Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 39 of 51Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 821 (3d Cir. 1995) [hereinafter GeneralMotors].88In General Motors, the Third Circuit determined that “acourt making or approving a fee award should determine what sortof action the court is adjudicating and then primarily rely onthe corresponding method of awarding fees[, either the lodestaror the percentage of recovery methods].” 55 F.3d at 821. TheThird Circuit recognized:Courts generally regard thelodestar method, which uses thenumber of hours reasonably expendedas its starting point, as theappropriate method in statutory feeshifting cases. Because thelodestar award is de-coupled fromthe class recovery, the lodestarassures counsel undertakingsocially beneficial litigation . .. an adequate fee irrespective ofthe monetary value of the finalrelief achieved for the class.Id. On the other hand, a percentage of recovery method isused in common-fund cases, based on “the theory that the classwould be unjustly enriched if it did not compensate the counselresponsible for generating the valuable fund bestowed on theclass.” Id.As this Court recognized in Lake v. First NationwideBank, 900 F. Supp. 726 (E.D. Pa. 1995), “[n]either the lodestarmethod nor the percentage of recovery method, however, ismandatory. Thus, the district court has wide discretion todecide which method of fee calculation to apply.” Id. at 734(citing General Motors, 55 F.3d at 821).Here, Plaintiffs secured substantial changes in themonitoring, training, and delivery of special-education services.While the exact value of these changes is difficult, if notimpossible, to quantify, the Court can consider these changes innormative terms. That is, the provisions of the SettlementAgreement will presently affect approximately 255,264 childrenand thousands more over the life of the Settlement Agreement.The extent of counsel’s recovery is not disproportional to theequitable relief obtained.39