Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-907 civilDAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK AND · TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff VS. RALPH W. HESS, JOAN B. PATTISON and JERED L. HOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · NO. 907 CIVIL 1994 · ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT · CLASS ACTION ORDER AND NOW, this day of May, 2000, it is ordered and directed that the plaintiff pay to the class representatives, through their counsel, the sum of $50,000 as reimbursement of expenses and economic loss. BY THE COURT, James J. Kutz, Esquire LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Esquire Bridget E. Montgomery, Esquire. For the Plaintiff Christopher C. Conner, Esquire Daniel L. Sullivan, Esquire For the Defendants Hess, J. :rlm DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK AND · TRUST COMPANY, ' Plaintiff ' VS. RALPH W. HESS, JOAN B. PATTISON and JERED L. HOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 907 CIVIL 1994 ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLASS ACTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the last in a series of motions filed in connection with the implementation of a settlement of this case. This matter involves class action litigation which, after nearly six years of trial court and appellate proceedings is nearing its conclusion. At issue was the right of the plaintiff, Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company, now known as Allfirst Bank, to terminate IRA accounts involving over $200,000,000 in deposits. This court rejected a proposed settlement of this case in the summer of 1996. The Superior Court, however, determined that the proposed settlement should have been accepted. See Dauphin Deposit Bank v. Hes.s., 698 A.2d 1305, 1311 (Pa. Super. 1997). The Supreme Court affirmed. See Dauphin Deposit Bank v. Hess, 727 A.2d 1076, 1080 (Pa. 1999). Paragraph 13 of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release dated May 10, 1996, provides as follows: The Bank will reimburse the Class Representatives for reasonable documented expenses and economic loss up to a maximum total of $50,000. Class Counsel will submit a statement of the documented expenses and economic loss to Bank Counsel by the Settlement Effective Date. The Bank agrees to 94-09O7 CIVIL remit payment of said reasonable, documented expenses and economic loss within thirty days thereafter. Any dispute over the reasonableness of said documented expenses and economic loss shall be resolved by the Court. The class representatives in this case seek payment of the $50,000. In addition, they seek an "equitable, pro-rata increase in the maximum amount of reimbursable and economic loss as the result of the expenditure of substantial time and effort after this Court's rejection of the proposed , Class Settlement." We decline ~to modify the terms of the agreement by providing for some sort of "equitable increase." We will, however, direct the payment of the $50,000 agreed to. While there is a dearth of authority on this matter in the appellate courts of this state, there is ample precedent in the Eastern District of the federal courts of Pennsylvania to support the awarding of compensation to class representatives. It is recognized that in performing their duties, class representatives confer a substantial benefit on the members of the class and are entitled to compensation for their efforts. See Lachance v. Harrington, 965 F.Supp. 630, 652 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Class representatives, of course, have many duties including preparing affidavits, responding to discovery requests, attending court sessions, and retaining knowledgeable counsel. See id. In Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621 F.Supp. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1985), the court acknowledged the contributions of the two class representatives in assisting in preparing pretrial discovery and in their participation in oral depositions. Each claimed to have spent in excess of 500 hours of time in various phases of the litigation. In awarding each of them $20,000, the court referred to this compensation as modest. 94-0907 CIVIL Similarly, in Seidman v. American Mobile Systems, 965 F.Supp. 612, 626 (E.D. Pa. 1997), the court approved the payment of a class representative fee which included, inter alia, compensation for the amount of' time spent on litigation matters. The court required, not surprisingly, that the time spent be documented. An award for time as well as expenses was also made in Pozzi v. Smith, 952 F.Supp. 218, 227 (E.D. Pa. 1995). In this case, the class representatives have provided extensive documentation concerning their expenses, including a detailed itemization of time spent. We will not belabor the magnitude 'of this litigation nor the rather obvious impact that it has had on the lives of' the class representatives. In fact, perhaps the best evidence of this is in the bank's agreement that reimbursement of' up to $50,000 was appropriate. For these reasons, we enter the following order. ORDER AND NOW, this ,g ~ day of May, 2000, it is ordered and directed that the plaintiff pay to the class representatives, through their counsel, the sum of $50,000 as reimbursement of expenses and economic loss. BY THE COURT, Ke~. Hess, J.