Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_00-cv-02031/USCOURTS-arwd-2_00-cv-02031-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.
Plaintiff
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
Defendant
Volvo Trucks North America, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC. PLAINTIFF 

V. Civil No. 00-2031

VOLVO GM HEAVY TRUCK CORPORATION

n/k/a VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. DEFENDANTS 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On this 22nd day of May 2006, there comes on for

consideration Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Attorneys’

Fees and Costs in Amended Judgment (Doc. 126), Defendant’s

Response (Doc. 131) and Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 132). 

Plaintiff sued Defendant for damages for violation of the

Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-72-201 et

seq. (AFPA), and for price discrimination under the RobinsonPatman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a) (RPA). Plaintiff prevailed at

trial, and on March 1, 2002, this Court entered a judgment

against Defendant in the amount of $513,750.00 on the AFPA

claim, $4,074,000.00 on the RPA claim (trebled from the jury

award of $1,358,000.00, $171,095.00 in attorneys’ fees, and

$25,175.42 in costs. (Doc. 101).

Defendant filed its notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit

Court of Appeals on May 29, 2002. (Doc. 112). On July 12,

2004, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment, and Defendant

filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States

Case 2:00-cv-02031-RTD Document 134 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

No question regarding Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to AFPA was before the U.S. Supreme 1

Court.

An amended judgment is being filed contemporaneously with this opinion. 2

-2-

Supreme Court. On March 11, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court

granted Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari (Doc. 123).

In its decision dated January 10, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court

held that the RPA was inapplicable and reversed and remanded the

case to the Eighth Circuit. On March 3, 2006, the Eighth 1

Circuit remanded the case to this Court with directions to enter

an amended judgment consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s

opinion. 

2

Plaintiff submits that it is entitled to an award of

attorneys’ fees and costs, to include those incurred in

conjunction with the appeal to the Eighth Circuit, as it was the

prevailing party with respect to the AFPA claim. Plaintiff

contends it should be awarded the full amount awarded in the

original judgment as the Court did not apportion the amount

between the AFPA and the RPA claims and further contends that

the two claims were based upon the same facts, therefore making

it difficult to apportion. Plaintiff further submits it is

entitled to recover attorneys’ fees for the appeal in the amount

of $67,376.56. Defendant maintains that the original fee award

must be substantially reduced to reflect Plaintiff’s limited

success following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and that the

Court should not consider any claim for appellate fees.

Case 2:00-cv-02031-RTD Document 134 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

In Hensley the Court was construing the provision for attorney fees found in 42 U.S.C. 3

§ 1988. However, “[t]he standards set forth in [the Hensley opinion] are generally applicable

in all cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a ‘prevailing party.’” Hensley

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. at 433, f.n.7.

-3-

The landmark case in relation to fixing fees is Hensley v.

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed.2d 40

(1983). In Hensley, the Supreme Court set forth a method to be 3

utilized in calculating the amount of the fee award. The court

is to first establish the lodestar amount--the number of hours

reasonably expended multiplied by the applicable hourly rate for

legal services. Once the lodestar amount has been determined,

the court must consider whether other factors not considered in

arriving at the lodestar amount suggest upward or downward

adjustment to arrive at the appropriate fee award. Hensley, 461

U.S. at 434. Following the trial, the Court utilized this

method and found $171,095.00 to be a reasonable attorneys’ fee.

The Court agrees with Defendant that this amount should be

reduced as Plaintiff’s damages award with respect to the RPA

claim was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.

Defendant contends the Court should reduce the original fee

award by at least 50% based upon the drastic reduction in the

amount of damages awarded to Plaintiff. Further, Defendant

argues that 178.1 hours are directly attributable to the RPA

claim amounting to $26,175.00 at $150 per hour. Plaintiff

concedes that some time was spent solely on the RPA claim but

maintains that much of the proof presented at trial pertained to

Case 2:00-cv-02031-RTD Document 134 Filed 05/22/06 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

both the RPA and the AFPA claims and would have been presented

even if Plaintiff had not pursued the RPA claim. We agree.

Success on the merits is important to a determination of the

reasonableness of a fee application, and the district court

should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in

relation to the results obtained. H.J. Inc. v. Flygt Corp., 925

F.2d 257 (8 Cir. 1991) citing Hensley, supra. The district th

court may either attempt to identify and then eliminate the

hours spent on non-compensable claims or may simply reduce the

award to account for the plaintiff’s limited success. Id.

Taking into account Plaintiff’s limited success and the

overlapping of Plaintiff’s proof at trial, the Court finds that

the original fee award should be reduced by 25% resulting in an

award of $128,321.25. The parties further agree that Defendant

is entitled to a credit of $15,428.35 pursuant to the U.S.

Supreme Court’s award of costs to Defendant.

Plaintiff also seeks $67,376.56 in attorneys’ fees for time

spent on the Eighth Circuit appeal. Defendant contends the

Court should not award any fees as the Eighth Circuit denied

Plaintiff’s fee request as untimely. Alternatively, Defendant

contends the requested amount should be reduced by 75% due to

Plaintiff’s limited success, activities not related to the

appeal, inappropriate block billing and unidentified

timekeepers. Plaintiff claims it failed to timely file its

Case 2:00-cv-02031-RTD Document 134 Filed 05/22/06 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

application for attorneys’ fees at the Eighth Circuit due to a

mistake in the interpretation and operation of the local rules

and that this Court is not precluded from considering the fee

request.

Rule 47(c)of the Rules of the Eighth Circuit provides for

an allowance of reasonable attorney fees upon motion by the

prevailing party filed with 14 days after the entry of judgment

or upon the court’s own motion. Further, the rule provides that

the fee request may be remanded to the district court at the

prevailing party’s request or on the court’s own motion. Here,

the Eighth Circuit declined to rule on Plaintiff’s fee request

as it was not timely filed and chose not to award fees on its

own motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’

fees incurred on appeal to the Eighth Circuit is DENIED.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's Motion for

Determination of Attorneys' Fees and Costs in Amended Judgment

is GRANTED to the extent that an amended judgment shall be

entered as follows:

1. Damages in the amount of $513,750.00 shall be awarded

on the AFPA claim; 

2. Plaintiff’s RPA claim shall be dismissed; and

3. attorneys’ fees and costs shall be awarded in the

amounts of $128,321.25 and $25,175.42, respectively, with a

Case 2:00-cv-02031-RTD Document 134 Filed 05/22/06 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

credit to Defendant in the amount of $15,428.35.

A separate amended judgment shall be filed concurrently

herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:00-cv-02031-RTD Document 134 Filed 05/22/06 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>