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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT