ILNews

COA: Award fees for litigation costs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals instructed a trial court today to follow its guidance on remand to determine the amount of money to award to a man who wants to recover fees for litigation at the trial and appellate levels. The court hopes to avoid another appeal of the case.

In Christopher Scott Barker v. City of West Lafayette and Officer Adam S. Ferguson,  No. 79A02-0804-CV-384, Christopher Barker appealed the denial of fees related to his litigation to recover fees. After being acquitted of resisting law enforcement and battery upon a law enforcement officer charges, Barker sued the city of West Lafayette on federal claims of false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. The jury found in favor of Barker on his false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. He filed a petition to recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. The trial court awarded him nearly $50,000, relying on Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974).

Barker appealed, and on remand the trial court recalculated his fees based on the lodestar method and awarded him $92,906. The trial court didn't believe he should receive compensation for the federal claim he lost or the fact the trial court originally relied on Johnson to calculate the fees.

Barker then filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court granted without a hearing or receiving a response from the city. The trial court set aside its previous decision in its entirety, recalculated Barker's attorney fees at a higher hourly rate, but stated it didn't compensate him for the lost claim or its previous use of Johnson. The new order included fees related to his excessive force claim but denied him nearly $57,000 in fees for litigation of the fee issue in the trial court, on appeal, and on remand.

The city filed a motion to correct error, arguing they weren't allowed sufficient time to respond to Barker's motion to correct error; the trial court re-affirmed its order.

In the instant case, the Court of Appeals ruled Barker was entitled the nearly $57,000 in fees for litigation that the trial court had denied because he was the prevailing party. The city's argument that Barker led the trial court to use Johnson to calculate his original fee award was unpersuasive, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

The appellate court affirmed the award of fees related to the excessive force claim, the hourly rate used by the trial court to calculate Barker's attorney fees award, and the award of paralegal fees. It found there was no reversible error committed by the trial court when it re-affirmed and re-entered its prior order, wrote the judge.

Judge Crone wrote in a footnote at the end of the opinion that the trial court should consider the Court of Appeals' guidance when determining on remand the amount of fees Barker is entitled to in order to avoid another appeal of the case and further expenditure of public funds.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Legal services required!
    please do your firm handles cases on breach of contract? please advise...

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT