## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 D ANIEL J. W ICK EN S an d P AME LA W I CKE NS, P laint if fs , an d

M AR K E. S HERE , A pp ellee, Cros s -Appe l l ant, v.

S HELL O IL C O M PA NY an d S HELL O IL P RO D UC TS C OMPAN Y, LLC , D efend a nts-A pp ella nts, C ross-A pp ellees.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:05- CV-645

— Sarah E vansBarker, Judg e.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 19, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 31, 20102 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620

O f th e N o rt h er n D ist ri ct o f Ill in o is, sit tin g b y d es ig n a tio n .  Befo re B AU ER an d W OO D , C i rcui t Judges, an d K ENNELL Y, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Though the pa r ti es ’ v o l um i no us filin gs m igh t s u gg es t o th er w ise , th is c as e h ad h u m b le beginnings and ther e i s no t m uch l eft o fi t at th i s poi nt. Pa m ela and Da niel W ickens ow ne d a sm allshoe store i n A nd er son, I nd i ana. The st or e r est ed on a p loto f lan d th at on c e h ad be en u se d as a Sh ell ga s s ta tio n . In 20 04, whenthe W i ckenses b eg anpr epa r i ngt o s el l the s t o r e a n d r e t i r e , th e y r e c e i v e d th e u n w e l c o me n e ws th at th eir st or e re st ed on a b ed of co n ta m in at ed so il. N ot l ong after, the W i ckens es re tai ned M ar k Sh er e a s th ei r a tt o r ne y a nd b eg ant al k s wi thS he l l r eg ar d in g i ts l i ab i l i tyf o r the c o ntam i na ti o n. The i r di sc us si o ns cen tered l argely on Shell’ s resp ons ibi li ties un d er I nd iana’s U nd ergrou nd Storage Ta nk A ct (the “A ct”o r the “U ST A ”), I nd. Co de § 13

- 23

- 13

- 8. Thi s st atut e pr o vi des tha t an y perso n w ho t ake s co rr ecti ve ac ti on t o re m edy dam age c au se d by an u n d er gr ou n d s to ra ge ta n k m ay ob ta in a contr ibuti on f ro m the own er or oper ato r of th e t an k. I nd

. Code § 13- 23- 13- 8( b)

. I fthe partyta ki ng co rrect i ve act i o n b r i ng s a s uc c e s s ful s ui t, s he i s a l s o e nt i tl ed to at to rn ey s’ fe es . Id. Di ss at i sfi ed wi ththe o ut co m e o ftho se di sc us si o ns , the W i ck en se s fi l ed su i t o n M ar ch24 , 20 05
. M uchl eg alwra ng li ng f o l l o wed, b ute ve ntua l l y the pa r ti es ha m m er ed o ut a se tt l ementa g r ee m en t th atr es o l ve d m o sto ftheN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 3 l i ng er i ngl i ab i l i tyi ss ue s. Cr i ti ca l l y f o r o urpur po se s, the agr eem ent pr ovi ded thatthe cal cul ati on o fco rre c tive acti on co sts and att or neys’ fees w oul d b e l eft t o the c ourt
. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d m o st, b utno t al l, ofthe W ickens es’ requ ests for corrective acti o n cos ts an d attorneys’ fees . A fterthe cour t i ssued i ts deci si on, S he re r eveal ed f orthe fi rst t i m e that the W i ckens es’ l i ti gat i on team had been fun d ed in p art by E m p loyers Fi re I ns uran c e C om p an y (“ E m p loy er s” ). S h e l l qu ick ly filed a R u le 60(b) m oti on t o vacat e, wh i ch the court d eni ed. Both parti es have a p peal ed. W e co ncl ud e that the di str i ct cour t m ade the best of a f ra cti ous si tuati on and bu t fo r a sm al l c al cul at i o n mi st ak e, we fi nd no th i nge r r o ne o us i n i ts j ud gm ent. Thus, we affi rm in p ar t a nd r eve rs e an d r emand i n pa r t f o r furt he r pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

I Th e di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o pi ni o n pr o v i de s a n e xh a us ti ve acco unt ofthe back gr ound to this c as e. Se e Wi cke ns v. She l l O i l Co. , 569 F. Sup p . 2d 770, 773-83 (S.D. I nd

. 2008). M uch ofthatdetai l i s unnec essaryto the re sol uti on o f thi s a pp e a l, ho we v e r, a nd s o we l i mi t o ur s e l v e s to a bri efr ehear salo fthe f acts thatr em ai n pert i nent. Befo re putti ng the i r l and on the m ar ket, i n J uly20 04 the W i ckens es hi re d H ydro Tech Corpor ati on t o conduct an enviro nm entali nvest i gat i on o fthe soi l

. Bor i ngs r eveal e d tha tthe l a nd wa s c o nt a mi na t e d wi th po l l ut ants th at pr o babl y ha d l ea k ed fr o m a n un der g r o und4 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 gas ol i ne st or age ta nk. A c ting pu rs uant to not i fi cati on re quir em ents i m posed by I nd i ana l aw , H ydro Tech re

po r te d the l ea kto the I ndi an a Depa r tmento fEnv i r o nmen t a l Man a g e men t( “ I DEM” )

