obligated to use the percentage method, nor are we aware of any authority supporting the application of the business judgment rule in this specific context. Furthermore, the district court’s identification of counsel’s possible inefficiencies (which may have led to an inflated lodestar) was entirely appropriate.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 F. App'x 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-salvi-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack