Misc | Filed: September 18, 2026
| Entered: September 18, 2026
Nadeau et. al. v. Onsite Mammography, LLC
P.I.: Other | Massachusetts
Response to Court Order
RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Amy Capodici, Rose Clarkson, Theresa Culver, Carrie Devers, Valerie Hicks, June Mack, Georgeann Roberts, Pamela Silver re 58 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, [Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. (Roddy, John)
Order | Filed: September 16, 2026
| Entered: September 16, 2026
Nadeau et. al. v. Onsite Mammography, LLC
P.I.: Other | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Attorney Fees
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion for Attorney Attorneys' Fees by Amy Capodici, Rose Clarkson, Theresa Culver, Carrie Devers, Valerie Hicks, June Mack, Georgeann Roberts, and Pamela Silver. After reviewing Plaintiffs' filings and considering the arguments presented at the hearing, the court will grant Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, but not in the amount requested. The settlement fund totals $2,525,000. Class counsel seek an award of one-third (33.33%) of that amount in attorney's fees. The court concludes that an award of that magnitude is not warranted by the history of this case. Instead, the court will award $631,250.00 in attorney's fees, representing 25% of the settlement fund. The court will, however, grant in full Plaintiffs' requests for $9,550.99 in expenses and service awards of $3,500 to each of the eight named class representatives, for a total of $28,000.
In a common fund case, "First Circuit courts generally award fees in the range of 20-30%, with 25% as the benchmark." Gomes v. State St. Corp., No. 21-CV-10863, 2024 WL 3596892, at *2 (D. Mass. July 30, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiffs' counsel seek 33.33% of the common fund, or $841,666.67. The court must "subject[] the tentative award to a lodestar cross-check to evaluate whether it is reasonable." Id."A lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate for each attorney." Arkansas Tchr. Ret. Sys. v. State St. Bank & Tr. Co., 512 F. Supp. 3d 196, 209 (D. Mass. 2020), aff'd in part, appeal dismissed in part sub nom. Arkansas Tchr. Ret. Sys. v. State St. Corp. , 25 F.4th 55 (1st Cir. 2022). Reasonable fees are "calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community." Id. at 209 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984)). Generally, the "rate that private counsel actually charges for her services, while not conclusive, is a reliable indicium of market value." Id. (quoting United States v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat Built in 1930 with Hull No. 721, Named "Flash II", 546 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir. 2008)).
Class counsel here calculated a lodestar of $678,241.02 based on 714.81 hours of work. It was represented at the hearing that the requested fee of $841,666.67 reflects a multiplier of approximately 1.24. However, counsel did not adequately address the court's concerns regarding the reasonableness of either the lodestar calculation or the resulting fee request. The billing submissions reinforce those concerns. A substantial portion of the work was performed by senior partners rather than more junior attorneys or associates. Nor did counsel submit sufficiently detailed records identifying why particular tasks were performed by each professional and why the amount of time was devoted to those tasks. Reasonableness requires integrity in both the rates charged and the allocation of work. The fee-setting process is not an invitation to maximize the lodestar at every turn and claim a windfall at the expense of the class.
Interim co-lead class counsel submitted a declaration containing charts identifying each attorney and paralegal, the hours attributed to each, and their respective hourly rate. Those submissions provide the court with limited information from which to assess whether the claimed rates reflect prevailing market rates for comparable non-contingent work. See Gomes, 2024 WL 3596892, at *3 ("This raises the question of whether any or all of the Scott + Scott attorneys included in the fee petition have ever charged a non-contingent client the hourly rate attributed to him or her."). The submissions likewise provide insufficient support for the requested paralegal rates and reflect that some of the attorneys with the highest hourly rates also billed a substantial portion of the hours claimed. No submissions establish any accepted actual market fees to justify the extreme rates quoted for some lead attorneys. These rates would be difficult to seriously quote to a potential client knowing that lead counsel would then do a substantial amount of billing, particularly given the nature and scope of the litigation here.
The procedural history of this case further weighs against the requested award. To be sure, class counsel performed substantial work and obtained a favorable settlement for the class. The litigation, however, was not so extensive as to warrant an award exceeding the benchmark range. No motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment was filed or litigated. According to counsel, the parties engaged only in informal discovery before participating in a one-day... (truncated)