FOLLOW US

A compelling legal standoff in Washington, D.C., has attorneys who represented nonprofits in the PACER Overcharge Case, seeking a whopping $23 million cut from the $125 million settlement achieved from the U.S. government.

The elite legal minds from Gupta Wessler LLP and Motley Rice LLC took center stage in a Monday motion, pointing out that their requested 19.1% slice is notably "below the average percentage fee awarded for funds of this magnitude."

Peeling back the layers of the legal argument, they highlighted the labyrinthine complexities and substantial risks that painted the backdrop of the case. They assert, "The hurdles faced and the results secured for the class not only justify our request but could even warrant a higher-than-average percentage."

PACER Overcharge Case: Class Members' Slice of the Pie

Documents reveal an intriguing proposition: each class member could walk away with up to $350 for PACER fees dished out between April 21, 2010, and May 31, 2018. Those who paid in excess of $350? They're in line for an added pro rata bonus from the remaining funds.

In the electrifying words of the attorneys, "Even if this outcome were the fruits of a grueling trial, it would be a victory. However, considering the monumental risks, costs, and delays tied to battling the federal judiciary, this is nothing short of a spectacular achievement."

PACER Overcharge Case: Backdrop of the Battle

Taking a trip down memory lane, last October saw the U.S. government conceding to pay $125 million. This was to quash a lawsuit spearheaded by the National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center, and the Alliance for Justice. Their contention? The public was being excessively charged for PACER fees, breaching the E-Government Act of 2002. PACER, standing as a sentinel of transparency, provides the public with federal court records.

Though the court has given an initial nod of approval to the settlement, and class members are in the loop, the deal's fate now dangles, awaiting a fairness hearing and the court's final stamp of approval.

The Controversy Continues

While consensus has largely been achieved, a lone class member has raised the flag of dissent. The bone of contention? The distribution formula which allegedly puts "larger and smaller claimants" on different playing fields.

The plaintiffs' legal eagles fervently countered, detailing their unyielding push for a pro-rata approach during negotiations. Their stance? "Given a fork in the road between compromise and abandonment, compromise was the strategic choice. It was neither unreasonable nor unjust."