NVLSP v. US
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
Objector Eric Alan Isaacson challenged the district court’s approval of a $125 million PACER-fee class-action settlement, arguing lack of Little Tucker Act jurisdiction, unfair allocation of settlement funds, excessive attorneys’ fees, and illegality of incentive awards. The 13th Circuit rejected each argument, held that each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim under the Little Tucker Act, found the settlement and fee awards reasonable, joined the majority of circuits in allowing incentive awards, and affirmed the judgment.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether federal courts may approve incentive (service) awards to class representatives in Rule 23 class-action settlements after Trustees v. Greenough and Central R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus.
Circuit Positions
Incentive awards to class representatives are permissible so long as they are reasonable and do not create conflicts with the class.
Incentive awards are per se unlawful under Greenough and Pettus.
Conflict Summary
The Eleventh Circuit (Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, 2020) holds that incentive awards are per se unlawful under Greenough and Pettus, while every other circuit to address the question—including the present 13th Circuit—permits reasonable incentive awards, treating them as distinct from the salary-like payments condemned in those 19th-century equity cases.