Background
Multiple class actions alleging that Seresto flea and tick collars injured or killed pets were consolidated into an MDL in the Northern District of Illinois. Laura Revolinsky and her attorneys—Joseph LoPiccolo of Poulos LoPiccolo PC and Bruce Nagel of Nagel Rice, LLP—had filed one such case in New Jersey and supported MDL treatment. After transfer to Illinois, the district court appointed other attorneys as Class Counsel and established Case Management Order No. 4, requiring all attorneys to submit monthly time and expense reports to Class Counsel. The order specified that only time incurred after the appointment of Class Counsel would generally be compensable, though Class Counsel had discretion to approve pre-appointment work that directly benefited the class.
The case settled for $15 million with attorney fees capped at 38% of the fund. Class Counsel submitted a fee application requesting approximately $4.5 million and explicitly stated it included only “timely submitted” work performed after Class Counsel’s appointment. The district court granted final approval of the settlement and fees on January 6, 2025. Revolinsky and her attorneys did not object at that time. In February and March 2025, they learned their firms would receive substantially less than expected due to exclusion of pre-MDL work. On April 16, 2025—over nine months after the objection deadline—they filed a separate motion seeking additional fees for pre-MDL work and untimely-submitted post-MDL work. The district court denied the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of Revolinsky’s late fee challenge. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the procedural requirements it had established. Because Revolinsky had actual notice of Order No. 4 and the fee application explicitly disclosed that pre-MDL time would be excluded, the deadline to object—July 22, 2024—had long since passed when Revolinsky filed her motion in April 2025. The court emphasized that with a fixed fee fund, increasing any one firm’s compensation necessarily reduces other attorneys’ awards, and sophisticated attorneys who fail to timely raise objections should not be allowed to “play the game and see the result” before deciding whether to challenge the allocation.
The court acknowledged serious concerns about the district court’s delegation of final fee allocation authority to Class Counsel without explicit court approval, noting that such delegation “would be inappropriate where the attorneys for the class disagree among themselves about fees.” However, the court found that Revolinsky’s failure to timely object to the procedure precluded relief. The court also noted that the district court should have placed the fee allocation on the record for public transparency, but this omission did not require reversal given Revolinsky’s procedural failures.
Key Takeaways
- In MDLs, district courts may enforce strict procedures and deadlines for attorney fee submissions and objections, and attorneys who fail to comply cannot obtain relief later.
- Fee applications that explicitly disclose what work will and will not be included constitute adequate notice; attorneys reading such disclosures must object during the designated objection period or forfeit the right to challenge the allocation.
- While courts must scrutinize the reasonableness of total fee awards and may exercise equitable authority over allocation disputes, they need not resolve disputes among plaintiff’s attorneys who fail to follow court procedures.
- The court questioned—but did not rule against—delegating final fee allocation authority to lead counsel without explicit court oversight, suggesting such delegation may be problematic when attorneys disagree.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes firm boundaries around when attorney fee disputes in class actions and MDLs must be raised. The Seventh Circuit makes clear that even sympathetic fee allocation questions—including whether attorneys should recover for foundational pre-centralization work—cannot be revisited after objection deadlines pass. For practitioners, the message is stark: read fee applications carefully, understand what work is being excluded, and object within the prescribed window or lose the ability to challenge allocation later, no matter how large the discrepancy between expected and actual recovery.
The decision also reflects judicial reluctance to resolve fee disputes among sophisticated attorneys, while preserving the district court’s fiduciary duty to the class itself. Though the court expressed concern about blanket delegation of allocation authority to lead counsel—particularly where competing factions within the plaintiff’s bar disagree—it declined to reverse on this basis given Revolinsky’s procedural defaults. Notably, the court emphasized that fee allocations should be placed on the record for public transparency, signaling that future courts should ensure such allocations are documented despite the desire to keep fee disputes among attorneys private.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.