Fee Allocations

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Laura Revolinsky v. Bayer Corporation

Case No.: 25-2401

Officials: Brennan, Chief Judge, and Hamilton and Scudder, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Fee Allocations

This appeal arises from a dispute over the allocation of attorney fees following the settlement of multidistrict litigation involving alleged injuries caused by Seresto Flea and Tick Collars. Pet owners nationwide, including Laura Revolinsky, filed class actions against Bayer and Elanco, alleging that the collars caused harm to their pets. Revolinsky’s counsel supported consolidating the cases in New Jersey, while other plaintiffs’ attorneys sought centralization in Missouri. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ultimately transferred the cases to the Northern District of Illinois. There, the district court appointed lead and liaison counsel but did not assign leadership roles to Revolinsky’s attorneys.

The district court subsequently entered a case management order requiring attorneys to obtain advance approval for compensable work and to submit monthly reports detailing their efforts. The order generally limited compensation to work performed after the appointment of leadership counsel, although it permitted lead counsel discretion to compensate earlier work that materially benefited the class.

After the parties reached a settlement and established a common fund, lead counsel submitted a fee petition that excluded compensation for Revolinsky’s attorneys’ pre-transfer work and for work that had not been timely reported. The district court approved both the settlement and the proposed fee allocation. Revolinsky’s attorneys later learned that their compensation was substantially lower than they had expected. Rather than timely objecting to the fee allocation or the governing procedures, they waited several months beyond the applicable deadline and filed a separate motion seeking additional compensation for their pre-transfer and untimely work.

The Seventh Circuit reviewed only the denial of that later motion and concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion in rejecting the untimely request because the fee-submission procedures and deadlines were clear and had been reasonably enforced. The court also emphasized that challenges to fee allocations must be raised in a timely manner and in accordance with court-established procedures.

Affirmed.

Decided 06/10/26

Full Text