Attorney’s Fee Awards In the News—One Entertainment Case Whooper and Two Smaller Ones
$14 Million Fee Award – Entertainment Dispute.
Los Angeles County Superior Court produced one of the largest fee awards we know of (with a recent article on the award suggesting it is the biggest ever)–$14 million.
Well-known author Clive Cussler became entangled in a dispute with what is now known as Bristol Bay Productions, a company to which he had sold the rights to two books, including his novel Sahara. However, before the first movie based on Sahara was filmed, Mr. Cussler decided he did not like the adaptation and demanded that he be made screenwriter on the film. Producers refused, Cussler sued based on breach of contract, and producers countersued claiming he had breached the good faith and fair dealing covenant stemming from the contract. The movie did not fare well, with Jessica Winters of the Village Voice calling it “the skull-splitting cacophony of 21 producers and four screenwriters . . . standing in the same room, shouting into their cell phones.”
The matter proceeded to trial, with each side represented by entertainment lawyer heavyweights: Mr. Cussler had retained Bertram Fields (who had never lost a trial) and the producers had Marvin Putnam of O’Melveny & Myers in their corner.
After a 15-week trial (yes, you heard right), Cussler lost on all counts (Mr. Fields’ first career defeat at trial, apparently), and producers won $5 million on one of their counterclaims.
You know what comes next. Producers moved for an award of attorney’s fees as the prevailing party based on an indemnity clause in the contract with Mr. Cussler. (Mr. Fields had billed Cussler $8.5 million on the case, but producers’ attorneys sought $14 million in fees.)
Late in the week of March 9, 2009, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Shook did award producers, as prevailing parties, the $14 million fee based on the contractual fees clause. Ms. Cussler is appealing, and we are certainly going to report on the results at some point in the future.
For more information on this one, see Ben Hallman’s March 17, 2009 article “O’Melveny Wins $14 Million Legal Fees Ruling from Thriller Author Clive Cussler,” found at americanlawyer.com.
BLOG OBSERVATION—For those of you wanting to see law on the interplay between fee recovery and contractual indemnity clauses, see our category “Indemnity” at the left hand side of our home page.
$42,340 Total Fees Assessed Against Development Critics of Irvine Project.
Two individual critics of a Irvine Business Complex project were ordered to pay $20,713 to the City of Irvine and $21,635 to Maguire Properties, the developer of the project engaged in a long-time battle over what fees the developer needed to pay to fully build its Park Place project near Main and Jamboree. After the City and Maguire crafted a settlement plan under closed door sessions, two individuals critical of the “backroom deal” sued to force a public review of the plan. The suit was thrown out in November 2008, with an Orange County judge ruling that the City acted properly in approving the settlement agreement.
More recently, the judge ordered the two individuals to pay attorney’s fees as described above. Although the bases for the fee award were not cited in the article we used to summarize what occurred, we would guess that they were awarded under the Public Records Act or Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.
For more on the facts of this particular award, see Sean Emery’s April 1, 2009 article “Council critics owe Irvine, developer $40,000 after failed suit” in the The Orange County Register.
$12,900 in Fees Awarded to “Sugar’ Mosley for Winning anti-SLAPP Motion.
A former conditioning coach of “Sugar” Shane Mosley (Mosley is the World Boxing Association welterweight super champion) sued him for defamation in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Mr. Mosley apparently told reporters in 2007 that he believed certain substances he took were vitamins that his conditioning coach “pressured” him to take during training for a 2003 fight against Oscar De La Hoya. The conditioning coach claimed that the remarks were defamatory, misrepresenting him as a professional and making it look like he committed a crime. Mr. Mosley was not tickled with this claim, and moved to strike it under the anti-SLAPP statute (which makes a fee award mandatory for a prevailing defendant). Mr. Mosley won his anti-SLAPP motion on the defamation claim.
Then, Mr. Mosley—who won the anti-SLAPP round (sorry for the pun)—moved to recoup nearly $78,000 in attorney’s fees. (Although others worked on the successful dismissal motion, Mosley’s lead attorney stated in his fee request that he personally spent at least 13 hours on the motion, charging his client “a discounted hourly rate of $900 per hour”—a $50 per hour haircut from his usual hourly charge.) In opposition, the conditioning coach’s lawyers argued that the claim for over $70,000 in fees for work on one motion was “exotic and exorbitant” in nature.
Recently, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Alan J. Rosenfeld awarded Mr. Mosley $12,900 in fees for work on the successful anti-SLAPP motion. Although not a “knockout,” Mr. Mosley did recover some of the fees spent in “knocking out” the defamation claim, one that usually comes loaded with punitive damage allegations. (Again, forgive the puns, everyone—could not resist!)
For more details on this award, see article “Lawyers for boxer score $12,900 decision,” posted April 1, 2009 (from Daily News Wire Services).