Legal News

Case Summaries

Attorney's Fees

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

[03/04] Keup v. Hopkins
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner claiming defendant prison personnel prevented plaintiff from sending drawings outside the prison in violation of the First Amendment, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) defendants did not raise their mootness or exhaustion defenses at trial; and 2) because the district court directed a verdict for plaintiff, he was the prevailing party. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, when a prisoner plaintiff only receives nominal damages of $1.00, 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(d)(2) caps attorney fees at $1.50.

[02/25] Donahue v. Donahue
Trial court's order, charging a trust with some $5 million in past and ongoing attorney fees incurred on behalf of a former trustee in defending against the beneficiary's allegations of self-dealing and conflict of interest is reversed as it cannot be determined from the trial court's order whether the fee awards are consistent with applicable legal principles. Long-established principles of trust law impose a double-barreled reasonableness requirement where: 1) the fee award must be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation; and 2) it also must be reasonable and appropriate for the benefit of the trust.

[02/25] Pellegrino v. Robert Half Int'l
In plaintiffs' action against their former employer, a temporary staffing firm, for hour and wage violations, trial court's award of plaintiffs' attorneys fees' is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the court did not err by reducing the lodestar amount by no more than 15 percent to reflect the parties' litigation of the unfair competition claims because the legal and factual issues presented in those claims were interrelated with those issues presented by plaintiffs' wage and hour claims; 2) the record supports the trial court's application of a 1.75 multiplier to the reduced lodestar amount for attorney fees generated up until plaintiffs brought their motion for attorney fees based on the factors set forth in Ketchum; and 3) the record does not support trial court's application of a 1.75 multiplier to fees incurred in bringing the motion for attorney fees.

[02/22] City of Waco v. Kelley
In an action by an assistant chief of police challenging his indefinite suspension for being arrested and charged with drunk-driving in another city, the judgment of the hearing examiner is reversed and remanded where: 1) although the hearing examiner did not exceed his jurisdiction by reducing the indefinite suspension, he exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering a 180-day suspension, as the Civil Service Act does not authorize a hearing examiner to impose a temporary suspension of more than 15 days; 2) the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering back pay and benefits to the extent they were awarded for any time during which the assistant chief was suspended; 3) the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by demoting the chief assistant; and 4) the court of appeals erred in affirming assistant chief's award of attorneys' fees.

[02/18] US v. Thouvenot, Wade & Moerschen, Inc.
In a consolidated appeal, requiring interpretation of the Equal Access to Justice Act involving the issue of whether the government's position was substantially justified, district court's judgment is reversed in two cases and affirmed in the last case where: 1) in the case against a project site engineer, the government had a substantial though not winning case, and therefore plaintiff failed to establish its right to an award; 2) in the second case involving social security disability benefits, district court's denial of fees to the prevailing claimant is reversed as government's position was not substantially justified; and 3) district court's reversal of ALJ's denial of plaintiff's disability benefits but denial of his fees is affirmed as the district judge was persuaded that the agency's position had been substantially justified.

[02/18] Rodriguez v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C.
In an appeal from the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees after an infant compromise hearing, the award is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in looking beyond the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and their attorneys to the actual work performed by the various attorneys; and 2) the district court did not err in determining that appellant-attorneys did not obtain informed consent from the client for the fee-sharing agreement.

[02/16] McDaniel v. Schenectady
In plaintiffs' appeal from an attorney's fee award in a class action challenging defendant-county's strip search policy, the award is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award attorneys' fees using a percentage-of-fund approach, in the extent of its reliance on Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n. v. County of Albany, 493 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2007), or in its application of the reasonableness factors set forth in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000).

More...

Ethics & Disciplinary

[02/26] Florida Bar v. Bitterman
A referee's report and recommendations pertaining to the misconduct of an attorney while under a rehabilitative suspension, as a result of the her inappropriate behavior in dealing with an unrepresented person and conduct involving dishonesty, are approved but the recommended sanction is disapproved and the attorney is disbarred and taxed with costs.

[02/18] In re: Saghir
The Second Circuit removes an attorney from the bar of the court of appeals, pursuant to the court's reciprocal discipline rule, on the ground that the attorney was previously disbarred by the Southern District of New York.

[02/18] Rodriguez v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C.
In an appeal from the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees after an infant compromise hearing, the award is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in looking beyond the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and their attorneys to the actual work performed by the various attorneys; and 2) the district court did not err in determining that appellant-attorneys did not obtain informed consent from the client for the fee-sharing agreement.

[02/17] Gebhart v. SEC
In a petition for review of the SEC's order sustaining a National Association of Securities Dealers disciplinary sanction against petitioners-securities salespersons for making false statements to clients in connection with the sale of promissory notes used to finance the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership, the petition is denied where the SEC considered all of the evidence bearing on petitioners' actual state of mind, including their extreme departure from ordinary standards of care, and found that they were consciously aware of the risk that their statements were false.

[01/28] Keach v. Cty. of Schenectady
In an appeal from a district court's order denying plaintiff's motion to recuse the district judge, the appeal is dismissed where the district court merely engaged in routine judicial commentary and criticism of plaintiff's counsel, while declining to impose sanctions and making no findings of professional misconduct.

