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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT