HOMER & BONNER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 HOMER & BONNER, P.A., et al., Appellants, ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D04-1752 vs. ** MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al., ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NOS. 99-21456 99-23765 Appellees. Opinion filed September 29, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Margarita Esquiroz, Judge. Homer Bonner & Delgado, and Peter W. Homer, and Francisco O. Sanchez; and Leonard H. Rubin; and Sterns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, and Joseph Cartolano, and Patrick Barry; and Reimer & Rosenthal, and Alex P. Rosenthal for appellants. Robert A. Ginsburg, Miami Dade County Attorney, and Jess McCarty, Assistant County Attorney; and Maria J. Chiaro, Interim City Attorney; and Korge & Korge, and Thomas J. Korge and Christopher G. Korge; and Boies Schiller & Flexner, and Mark J. Heise; and Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Guedes Cole & Boniske, and Joseph H. Serota, and Edward G. Guedes; and Jorge L. Fernandez; and John Hanson, for appellees. Akerman Senterfitt, and Lawrence D. Silverman, as Amicus Curiae, for appellees. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ. PER CURIAM. Homer and Bonner, P.A. ( H&B ); Park One of Florida ( Park One ); and Leonard and Sandra Rubin ( Rubin )(collectively appellants ) appeal the trial court s final judgment approving the amended settlement in a class action suit filed against the City of Miami ( City ). the amended settlement We affirm the substantive portion of agreement. However, we reverse and remand the trial court s award of attorney s fees. Two separate parties brought class action suits against the City challenging the validity of parking surcharges paid at City parking facilities.1 218.503(5)(a), statute was The surcharge was added pursuant to Section Florida declared Statutes (1999). unconstitutional, After see the City of surcharge Miami v. McGrath, et al., 824 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 2002), and after some negotiations, agreement. the parties reached an amended settlement The amended settlement agreement created a common Patrick McGrath brought the original class action suit against the City challenging the validity of a parking surcharge at parking facilities in the City ( non-County parkers ). Miami Dade County ( County ), in a separate lawsuit, also challenged the validity of the surcharge imposed by the City on users of parking facilities owned or operated by the County but located in the City ( County parkers ). The City, the County and class counsel agreed to settle both the McGrath case and the County s case in a combined settlement resulting in the amended settlement. The appellants sought to intervene in the McGrath class action suit to assure any settlement was fair to all class members. 1 2 fund of $14 surcharge million refund. from We which affirm class this members portion could of claim the a amended settlement. The trial court also awarded $3.6 million in attorney s fees. Using the lodestar method, the trial counsel hourly rates of $400 and $450 per hour. then applied a 3.8 multiplier. We agree court awarded The trial court that the court correctly used the lodestar method to determine the amount of attorney s fees but find that it was inappropriate to apply a See Kuhnlein v. Dep t of Revenue, 662 multiplier in this case. So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1995). A multiplier was excessive because this case was neither complex nor uncertain. See Kuhnlein v. Dep t of Revenue, 662 So. 2d at 313. Once the statute was declared unconstitutional, the simply attorneys had to negotiate the best deal. Additionally, the class attorney admitted in open court that an hourly fee of between adequate hourly wage. $400- $450 per hour was a more than The Court, along with every attorney in the courtroom, agreed. We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a new final judgment awarding attorney s fees in the amount of $952,389.75. Affirmed in part, reversed instructions. 3 in part, and remanded with
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
