IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES, LUKE WAID v. RICHARD DALE SNYDER, et al; RAYMOND HALL and ASHLEY JANKOWIAK (22-1185); HELEN CHAPMAN, DOROTHY CHAPMAN, SHAMIYA CHAPMAN, LASHONDA JONES, SHIRLEY GLOVER on behalf of herself and her children, J.S. and A.S., TRISHA WALTER, TOMMIE LOWERY, JR. on behalf of himself and his children, T.L., I.L., and M.L., LINDA WELCHE, REKIYAH WILLIAMS on behalf of herself and her children, M.W., O.B., D.W., and D.W., ASHLEY SUBLET on behalf of herself and her children, E.W. and E.W., ELIZABETH FRANKLIN on behalf of herself and her children, E.W. and E.W., FLORLISA STEBBINS, ALBERT HARRIS, SHEILA HARRIS, NADINE ROBERTS on behalf of herself and her foster daughter, D.J., and EARL WELCHE (22-1197); NADINE ROBERTS on behalf of herself and her foster daughter, D.J. (22-1605) - Articles

All Content

IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES, LUKE WAID v. RICHARD DALE SNYDER, et al; RAYMOND HALL and ASHLEY JANKOWIAK (22-1185); HELEN CHAPMAN, DOROTHY CHAPMAN, SHAMIYA CHAPMAN, LASHONDA JONES, SHIRLEY GLOVER on behalf of herself and her children, J.S. and A.S., TRISHA WALTER, TOMMIE LOWERY, JR. on behalf of himself and his children, T.L., I.L., and M.L., LINDA WELCHE, REKIYAH WILLIAMS on behalf of herself and her children, M.W., O.B., D.W., and D.W., ASHLEY SUBLET on behalf of herself and her children, E.W. and E.W., ELIZABETH FRANKLIN on behalf of herself and her children, E.W. and E.W., FLORLISA STEBBINS, ALBERT HARRIS, SHEILA HARRIS, NADINE ROBERTS on behalf of herself and her foster daughter, D.J., and EARL WELCHE (22-1197); NADINE ROBERTS on behalf of herself and her foster daughter, D.J. (22-1605)

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Mar 17, 2023

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Adam E. Schulman, M. Frank Bednarz, HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants in 22-1185.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Mark Cuker, CUKER LAW FIRM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellants in 22-1197 and 22-1605. Hunter J. Shkolnik NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, New York, New York, Corey M. Stern, LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP, New York, New York, for Individual Plaintiffs Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Hunter J. Shkolnik NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, New York, New York, Corey M. Stern, LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP, New York, New York, for Individual Plaintiffs Appellees.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Emmy Levens, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Settlement Class Appellees.

Judge(s): CLAY, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Following the Flint Water Crisis,1 thousands of cases were brought by minors, adults, property owners, and business owners against alleged tortfeasors for the harms they endured as a result of lead-contaminated water. Putative class action lawsuits and individual lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. There, the district court appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel and Co-Liaison Counsel to represent the putative class and individual plaintiffs, respectively. After years of negotiation, Co-Lead Class Counsel and Co-Liaison Counsel, together with the Settling Defendants, reached a record-breaking settlement.

In connection with the work they performed in reaching the settlement, Counsel requested attorneys’ fees and reimbursement for expenses. The court approved the underlying settlement and awarded Counsel attorneys’ fees. Three Objector-Appellant groups, the Hall Objectors, the Chapman Objectors, and the Roberts Objector, now appeal that award. Together they allege that they were entitled to more detailed discovery of Counsel’s billing and costs records, that the fee award’s common benefit structure constitutes an abuse of discretion, and that a $500 charge for bone lead scans performed by Co-Liaison Counsel was unreasonable.

We conclude that the Objectors are not entitled to the discovery they seek, that they lack standing to appeal the common benefit structure of the district court’s attorneys’ fee award, and that the district court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in awarding Counsel fees and expenses. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court.

Attachments: