Specifically, after payment of attorney fees, the net settlement fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to class members who have been paid at any time since the original settlement for shale gas that was produced by Range pursuant to leases that are subject to this litigation. Rupert asserted that Range over-deducted gathering and transporting costs for NGLs during the month of March 2018. At the same time, the Court recognizes that Mr. Altomare put considerable effort into litigating the MMBTU issue and negotiating the settlement. 6 million paid to paula marburger song. Altomare further states that, while he originally intended to submit Mr. Rupert's billing records to the Court as part of a request for reimbursement of expenses, it would have been improper for him to do so because the Class notice did not include an allowance for Mr. Rupert's fees. This is appropriate inasmuch as oil and gas development is not static and, as Range explains, a lease that is currently associated only with conventional oil and gas development may be associated at a later point with shale gas development.
Community Development. Thus, notwithstanding a fairly intensive four-month period of formal discovery, the exchange of information was not limited to formal requests for documents and interrogatories; it also involved informal back-and-forth communications between counsel and their respective agents as issues arose and the parties worked through their respective disagreements. $726 million paid to paula marburger married. Here, the Aten Objectors have expressed concern about whether class members received adequate notice of the proposed Supplemental Settlement so as to satisfy the requirements of due process. 142, was later withdrawn. The Girsh factors are not considered exhaustive, however.
The Bigley Objectors lodge similar objections and argue that Mr. Altomare should be awarded no fee at all. As discussed, the primary claim in the class's Motion to Enforce concerned Range's alleged underpayment of shale gas royalties, which resulted from Range's use of the MMBTU metric set forth in the March 17, 2011 Order Amending Leases. This was already disposed of in Range's favor by the Court [Opinion, Doc. B) Range improperly deducts pipeline transportation costs (disguised in its Statements as "FCI-Firm Capacity") to which it is not entitled, and additionally fails to include such cost in its Cap calculations. His knowledge and experience no doubt contributed to the successful resolution of the class's claims. These factors should not be applied in a "formulaic way" because each case is unique, "and in certain cases, one factor may outweigh the rest. " Mr. Altomare represents that, upon review of the information received through discovery, he ultimately came to believe that Range's critiques of his original damages calculation were well-taken. He informed Mr. Altomare sometime around August 30, 2017 that the PPC cap was not being applied on a "systematic and pervasive basis. 6 million paid to paula marburger school. Counsel concluded that this issue was an individual issue not litigable on a class-wide basis and therefore improvidently asserted.
I estimate this would require Range to create nearly 6, 000 new DOI schedules. This lodestar cross-check need not entail either "mathematical precision" or "bean-counting. Although the $12 million settlement fund is not strictly attributable to the MCF/MMBTU claim alone, that amount substantially meets, and potentially exceeds, the amount of class-wide damages stemming from the MCF/MMBTU shortfall. Rupert further acknowledged being made aware that Range had changed its practice to start including FCI charges in the PPC cap after Mr. Altomare raised that issue in the Motion to Enforce. The instant civil action was transferred to Judge Bissoon on January 25, 2018 in light of former Judge McLaughlin's resignation from the federal bench in 2013. Both the proposed settlement and the supplemental fee petition have been subjected to heightened scrutiny in light of the objectors' allegations. Irrespective of whether a presumption of fairness is appropriate in this case, the Court finds that the factors listed in Federal Rule 23(e)(2) also favor approval of the Supplemental Settlement. H. Post-Hearing Filings. Quoting Gunter v. 2000)) (alteration in the original). Retroactive Payment.
9 million settlement fund)). Where are Flag Drop Boxes? Accordingly, whether considered individually or collectively, the objectors' proffers do not change the Court's conclusion that, on balance, Mr. Altomare provided adequate representation to the class. Whether they did so in the past or not was not in Class counsel's opinion worth litigating given the prospective remedy obtained, coupled with the overall benefits of the settlement. This was consistent with the definition of the class as set forth in the Original Settlement Agreement. C. As discussed, a court awarding a percentage-of-recovery fee should normally perform a cross-check using the lodestar method. As noted, Mr. Altomare states that he has expended some 1, 133. The requirements of Rule 23(e)(3) have been satisfied as well, since the proposed Supplemental Settlement Agreement has been filed of record at ECF No. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' complaint was their claim that Range Resources had unlawfully reduced their royalty payments under the subject leases by deducting certain post-production costs (hereafter, "PPC") that Range had incurred in the process of bringing gas and oil products to market. Finally, the Bigley Objectors asserted that, if the Court does not disapprove of the Supplemental Settlement, then they should be permitted to opt out of it.
At the conclusion of the motion hearing, the Court ordered supplemental briefing by the parties and objectors. 5 million settlement fund); In re Medical X-Ray Film Antitrust Litig., 1998 WL 661515 (awarding fees that comprised 33. Second, Mr. Altomare did not maintain contemporaneous billing records for his consultations with Mr. Rupert, and his reconstructed billing records are ultimately too inaccurate to serve as a reliable account of his time in that regard. Save the publication to a stack. Based upon the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Class Counsel engaged in sufficient discovery for purposes of assessing the merit and value of the class's claims and negotiating a fair and reasonable settlement. Range Resources has asserted more limited objections which relate solely to Mr. Altomare's request for a percentage of prospective royalty payments. The Court finds that this is a substantial benefit to the class and arguably provides complete relief for the royalty shortfalls that resulted from Range's past computations based upon MMBTUs.
Rule 23(e)(1)(B) requires, in relevant part, that the court "direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal[. ]" The cited exchange in the transcript concerning Range's royalty statements involves an anecdotal point with little probative value when viewed in the context of the entire record. The Order Amending Leases was publicly recorded for each of the subject leases throughout 25 counties. And, as noted, only a very small percentage of the class has lodged objections. In October 2018, Range Resources requested the appointment of a mediator for the purpose of attempting to settle all outstanding issues relevant to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce and Rule 60(a) Motion. One Prudential factor that has not yet been addressed is the class members' inability to opt out of the proposed settlement. Jurisdictional and Notice Requirements. Based upon the foregoing facts, the Court concludes that the settlement negotiations in this case occurred at arms' length by attorneys who are experienced litigators in the field of oil and gas law. To the extent the Bigley Objectors dispute this point, they have offered no competent proof to the contrary. In response to the objecting class members, Mr. Altomare denied that the proposed Supplemental Settlement requires a separate class certification process or an opportunity for opting out. Range had calculated damages using two different methodologies and placed the shortfall in the range of $10-$14 million; however, Range had a plausible basis for arguing that $10, 127, 266 was the more accurate estimation, because it was predicated on a detailed analysis of royalties paid to each interest holder and accounted for certain variables that the $14 million figure did not take into account.
According to Mr. Altomare, Range's counsel never responded to this transmission and, thereafter, "continued to ignore the issue. 25 hours of time from the point of the original settlement through January 31, 2018. at 3, ¶12; see also Id. Please feel free to explore our new website and update any bookmarks you may have in your browser. H) Range has further intentionally issue[d] to class members monthly royalty statements ("Statements") in a format which is so complex and confusing as to be indecipherable by Class members without the assistance of an attorney or accountant knowledgeable in oil and gas No. 144-1, and, (b) Mr. Altomare and Ms. Whitten "had a long history of amicably dealing with innumerable incidental issues arising out of Range's implementation of the original settlement since its inception in 2011, " and "[i]n dealing with those issues Ms. Whitten has always dealt fairly with counsel in correcting and reimbursing individual class members for errors in Range's administration of the settlement. In response to the affidavit of Ryan Rupert, Mr. Altomare adamantly denied that he committed any type of fraud with respect to his billing submissions. Using this data, Ms. Whitten produced certain information for Mr. Altomare about the class members' respective DOIs for royalties that were generated relative to specific wells. In relevant part, Section 3. See Ehrheart, 609 F. 3d at 593 ("A district court is not a party to the settlement [of a class action], nor may it modify the terms of a voluntary settlement agreement between the parties. Share the publication. Under Rule 23(e)(2)(A), the Court must consider whether the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class. Mr. Rupert also testified about various inaccuracies he perceived in Mr. Altomare's revised billing statement, which had been submitted to the Court as an exhibit to ECF No.
In re Nat'l Football League Players Concussion Injury Litig., 821 F. 3d 410, 435 (3d Cir. Class Counsel's redacted exemplar of the raw data shows that the information amounted to some 2, 873 printed pages. In addition, further litigation would entail substantial risks to the class in terms of establishing liability. As a general matter, "the notice should contain sufficient information to enable class members to make informed decisions on whether they should take steps to protect their rights, including objecting to the settlement or, when relevant, opting out of the class. " These objectors include George M. Aten, Raymond W. Seddon, Jr., Leon C. Chow, and James H. Post. 126 at 6 (Range brief acknowledging that Mr. Altomare requested information apart from the MCF/MMBTU issue "relating to other deductions [that were] purportedly improperly taken by Range"). Litigation of the current class claims began in January 2018, and the duration of additional discovery and litigation could easily last another two years, given the strong likelihood that any future judgment would engender an appeal.
126 at 5 and 126-1, ¶¶ 11-13. A recitation of the relevant procedural history follows. I did not provide the order form to the court. The timing of payment to class members is also adequate. That concern weighs in favor of approving the proposed Supplemental Settlement. During this time, Mr. Altomare claims to have spent 1, 133. For these reasons, the Supplemental Settlement Agreement is supported by adequate consideration and does not constitute an inadequate, unfair, or unreasonable resolution of the Class's claims. The underlying complaint in this matter was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, Pennsylvania by Plaintiffs Donald C. and Louise M. Frederick, Michael A. and Paula M. Mahle, and Donald Porta ("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated owners of royalty interest in gas and oil and that was produced by Range Resources. I frankly missed this discrepancy, trusting that the order submitted would be the same as the proposed order we had jointly submitted at [see Doc 71-1 at Ex "D"]. In addition, the Plaintiffs requested an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of allowing the Court to consider the propriety of a cease and desist order, monetary compensation, punitive sanctions, and other forms of relief. 198, 199, 200, 201, 204.
On August 4, 2019, objections were filed on behalf of approximately four dozen objectors represented by Roetzel & Andress, LPA and Neighborhood Attorneys, LLC, and collectively referred to herein as the "Bigley Objectors. " The Court has also determined that the net proceeds available to the class provide a fair, appropriate, and reasonable settlement of their claims. Here, the size of the settlement fund is $12 million and, as noted, Mr. Altomare seeks an award in the amount of $2. Sales Practice Litig., 148 F. 3d at 323. The present phase of this class-action litigation concerns a dispute about the enforcement of a prior settlement agreement between the Plaintiff Class and the Defendant, Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC (hereafter, "Range" or "Range Resources"). The Objectors have also suggested that Class Counsel was inadequate in that he lacked an understanding of some of the basic issues in this case.
In the meantime, Mr. Altomare filed his "Application for Supplemental Attorney Fees. " As to the allegation that Range had sometimes failed to apply the PPC cap at all, Range took the position that this was only true as to "FCI-Firm Capacity" charges, and only for a close-ended one-year period. Insofar as the objectors would seek to litigate the other claims in the Motion to Enforce, there is a substantial risk that the costs of litigation may outweigh any potential recovery. Next, the Court considers "the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member claims. " Meanwhile, any ensuing class notification and opt-out proceedings would further delay Range's payment of compensation to the thousands of class members who are apparently satisfied with the settlement terms as they presently exist.