Appeal on Merits by Garden City Might Moot Fee Motion, With Federal District Judge Deferring the Issue Until Later.
In Mhany Management v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, Case No. 05-cv-2301 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2014), the Village of Garden City (on Long Island, N.Y.) was found liable for fair housing discrimination under certain Fair Housing Act provisions, which statutory scheme has a fee-shifting provision too. Plaintiffs then moved for attorney’s fees, but the Village argued it should be deferred until the Second Circuit rules on the merits of the underlying judgment. U.S. District Judge Arthur Spatt agreed, finding no prejudice to Plaintiffs because the appeal might moot the fee hearing altogether and Plaintiffs still accrued interest on any fee award. (He also stayed a costs ruling on the same basis.)
BLOG UNDERVIEW—Although deferral of fees and costs proceedings is an option, we would observe that this rarely happens in California state and federal cases. In fact, see our September 18, 2014 post on N.D. Cal. District Judge Clauda Wilken’s refusal to stay a fee motion in Linex Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard, where she found a deferral would only promote piecemeal appeals when both the merits and fee rulings could be considered in a consolidated appeal (or at least close to the same time).
Seventh Circuit Reverses RadioShack Coupon Settlement, Especially Class Counsel Fee Award Contemplated Under Clear Sailing Provision.
Circuit Judge Posner, in Redman v. RadioShack Corp., Nos. 14-1470 et al. (7th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014), reversed a coupon settlement in a class action against RadioShack, determining that the $1 million proposed fee recovery in a case involving a $10 coupon refund to about 83,000 out of 16 million class members was an unfair division of money between class members and class counsel. It makes interesting reading on coupon settlements and clear sailing clauses, with Judge Posner assailing CAFA (at least in the coupon fees area) as being a “badly drafted statute.”