A bankruptcy court's statutory contempt order issued for a violation of the automatic stay, and that denies compensatory and injunctive damages but incorporates a subsequent award of fees later agreed upon by the parties, is not final for purposes of appeal until the fee order issues.
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Fees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fees. Show all posts
Sixth Circuit: Rudolph Betancourt v. Indian Hills Plaza LLC
No abuse of discretion in fees and costs award, given the quality and manner of representation and securing expert witnesses. Court appropriately reduced lodestar calculation based on unnecessary filings, despite claim that the early fees award motions were justified, since simultaneous remediations of the property might have left the plaintiff as the non-prevailing party.
Eleventh Circuit: Southern Coal Corporation, et al v. Drummond Coal Sales, Inc.
District court properly considered industry usage in determining whether a certain term was ambiguous, ultimately basing its judgment upon finding both the specific referent and the industry benchmark to be reasonable readings.
Agreement not susceptible of reformation, since the claimed error was the mutual mistake of sophisticated parties, so there's no basis for saying that the present agreement doesn't reflect the original intentions of the agreement.
District court abused its discretion in denying fees, as the movant prevailed on their central claim.
Counter-party's refusal to proceed under an industry benchmark once the specific rate-setting mechanism ceased to exist wasn't an anticipatory repudiation, since they were still performing their unaffected obligations under the contract. Since the dispute went to pricing and not the special purpose of the contract, neither was it a material breach of the contract.
CONCURRING IN PART, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT:
The question on fees isn't whether a party was a prevailing party, but whether, under the contract, a party was a defaulting party.
Southern Coal Corporation, et al v. Drummond Coal Sales, Inc.
Ninth Circuit: Allison v. Tinder
(Rakoff of SDNY, J.)
The court's assessment of the plaintiffs' case deprecated a holding in which the plaintiff class members were also putative members, and in which the holding favorable to their interests was law of the case, in which they would release their claims by the present settlement.
Given this diminishment of the plaintiffs' claim, the fact that the value of the injunctive relief to the class was unsupported, the fact that many class members were no longer site members or might not seek relief, the existence of a clear-sailing provision and the substantial amount of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees meant that the court abused its discretion in approving the settlement.
The approval of the attorneys fees was an independent abuse of discretion, since it was calculated as a percentage of the sum of the value of injunctive relief that should have formed no part of the calculation and an estimated cash payment that assumed a full claim of the award.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/17/19-55807.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Thomson Sailors Homes, L.L.C
Given the differences in their designs, triangular atria alone are insufficient to establish the identity of total concept and feel necessary for copyright infringement; no reasonable minds could differ on whether there was a substantial similarity of expression in the designs.
Although the court erred in saying that attorneys fees awards were the rule rather than the excpetion, it did not abuse its discretion in the actual award of fees in this case.
Eighth Circuit: Anthony Vines v. Welspun Pipes Inc.
Court did not clearly err in refusing to sanction a settlement under the statute due to the fact that the attorneys' fees had not been negotiated separately from the underlying claim, given the simultaneous negotiation in emails, calculation of fee on the basis of the the case proceeding without settlement, and implicit tying of the agreement on fees to the agreement on the underlying claim.
Award of de minimis attorneys' fees was an abuse of discretion, as the amount must be determined by determination of the lodestar value by multiplying the hours and the rate.
Given that the only rmaining matter is the calculation of attorneys' fees, no plain error sufficient to reassign on remand.
DISSENT:
Negotiating a wage claim simultaneously with the fees creates a significant conflict of interest. Plaintiffs counsel, in fee negotiations, said that deft was getting a "pretty sweet deal." Court below held that lodestar was inapplicable on this record.
Ninth Circuit: Dennis Munden v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
Since the roadmaps were created under a state statute and designed, at least in part, to give owners in property notice of extant interests in their property, the road map is a public record for the purposes of the title insurance contract, and the insurers had a duty to defend the landowner against the otherwise unrecorded state road easement and right of way.
Policy exclusion for claims arising from public interests in roads applies to bar the claim, since the state is asserting such an interest, and the policy owner is opposing it.
