ILNews

7th Circuit rules on attorney fee issues in brownfield case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has mostly upheld an Indiana federal judge who’d ruled on the litigation costs and attorney fees involved in a Shell gas station brownfield case.

The 25-page opinion came today in Daniel J. and Pamela Wickens and Mark E. Shere v. Shell Oil Company, Nos. 09-2737 & 09-2620, which affirms and reverses in part a 2008 judgment from Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis. The case dates back more than five years and involves a couple who were trying to sell their shoe shop when they discovered contaminated soil from a former fuel station on the Anderson property. Though they reached a settlement on most of the issues, the parties disagreed on various issues that included how attorney fees were calculated.

In its ruling today, the 7th Circuit held that Judge Barker correctly used a cut-off date for when Mark Shere’s legal work could stop being used to calculate the litigation costs and disbursements. The appellate panel upheld a $37,443.25 award for litigation costs and disbursements and denied the attorney’s request for prejudgment interest before Jan. 9, 2007; as well as ordered Shell to pay the $116,511.27 in corrective action costs incurred in May and June 2007.

The 7th Circuit did reverse Judge Barker on an issue about how Shere had billed for work that his wife -- an Indianapolis attorney who’s been on inactive status since 2005 – did during the litigation. The court made a “small calculation error” that it described as a clerical error that cost Mark Shere about $1,020.25 and should be corrected on remand.

A larger sticking point in the litigation was that Shere failed to disclose during the litigation that Employers Fire Insurance Company was funding the litigation. Judge Barker criticized Shere for not disclosing this, but didn’t go as far as determining fraudulent concealment as Shell alleged and stopped short of sanctioning him. The trial court denied a motion to vacate the judgment based on that issue, and the 7th Circuit affirmed that decision.

On the point where Shere argues about the District judge’s portrayal of him in a less than favorable light, the 7th Circuit wrote that an appeal isn’t the proper remedy for this even if the judge had found misconduct, which she didn’t.

“What Shere does not mention is that the district court was, in many places, equally critical of Shell’s approach to this case, and that it had some complimentary things to say about Shere,” the court wrote. “We sit to review judgments, not particular language in district court opinions, and Shere will have to be satisfied with our decision on the merits, which is largely favorable to him.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT