 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Manor Country Club v. Flaa5/18/2005
ion matter has taken more than ten years to resolve, without regard to the appeal concerning the attorney's fees, the fees as to which are also recoverable by the prevailing party. Like the Court of Special Appeals, I am unable to understand the reason for, or discern support for, "an 89 percent reduction in hours in a case in which the party seeking attorney's fees prevailed on two of its four claims and one of those claims was a matter of first impression." Flaa v. Manor Country Club, 158 Md. App. 483, 498, 857 A. 2d 604, 613 (2004). It is even more perplexing when it is recalled that the respondent was awarded an amount equal to three-quarters of the maximum damages allowed.
It is absolutely clear to me that the panel did precisely what the Circuit Court, on initial review, surmised that it had done, engaged in and applied a cost-benefit analysis. Such an approach, because it requires the attorney's fee award to be proportional to the monetary judgment award, is inconsistent with the purpose of the ordinance, to allow, not discourage, access to the courts for meritorious, though small, in terms of actual damages, claims. See City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 577, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 2695, 91 L.Ed. 2d 466, 482 (1986) (" rule of proportionality would make it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals with meritorious civil rights claims but relatively small potential damages to obtain redress from the courts. This is totally inconsistent with Congress' purpose in enacting [42 U.S.C.] ยง 1988."); Blaylock v. Johns Hopkins Fed. Credit Union, 152 Md. App. 338, 356, 831 A. 2d 1120, 1130 (2003). See also Bittner v. Tri- County Toyota, Inc., 569 N.E. 2d 464, 466 (Ohio,1991), in which the Ohio Supreme Court offered another argument against proportionality:
"In addition to addressing an individual wrong, pursuing a claim under the Act may produce a benefit to the community generally. A judgment for the consumer in such a case may discourage violations of the Act by others. Prohibiting private attorneys from recovering for the time they expend on a consumer protection case undermines both the purpose and deterrent effect of the Act."
The validity of that argument is not at all affected by the fact that the statute at issue in that case was a consumer protection statute.
I dissent.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|