One deft to pay the plaintiff's costs, and the plaintiff to pay the prevailing deft's costs.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/13/20-35336.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Transverse v. IA Wireless Srv
Appellate holding that a party is a prevailing party under a statute with a compulsory fee award becomes law of the case; the district court can't then deny an award completely for lack of sufficient segregation, but must rather determine, based on the evidence at hand, the appropriate level of fees attributable to the relevant action.
Plain error for the district court to apply the law of the forum, where the choice of law provision was clear, aside from a single specific instance referencing mediation within the forum -- this instance supplies only a procedural law. Since the chosen foreign law requires all fee awards to be authorized by statute or contract, and the foreign law has no parallel fee shifting statute, error for the court to have shifted fees under the statute.
Absent a damages award or equitable or injunctive relief, prevailing party status is unavailable for purposes of a fee award, even if the court explicitly recognized the breach of the relevant obligaiton.
Ninth Circuit: Rodney Green, Sr. v. Mercy Housing Inc.
Plaintiff bringing suit under the statute should not be assessed fees or costs unless the court makes a specific finding that the claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
Fifth Circuit: ATOM Instrument Corporation, et al v. Petroleum Analyzer
District Court's interpretation of the terms of the arbitral agreement enjoining use of the technology and methods in a patent application is reviewed for plain error, as the reviewing court must make factual determinations as to whether the uses are sufficiently similar.
District court's restatement of the arbitral award did not substantially alter the law of the case.
Fees incurred prior to the filing of claim can be recovered under a fee-shifting statute where they are an attempt to resolve a threatened claim.
Court reasonably found fees to be nonsegregable as they generally advanced the litigation position.
State rules requiring party to seek contingent appellate fee award in the trial court are procedural, so the federal rule allowing award of fees by the reviewing court prevails.
Third Circuit: Bernie Clemens v. New York Central Mutual Fire
Not an abuse of discretion for court to dismiss petition under fee-shifting statute in its entirety where counsel's performance was sub-par, timekeeping records were vague, there was insufficient proof of local prevailing rates, and plaintiff asks for 900k in fees on a 100k award after a four day trial.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173150p.pdf
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173150p.pdf
First Circuit: Scholz v. Goudreau
Given uncontroverted evidence of attempted compliance with the terms of the agreement, court did not abuse its discretion in holding that there was no issue for trial.
As the question was relevant to other matters, lack of objection to cross-examination questions on actual versus apparent authority did not constitute implied consent to an amendment of claim to include breach.
As damages are an element of the breach claim, court did not abuse its discretion in refusing entry of judgment on breach claim after jury's finding of breach in order to dispel the counterclaim.
Allegation that litigation was used to obtain contract rescission sounds in malicious prosecution, not in abuse of process.
Where the legitimate purpose of the claim is truthfully stated in the claim itself, the claim is not an abuse of process, however spitefully it might have been raised.
Court was within its discretion in refusing an award of fees.
Court was within discretion in admitting contemporaneous, ostensibly independent YT clip under the theory that it was part of the album's marketing.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1264P-01A.pdf
As the question was relevant to other matters, lack of objection to cross-examination questions on actual versus apparent authority did not constitute implied consent to an amendment of claim to include breach.
As damages are an element of the breach claim, court did not abuse its discretion in refusing entry of judgment on breach claim after jury's finding of breach in order to dispel the counterclaim.
Allegation that litigation was used to obtain contract rescission sounds in malicious prosecution, not in abuse of process.
Where the legitimate purpose of the claim is truthfully stated in the claim itself, the claim is not an abuse of process, however spitefully it might have been raised.
Court was within its discretion in refusing an award of fees.
Court was within discretion in admitting contemporaneous, ostensibly independent YT clip under the theory that it was part of the album's marketing.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1264P-01A.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Ashley Krawietz, et al v. Galveston Independent Schools
School district did not act quickly enough after having cause to know of the need for action. Plaintiff was correctly categorized as a prevailing party for the purpose of the fee award when the court ordered the deft. to comply with their obligations under the Act.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40461-CV0.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40461-CV0.pdf
Eighth Circuit: David Faltermeier v. FCA US LLC
Given the complexity of the action and the fact that fees increase with the complexity of the action, no plain error in court's calculation of potential fees for the purpose of determining if the total award was sufficient for removal under the statute.
While state law does not require actual reliance on the misrepresentation, there must be some connection between the representation and the purchase.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/172093P.pdf
While state law does not require actual reliance on the misrepresentation, there must be some connection between the representation and the purchase.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/172093P.pdf
Third Circuit: USA ex rel. Donald Palmer v. C&D Technologies Inc
District court did not err in reducing fee award below the level requested by another party; as it was opposed, the court did not act sua sponte, and courts frequently award fees according to prevailing rates as established by extrinsic evidence.
No abuse in limiting fees for deposition, given the interest in reducing the crowds of lawyers there.
Remanded for the District court to consider whether the Relator is owed fees for the present action for fees.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172350p.pdf
No abuse in limiting fees for deposition, given the interest in reducing the crowds of lawyers there.
Remanded for the District court to consider whether the Relator is owed fees for the present action for fees.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172350p.pdf
Federal Circuit: Raytheon v. Indigo
When an employee who leaves employment where he oversaw processes involving trade secrets oversees a substantially similar process at the second company but denies that any proprietary information was used at the second company, a finder of fact can reasonably determine that the second company did not misappropriate trade secrets.
Testimony at trial established that the trade secret encompassed not just the generic process, but also the specific recipe for it.
Court might have reasonably found that party's decision to, in the end, opt for one state's statute over another was a strategic choice of law decision, and not an attempt to avoid an adverse decision on the merits, which would have mandated an award of fees.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1945.Opinion.7-12-2018.pdf
Testimony at trial established that the trade secret encompassed not just the generic process, but also the specific recipe for it.
Court might have reasonably found that party's decision to, in the end, opt for one state's statute over another was a strategic choice of law decision, and not an attempt to avoid an adverse decision on the merits, which would have mandated an award of fees.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1945.Opinion.7-12-2018.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Robert Hayes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
As ledger entries indicate that attorney received a prejudgment notification of the administrative determination of the case, local rules as to the timeliness of application for fees apply, and there is no equitable basis for tolling the limitations period.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0137p-06.pdf
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0137p-06.pdf
DC Circuit: James Roberts v. NTSB
The clock for a petition for fees under the statute starts with the final judgment, not with the subsequent final agency resolution.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4D6C022174310506852582C600521ED6/$file/14-1022-1739804.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4D6C022174310506852582C600521ED6/$file/14-1022-1739804.pdf
DC Circuit: Morley v. CIA
Court did not abuse its discretion in denying award of fees in FOIA action, as court might reasonably have found the agency's actions to be reasonable.
Dissent: Violation of a statute requiring agency to disclose otherwise available documents instead of referring the requester to the alternate source was, by it terms, unreasonable.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FAFBF71409B33B0E852582C50070FE19/$file/17-5114-1739739.pdf
Dissent: Violation of a statute requiring agency to disclose otherwise available documents instead of referring the requester to the alternate source was, by it terms, unreasonable.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FAFBF71409B33B0E852582C50070FE19/$file/17-5114-1739739.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Anthony Robinson v. Alfred Perales
As plaintiff did not present claim that deft and corporate deft were linked and declined to assert strict liability of one for the other during deliberations, no error in jury finding liability for one and not the other.
Explicit provision for nominal damages did not impermissibly suggest that non-monetary damages were appropriate.
Racial epithet and disparate treatment suffices to present an issue for trial on hostile work environment.
Statement of opposing party wasn't barred as hearsay.
Triable question of retaliation given facts.
Concerted attempts to end the plaintiff's career were sufficient for the verdict.
Court did not abuse its discretion in comparing the discussion of amounts of award in plaintiff's closing with actual award in declining to award fees.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-02/C:16-3390:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2180150:S:0
Explicit provision for nominal damages did not impermissibly suggest that non-monetary damages were appropriate.
Racial epithet and disparate treatment suffices to present an issue for trial on hostile work environment.
Statement of opposing party wasn't barred as hearsay.
Triable question of retaliation given facts.
Concerted attempts to end the plaintiff's career were sufficient for the verdict.
Court did not abuse its discretion in comparing the discussion of amounts of award in plaintiff's closing with actual award in declining to award fees.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-02/C:16-3390:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2180150:S:0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)