Sua sponte referral of postjudgment motion to another court is within the inherent authority of the court.
Whatever the legal status of the fee agreement, error to deny fees under S1988 where petitioner's primary interest is the vindication of the claim and the award is not de minimis; the fact that the award was under the last settlement offer does not negate the basis for the award.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-29/C:17-1876:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2179169:S:0
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
Federal Circuit: Starry Associates v. US
The statute authorizing an award of fees does not contemplate egregiously dilatory agency conduct as a basis for increasing the base rate of compensation; as the "special factor" basis is listed with a "cost of living" basis, the statute authorizes increases in the award where the base rate is insufficient due to the character of the representation. Because noscitur.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2148.Opinion.6-22-2018.pdf
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2148.Opinion.6-22-2018.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Shame On You Productions, Inc. v. Elizabeth Banks
No abuse of discretion in awarding fees to deft in a copyright action, as the claim was denied after an extrinsic review of the scripts, and the plaintiff did not timely provide their script; recent circuit precedent emphasizing the reasonability of the litigating position does not compel the award to be revisited.
State breach of implied contract intermixed with question of infringement, court's non-apportionment of that portion was therefore justified.
No abuse of discretion in the reasonableness of the fees.
Motion for fees timely e-filed, but in the wrong category and then later filed in the correct category was properly considered, as the time limit isn't jurisdictional.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/21/16-55024.pdf
State breach of implied contract intermixed with question of infringement, court's non-apportionment of that portion was therefore justified.
No abuse of discretion in the reasonableness of the fees.
Motion for fees timely e-filed, but in the wrong category and then later filed in the correct category was properly considered, as the time limit isn't jurisdictional.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/21/16-55024.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Robert Stephens v. CoreLogic, Inc.
To establish contributory infringement under the statute, plaintiff needs to establish a likelihood of specific future infringement; specific allegations of the theory of infringement are necessary. While the software removes the metadata that aids in the detection of infringement, plaintiffs do not demonstrate how removal of this information alone will prompt a future infringement.
Discovery denials appropriate, as there was no specific statement of how the additional time and productions would show such future specific infringement.
Costs for testimony of employees of deft corporation can be taxed to opposing party.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/20/16-56089.pdf
Discovery denials appropriate, as there was no specific statement of how the additional time and productions would show such future specific infringement.
Costs for testimony of employees of deft corporation can be taxed to opposing party.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/20/16-56089.pdf
Third Circuit: Gerald Carroll v. E One Inc
Award of fees to deft upon dismissal with prejudice following plaintiffs' mistaken motion to unilaterally dismiss a suit that had advanced past discovery and answer was not an abuse of discretion; plaintiff's lack of investigation, combined with their practices in other districts presented a sufficiently extraordinary circumstance to justify the grant.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172183p.pdf
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172183p.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Jim Sciaroni v. Target Corporation
Class appropriately certified despite court's mistaken finding that class members without present injury would be entitled to a pro rata share of the remainder of the fund.
Class appropriately certified despite potential inter-class conflicts over later-arising harms from the data breach, since all class members suffered the same injury at the same time.
29% Fee award can appropriately be based on a total that includes administrative costs; fees not substantively unreasonable.
Settlement not unfair, despite alleged subtle signs of collusion.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/153909P.pdf
Class appropriately certified despite potential inter-class conflicts over later-arising harms from the data breach, since all class members suffered the same injury at the same time.
29% Fee award can appropriately be based on a total that includes administrative costs; fees not substantively unreasonable.
Settlement not unfair, despite alleged subtle signs of collusion.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/153909P.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet Inc.
Following reversal and remand, the appellate court should refrain from granting leave to file a motion at the Circuit level for fees under the statute; the District Court is better positioned to judge the matter.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0112p-06.pdf
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0112p-06.pdf
Federal Circuit: Stone Baskets LLC v. Cook Medical LLC
No abuse of discretion in denial of fees in patent litigation, etc, etc.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2330.Opinion.6-8-2018.1.pdf
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2330.Opinion.6-8-2018.1.pdf
Seventh Circuit: EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated
Award of fees against the Commission was an abuse of discretion, as there was a colorable argument that neither the Commission's own conciliation requirement nor the statutory requirement for same was a prerequisite to suit.
First Circuit: Paolino v. JF Realty, LLC
FRCP, Environmental, Fees
No abuse of discretion in court's refusal to allow revised late-filed expert testimony, as it was duplicative of other testimony, and the equitable reason for the delay had a procedural remedy.
Judgement was not against the weight of the evidence, as the only proof of pollution was from a mingled source and there are other remedial efforts in place to effect the purposes of the statute.
Award of fees under statute upheld, as suit was filed after defts had remedied the harm.
Paolino v. JF Realty, LLC
Fifth Circuit: Deadra Combs v. City of Huntington, Texas
Title VII, Fees
Degree of success is the most important consideration when deciding whether to adjust lodestar fee award.
Abuse of discretion to revise lodestar downward due solely to proportionality to award won; the appropriate consideration is ratio of award won to award sought.
