Weiner v. Southeast Banking Corp.
This text of 51 F.3d 1003 (Weiner v. Southeast Banking Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This appeal arises from a class action settled against Southeast Banking Corporation. The district court approved the settlement and was faced with the issue of attomeys’s fees and costs. William A. Brandt, Jr., as administrator of a pension plan for former Southeast Bank employees, objected to the request for attorneys’s fees by class counsel. The district judge overruled the objection and approved attorneys’s fees of twenty-five percent of the settlement. Brandt attempts to appeal that ruling.
Brandt was not a named party. He never moved to intervene in the class action as administrator of the pension plan. Here, he attempts to base standing to appeal on his having objected to the request for attorneys’s fees.
We find that our Circuit’s precedent is clearly established in Guthrie v. Evans, 815 F.2d 626 (11th Cir.1987). Brandt, a non-named class member who failed to intervene, lacks standing to appeal the district court’s order on attorneys’s fees. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
51 F.3d 1003, 31 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 990, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10277, 1995 WL 236712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiner-v-southeast-banking-corp-ca11-1995.