[01/15] US Commodity Futures Trading Comm. v. Dizona
In an action by the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation claiming that defendant-trader attempted to manipulate the market price of natural gas in interstate commerce, judgment as a matter of law for defendant is affirmed where: 1) a summary witness for plaintiff was not a qualified witness who could explain defendant's employer's record keeping system; and 2) a plaintiff expert's general finding of biased reporting at defendant's employer and defendant's incriminating statements on an audiotape were not sufficient to demonstrate that defendant made false entries into the spreadsheets that were sent to the publications.

[01/13] Siegel v. SEC
In a petition for review of the SEC's affirmance of the National Association of Securities Dealers' award of restitution against petitioner-securities representative, the petition is granted where the SEC completely failed to articulate any meaningful standards governing the level of causation required under Principle 5 of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Sanction Guidelines.

[01/07] Florida Bar v. Head
In the Florida Bar's complaint against a lawyer for ethical breaches, a referee's findings are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant-lawyer failed to meet his burden of proving that the referee's findings of fact are not supported by the record; and 2) referee's recommendation of a sixty-day suspension is rejected and instead, defendant is suspended from the practice of law for one year and thereafter until he proves rehabilitation.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[03/03] Willis v. Bender
In an action for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where there was no evidence, specifically expert testimony, that another physician was negligent and therefore no basis to hold defendant liable for his negligence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where defendant's alleged misrepresentations to plaintiff in response to her direct questions allegedly induced her to consent to the surgery and its risks, and under those circumstances, if proved, her consent could hardly be considered "informed".

[03/03] Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman
In an appeal involving defendants' anti-SLAPP special motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) plaintiff-former client's suit for various causes of action including breach of fiduciary duty, arising from defendants' prior representation in connection with plaintiff's efforts to redevelop real estate it owned in Beverly Hills, trial court's conclusion that section 425.16 did not apply because the gravamen of the action was breach of an attorney's duties of loyalty and confidentiality is reversed as all causes of action in the complaint arose from acts in furtherance of protected activity, and plaintiff could not show a probability of prevailing at trial.

[03/02] Davis v. Brouse McDowell, LPA
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit claiming that defendants failed to timely file three patent applications related to a website-search engine, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court exercised proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's malpractice cause of action; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of the supplemental affidavit of plaintiff's patent law expert; and 3) plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the patentability of her inventions.

[02/26] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against a plastic surgeon for negligence in connection with a procedure of breast reconstruction, the decision of the second district court of appeal reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff is quashed and remanded as the court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[02/26] Deen v. Egleston
In a medical malpractice action, the denial of partial summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the district court, in striking down, under the Equal Protection Clause, a state statute that did not exempt the "legally incompetent" from the general two-year statute of limitations, overlooked the essential principle that matters of social and economic policy, particularly when they came to bear on the health and welfare of a state's citizens, were quintessentially legislative in nature.

[02/18] Medical Protective Co. v. Bubenik
In an action by an insurer seeking a declaration that it had no duty to pay a malpractice judgment, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the district court did not err in concluding that the malpractice defendant materially breached the cooperation clause in his insurance policy.

[02/11] Anderson v. Chikovani
In a medial malpractice action, defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied as, where a party files a valid motion for new trial, and the trial court issues a timely order denying that motion but no one serves the order or notice of entry of that order, then the applicable deadline for filing the notice of appeal from the judgment is 180 days after entry of judgment.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[03/03] Willis v. Bender
In an action for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where there was no evidence, specifically expert testimony, that another physician was negligent and therefore no basis to hold defendant liable for his negligence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where defendant's alleged misrepresentations to plaintiff in response to her direct questions allegedly induced her to consent to the surgery and its risks, and under those circumstances, if proved, her consent could hardly be considered "informed".

[03/03] Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman
In an appeal involving defendants' anti-SLAPP special motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) plaintiff-former client's suit for various causes of action including breach of fiduciary duty, arising from defendants' prior representation in connection with plaintiff's efforts to redevelop real estate it owned in Beverly Hills, trial court's conclusion that section 425.16 did not apply because the gravamen of the action was breach of an attorney's duties of loyalty and confidentiality is reversed as all causes of action in the complaint arose from acts in furtherance of protected activity, and plaintiff could not show a probability of prevailing at trial.

[03/02] Davis v. Brouse McDowell, LPA
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit claiming that defendants failed to timely file three patent applications related to a website-search engine, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court exercised proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's malpractice cause of action; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of the supplemental affidavit of plaintiff's patent law expert; and 3) plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the patentability of her inventions.

[02/26] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against a plastic surgeon for negligence in connection with a procedure of breast reconstruction, the decision of the second district court of appeal reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff is quashed and remanded as the court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[02/26] Deen v. Egleston
In a medical malpractice action, the denial of partial summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the district court, in striking down, under the Equal Protection Clause, a state statute that did not exempt the "legally incompetent" from the general two-year statute of limitations, overlooked the essential principle that matters of social and economic policy, particularly when they came to bear on the health and welfare of a state's citizens, were quintessentially legislative in nature.

[02/18] Medical Protective Co. v. Bubenik
In an action by an insurer seeking a declaration that it had no duty to pay a malpractice judgment, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the district court did not err in concluding that the malpractice defendant materially breached the cooperation clause in his insurance policy.

[02/11] Anderson v. Chikovani
In a medial malpractice action, defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied as, where a party files a valid motion for new trial, and the trial court issues a timely order denying that motion but no one serves the order or notice of entry of that order, then the applicable deadline for filing the notice of appeal from the judgment is 180 days after entry of judgment.

More...