Pennsylvania Record

Monday, January 20, 2020

Lawyer loses bid to grab part of $2.6M in attorneys fees from Capital One class action, must try elsewhere

Federal Court

By Kyla Asbury | Dec 9, 2019

Money 02

PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has denied a motion for attorneys fees in a class action lawsuit challenging a finance company's repossession notices.

The lawsuit is against Capital One Auto Finance and was filed on behalf of class members who defaulted on auto loans, according to a Nov. 27 memorandum by Judge Harvey Bartle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Bartle noted that on Nov. 6, two days before a scheduled hearing to consider final approval for the settlement and attorneys fees, attorney Rudy A. Fabian filed a motion for attorneys fees "in opposition to plaintiffs' previously uncontested motion for final approval of settlement," the ruling states. 

Fabian argued that while he did not oppose the settlement as it dealt with class members' recovery or the amount sought by class counsel Richard Shenkan, he opposed because he alleges Shenkan never fully paid him for legal research and other contract work he performed in the case.

Fabian contends he is owed money from the $2.6 million sought in attorneys fees, but Bartle noted that Fabian had never been listed as class counsel or appeared before the court regarding this case before.

Shenkan argues that Fabian's remedy lies in a separate suit in another district court in Pennsylvania involving a separate suit.

Bartle wrote that Fabian is not class counsel and none of the class members have chosen him as representation.

"As important as his work may have been, he has no association with class counsel Shenkan or Shenkan Injury Lawyers LLC other than as a contract attorney," Bartle wrote. "Under the circumstances, he has no interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of this action."

Bartle denied Fabian's motion for an award of attorneys fees and costs and noted that the action was denied without prejudice pertaining to his right to file a separate action against Shenkan and his firm, Shenkan Injury Lawyers.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case number 2:16-cv-06130

Want to get notified whenever we write about U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ?

Sign-up Next time we write about U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

More News