AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

This case involves a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation, alleging violations of New Mexico's Antitrust Act and Unfair Practices Act. The claims stemmed from findings in federal court that Microsoft improperly used its market dominance to stifle competition and innovation. The settlement included vouchers for class members, a cy pres award for schools, and attorney fees determined under the common fund doctrine (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 1999: Found Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive conduct violating the Sherman Antitrust Act (para 2).
• New Mexico Supreme Court, pre-March 2000: Consolidated three class action complaints filed in New Mexico (para 3).
• District Court of Santa Fe County, 2004: Approved the settlement agreement, including attorney fees based on the common fund doctrine (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Microsoft Corporation): Argued that the district court erred in using the percentage-of-recovery method to calculate attorney fees, asserting that the lodestar method was more appropriate. Microsoft also contended that the fee award was disproportionate to the actual benefit received by the class and that the district court improperly accepted inflated hourly rates and unsupported expenses (paras 7-10, 61-68).
• Appellees (Class Plaintiffs): Defended the district court's use of the percentage-of-recovery method, arguing that the fee award was reasonable and consistent with the settlement agreement. They maintained that the common fund doctrine justified the inclusion of cy pres awards and attorney fees in the valuation of the settlement (paras 4, 22-23, 60).

Legal Issues

• Was the district court correct in applying the percentage-of-recovery method to calculate attorney fees under the common fund doctrine?
• Was the fee award reasonable and proportional to the benefit conferred on the class?
• Did the district court err in accepting the lodestar calculation and claimed expenses as a crosscheck for the percentage-based fee award?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision to award attorney fees using the percentage-of-recovery method and found the fee award reasonable (para 89).

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Pickard and Sutin JJ. concurring):

The court upheld the district court's discretion to use the percentage-of-recovery method, noting that this approach aligns with the common fund doctrine and is widely accepted in class action cases. The settlement agreement explicitly allowed for this method, and the district court reasonably valued the common fund at $24.5 million, including cy pres awards, attorney fees, and expenses (paras 19, 22-23, 60).

The court rejected Microsoft's argument that the fee award was disproportionate, emphasizing that the district court relied on Microsoft's own valuation of the settlement during the proceedings. The inclusion of cy pres awards and attorney fees in the common fund valuation was deemed appropriate and consistent with precedent (paras 22-30, 55-60).

The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's acceptance of the lodestar calculation as a crosscheck. The multiplier of three applied to the lodestar was reasonable given the complexity, risk, and duration of the litigation. The court noted that similar multipliers have been upheld in comparable cases (paras 61-74).

Finally, the court concluded that the fee award was reasonable under the factors outlined in Rule 16-105 NMRA, including the time and labor required, the results obtained, and the contingent nature of the representation. The district court's thorough consideration of these factors supported its decision (paras 76-87).