Deadra Combs v. City of Huntington, Texas
Seventh Circuit: Ira Holtzman v. Gregory Turza
Class Actions, Fees
In a statutory class action where individual recovery is specifically delineated in the statute, class counsel cannot be paid based on the value of the common fund.
Order to pay full statutory amount to remaining claimants once the fees have been satisfied was error.
Court is not obligated to make a cy pres distribution of remaining funds -- can return balance to deft.
Ira Holtzman v. Gregory Turza
Second Circuit: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Class Actions
Error to certify a class as settlement-only where injunctive and monetary remedies sought created conflicting interests. Counsel had little incentive to zealously fight for injunctive component, given fee distribution, and class members could not opt-out.
Settlement agreement a nullity. [Rather a lot of money.]
In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Fourth Circuit: Stella Andrews v. America’s Living Centers, LLC
FRCP, Fees
Award of costs for repetitive litigation can include fees where provided by statute at issue or equitably justified by the conduct of the plaintiff.
Circuit split flagged.
Where refiling is not in bad faith, wanton, or oppressive, award of fees is precluded. Here, Magistrate explicitly suggested refiling action.
Stella Andrews v. America’s Living Centers, LLC
Award of costs for repetitive litigation can include fees where provided by statute at issue or equitably justified by the conduct of the plaintiff.
Circuit split flagged.
Where refiling is not in bad faith, wanton, or oppressive, award of fees is precluded. Here, Magistrate explicitly suggested refiling action.
Stella Andrews v. America’s Living Centers, LLC
Seventh Circuit: ACF 2006 Corp v. Timothy Devereux
Easterbrook, Contract, Fees
Quantum meruit adjustment to factual findings at trial.
Funds held in a non interest bearing (IOLTA) account are not subject to prejudgment interest. (Possibly. Confusing.)
Victims of lawyer's taking of client funds while practicing in an LLC have a priority claim over a later-erfected secured interest.
ACF 2006 Corp v. Timothy Devereux
Quantum meruit adjustment to factual findings at trial.
Funds held in a non interest bearing (IOLTA) account are not subject to prejudgment interest. (Possibly. Confusing.)
Victims of lawyer's taking of client funds while practicing in an LLC have a priority claim over a later-erfected secured interest.
ACF 2006 Corp v. Timothy Devereux
Sixth Circuit: Cheryl Minor v. Comm'r of Social Security
Fees
Court's adoption of magistrate's lodestar fees calculation was insufficiently explained, as court adopted statutory cap contrary to state bar numbers and disputed amount of time spent.
Cheryl Minor v. Comm'r of Social Security
Court's adoption of magistrate's lodestar fees calculation was insufficiently explained, as court adopted statutory cap contrary to state bar numbers and disputed amount of time spent.
Cheryl Minor v. Comm'r of Social Security
Second Circuit: Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Team Tankers A.S.
Arbitration, fees
Arbitration did not disregard law.
Although arbitrator's nondisclosure if illness violated the rules of the arbitration, insufficient for vacatur.
Fee-shifting to prevailing party vacated, as consent to arbitration implies consent to challenge in court of competent jurisdiction and if it doesn't, it's unenforcable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/doc/14-4036_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/hilite/
Arbitration did not disregard law.
Although arbitrator's nondisclosure if illness violated the rules of the arbitration, insufficient for vacatur.
Fee-shifting to prevailing party vacated, as consent to arbitration implies consent to challenge in court of competent jurisdiction and if it doesn't, it's unenforcable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/doc/14-4036_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/hilite/
Federal Circuit: Lumen View Technollgy v. FindTheBest.com
Patent, Fees
No abuse of discretion in award of fees, given ill-supported allegations of infringement.
While deterrence is to be considered in whether to award fees, it is not a permissible basis for adjusting the lodestar award.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1275.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
No abuse of discretion in award of fees, given ill-supported allegations of infringement.
While deterrence is to be considered in whether to award fees, it is not a permissible basis for adjusting the lodestar award.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1275.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
DC Circuit: Jefferson Morley v. CIA
FOIA, Fees
Fees should be partially denied for FOIA proceedings that partially result in records already in the public domain only where the fees that resulted in public documents are segregable and whether the difficulties encountered militate against denial of fees.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3D5B77098A5F717385257F41006AF4C8/$file/14-5230-1594919.pdf
Fees should be partially denied for FOIA proceedings that partially result in records already in the public domain only where the fees that resulted in public documents are segregable and whether the difficulties encountered militate against denial of fees.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3D5B77098A5F717385257F41006AF4C8/$file/14-5230-1594919.pdf
DC Circuit: National Security Counselors v. CIA
Fees
A bona fide corporation with an identity distinct from that of the natural person who represents it in court is eligible for fee-shifting provisions of FOIA. In house counsel presumptively distinct from corporation, despite close involvement and personal commitment.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBD08628AB46B5D185257F3B0054CBEF/$file/14-5171-1593790.pdf
A bona fide corporation with an identity distinct from that of the natural person who represents it in court is eligible for fee-shifting provisions of FOIA. In house counsel presumptively distinct from corporation, despite close involvement and personal commitment.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBD08628AB46B5D185257F3B0054CBEF/$file/14-5171-1593790.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)