Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Bywaters v. US on lodestar

In a case denying re-hearing in a case involving lodestar calculations, Judge Dyk and Judge Plager both have additional comments.

In his footnote 1, Judge Plager observes:

This could also be considered a grant of the petition for the limited purpose of clarifying the opinion.

Judge Plager concluded:

Here, there is no indication that the winning attor- neys were anything but competent; indeed, the evidence is that they were chosen for their particular competence in this type of case. The trial judge expressly determined that under the circumstances of this case both the hours claimed and the attorneys’ rate were reasonable, a deter- mination that by definition incorporates this factor of “amount involved and results obtained.” The case was complex and involved many small property claims con- solidated into one case. The panel’s addition to the opin- ion confirms my view that no remand is called for and, while I agree with what is said here as I understand it, I continue to dissent from the original panel opinion order- ing a remand, as well as from the overturning of the trial court’s reasoned determination regarding the relevant market for pricing the attorneys’ services.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

<< Home