Speed case lawyers seek $1.1 million

But members of the New Miami class action suit can object to fee.

The 33,000 BUTLER COUNTY — members of the New Miami speed camera class action lawsuit may soon get official notice their attorneys want a $1.1 million fee, and they can object to it.

Despite the fact the village plans to ask the Ohio Supreme Court to consider its appeal of the recent 12th District Court of Appeals decision, the parties will move forward with preparing a notice to the class members in the case — an estimated 33,000 — that their attorneys have asked for the fee, which is a third of the $3 million speeders paid under the former unconstitutional speed camera program.

New Miami’s former speed camera program was deemed unconstitutional in 2014, and Butler County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael A. Oster determined speeders are due both the $1.8 million that went into the village coffers and $1.2 million the third-party vendor retained.

The case has been traveling between the appellate courts, and the 12th District recently ruled — as Oster did originally — the village does not have governmental immunity against claims such as this.

There was a hearing in the case Thursday afternoon.

New Miami’s attorneys tried to convince Oster it is premature to put the mandatory notice out when there isn’t yet a final judgment amount in the case and the high court is being asked to intervene.

Oster has not issued a final ruling on what the village owes because the case has been in the appellate division. However, the speeders’ attorney Paul DeMarco said everybody already knows the all-important $3 million amount.

“The amount that they have to return to the class comes down to two numbers,” DeMarco said. “It was, is it the share the village retained or was it the whole kit-n-kaboodle, that was the question, and I think the court (Oster) sent a very strong signal which of the two choices it made.”

Both sides and Oster appear to be in agreement that individual notifications of the attorney fee motion aren’t required, so they are working on a notice that will likely be advertised in local media and on court websites. The notice will instruct class members on the status of the case, the fee request and other information. DeMarco also said they will create a website so members can view the motion.

The attorneys want fees on 33 percent of the total amount — which was $3.4 million a year ago, including $367,560 worth of interest, calculated by plaintiffs’ attorneys at 4 percent. They haven’t updated that figure. They have noted attorney-fee percentages in cases such as this typically range from 25 percent to 33 percent, but they negotiated a 33 percent fee with the named plaintiffs.

There are four attorneys representing the class of speeders — DeMarco, Josh Engel, Mike Allen and Charlie Rittgers. In their motion to get paid, they say they have earned the contingency fee.

“These four senior attorneys brought to this case significant credentials, experience and expertise in complex litigation and class actions, including cases involving similarly complicated legal issues..,” the motion reads.

“This case was hardly a cakewalk for the attorneys representing the named plaintiffs and the other class members. The court is well aware that this litigation has been hard fought from the beginning,” Engel wrote. “At every stage of this case class counsel grappled with novel, complex liability and remedy issues and met with fierce resistance by determined opponents.”

Although the judge and attorneys have agreed to start preparing the notification, this case is far from over. New Miami’s outside counsel James Englert has always said once Oster issues the final judgment they will appeal the entire case — it has been appealed in bits and pieces so far as Oster has issued rulings — on the key question of whether the village’s old program violated due process.

“The village has always contended that this was an administrative hearing and that it was not necessary to follow courtroom evidence and procedural rules,” Englert said and also pointed out the high court and at least one federal court have found these hearings were fine in other cases.

Engel said the reason they feel a sense of urgency in notifying their clients is because the longer the case drags out the less chance they have of finding all the speeders and returning their money, because people move and don’t always update their addresses.