Authority-of-court-in-diversity-jurisdiction-to-allocate-contractual-attorney-fees

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions concern three subjects: (1) the authority of a court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to allocate contractual attorney fees from individual settlements following remand from an MDL; (2) the contours of the equitable common fund doctrine; and (3) the standard for findings to support an award of attorney fees following remand from an MDL. The questions presented are: 1. Does state law govern under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) and Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975), or does inherent federal equitable power allow the fashioning of an award by the transferor court? 2. If the use of equity is proper, what standard governs: the common fund doctrine as defined by Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) and Alyeska, or the common benefit doctrine developed for MDL fee awards? 3. Does Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438 (1983) allow a transferor court sitting in diversity to allocate contractual fees from individual settlements based on findings by an MODL-transferee court involving a class action settlement, or is the transferor court required to provide its own “clear explanation” of its award?