 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Magill v. Nelbro Packing Co.8/31/2001
over, the group received the grounds adjustment, and no evidence in the record indicates that the parties agreed that there would be a further adjustment following the unanticipated voyage to China.
D. Attorney's Fees
The trial court awarded Nelbro attorney's fees of $129,727.87. It based that award on its determination that, under Alaska Civil Rule 68(b)(1), Nelbro was entitled to recover seventy-five percent of its reasonable attorney's fees, which the court found totaled $172,970.50. The Magill group argues that the trial court should have based the award on reasonable attorney's fees of $72,071.04.
It seems remarkable at first glance that the trial court found that Nelbro had incurred reasonable attorney's fees of $172,970.50 in a case involving a $200,000 controversy. But we conclude from the circumstances discussed by the parties and from the trial court's well-reasoned discussion of this issue that the trial court did not clearly err in finding the amount of Nelbro's reasonable attorney's fees.
We will not overturn an attorney's fees award solely because the amount of actual fees upon which the award is based exceeds or is close to the amount in controversy. We are especially reluctant to overturn fees awards when the trial court has adequately explained its decision, and has obviously given careful scrutiny to the parties' submissions in calculating the amount of fees reasonably incurred, as the court did here. The circumstances justifying the award include the findings that there was not "a whole lot of unnecessary paper . . . filed" and that "Nelbro's actions were dilatory or in bad faith." In addition, some responsibility for the large amount of fees lies with the plaintiffs, who vigorously pushed the case and insisted on a forum choice that was more expensive for the parties.
E. Equal Protection Challenge
The Magill group also argues that basing the attorney's fee award on Civil Rule 68(b) and AS 09.30.065 violates the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution. The group argues that this is so because the new Rule 68(b) "operates disproportionately" by triggering fee awards based on offers of judgment that are a least five percent more favorable to the offeree than the judgment finally rendered. The group explains that because the dollar amount of a defendant's offer is always less than the dollar amount of a plaintiff's offer, the rule requires plaintiffs to concede much more in absolute dollars than defendants in order to gain the benefits of the offer of judgment rule. For example, where outcomes range from a $0 defense verdict to a $1 million plaintiff's verdict, the rule will benefit a defendant who offers $1 and concedes only 5 cents in a case where final judgment rendered against the defendant is less than 95 cents. But in order for the plaintiff to gain the benefit of the rule in a case where the final judgment is for $1 million, the plaintiff must concede $50,000 by offering $950,000 or less. The Magill group suggests that the rule is unconstitutional because the different treatment of plaintiffs and defendants does not bear a substantial relationship to the rule's legitimate purpose, which is to provide equal incentives to both plaintiffs and defendants to settle litigation. The Magill group cites no equal protection cases and offers nothing further to advance this constitutional argument and guide our analysis. We decline to reach this constitutional issue, because it was not preserved below or on appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the trial court's judgment in all respects.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|