. I DEM the n s e nta letter to t h e W ickens es inform ing the m that they w ere r es po nsibl e as th e pr o per tyo wner s f o r c ar r y i ngo ut fur th eri nv es ti g at i o ns i nt o the natu r e o fthe l ea k

. The W i ck en se s res po nde d b y hi r i ngS he r e an d a utho r i zing H ydro Tech to pursue furtheri nvest i gat or y work

. As pa r t o fi ts i nv es ti g at i o n, Hydr o Te ch e xa m i ne d the soi l o fa nei ghbor i ng p ro pertyow ned by Ric hard Gardner and fo und thatit too w as conta m i nated. The Gardner p ro p er ty als o h ad form er ly h os te d a ga s s ta tio n, bu t it ha d b e e n a ffi l i a t e d wi th a di ff e r e nto i l c o mpa ny . A f ter H ydro Tech subm i tte d i ts fin d i ngs t o I DE M , the Dep ar tm en t se nta le tt eri n Nov embe r 2 00 4 i nf o r m i ngthe W i c k e ns e s tha tthe y we r e n o w r e s po ns ib l e f o r i nv esti gat i ng the Gardner proper ty as w el l . T h i s pro ved to be a tu r ni ngpo i nti n the pa r ti es ’ di spu te ; i n the months that fol lo wed, the y f o ug htb i tt er l y o ve r the s o ur ce o fthe co nt ami na nt s an d S he l l ’ s r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r r emedi at i ng th e G ard ne r prop erty. R elyi ng o n H yd roTe ch ’s dete rm i nati on that the W i ckens es’ pro pertywas the l i kely sour ce o fthe conta m i nati on, the W ick enses bel i eve d that Shel l sho uld have as sum ed fullr esp on sibi l i ty f or the e nti re I DEM i nv e s t i g a t i o n. S he l l, o n the o the r h a nd , f o un d Hy dr o Te c h’ s a na l y s i s wa nt i ng a nd i ns i s t e d that I DE M bi furcat e the i nvest i gat i on o fthe tw o parce l s. U na b l e t o c o nv i nc e S he l l t o a g r e e t o the W i c k e ns e s ’ l i st ofdem ands, S h er e fi l ed thi s l aw sui t in M ar ch 200 5. Over th e co ur se o fthe ne xt ye ar, the pa r ti es o ff er ed co m pet i ngN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 5 envi ro nm entalas ses sm ents and vi ed for co ntro l o f the I DE M i nvest i gat i on. Bom bar ded with the par ti es’ confl i cti ng i deas f or further i nvest i gat i ons, I DE M deci ded that i t would dealexcl usi vel y w ith the W i ckens es as of N o ve m be r 2 00 6. M ak i ngmatt er s wor se f o r S he l l, the d i s t r i c t c o u r td e n i e d th e c o mp a n y ’ s mo t i o n f o r s u mm ary j ud gm en t, fi nd ing th a t S h elli n all li keli hood bore ful l r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r the c o nt ami na ti o n. A t thi s p oi nt, the W i ckens es had a si gni fi cant am ount o f leverage, w hich pu t Shell in a bind

. A s the district cou rt puti t, “ [ s] o l ong a s th e l i ti g at i o n c o nt i nue d a nd the W ickens es retained ow ne rship of th e real estat e, She re an d Hydr o Te chc o nt r o l l ed an y a nd al l r es po ns es t o the ID E M -d ire c te d inv es tig at ion an d rem ed iat ion an d co u ld e l e c t t o c o nt i nu e t o i nc ur, o r g e ne r a t e , c o s t s tha t, under U STA , would be on S hel l ’ s di m e. ” 5 69 F. S up p. 2d at77 9- 80
. The pa r ti es sp en t a l o t o ft i m e ha g g l i ngo ve r the te rm s o f a se tt lem en t a gr ee m en t, bu t t h e y w er e u n ab le to reac h a ny c o ns en su s. I n the mean ti m e, S he r e an d H ydro Tech cont i nued to r ack up add i ti onalat torneys’ f ees and cor re cti ve acti on co sts
. I n an e ff or t t o sta unch th e run aw ay f ees and prom ote set tl em ent, the d ist rict co urt enter ed an o rdero n J anuary9, 20 07, te m pora ril y fre ezi ng the part i es’ l i abi l i ty f orea ch other’ s a tto rney s’ and exp er ts’ fees . I t instr ucted the pa rt ies to use thi s t i m e t o sel ect a m utual l y a cceptabl e ind ependent consul tant, wh o w oul d i nvest i gat e the pr oper ty and subm i t a j oint r epor t t o I D E M
. Though th e fr e e z e wa s t o l a s to nl y thr e e mo nths , S he r e s ubm i tte d ane m er g en cymot i o n ch al l en g i ngthe s o - ca l l ed “t i m e- o ut6 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 per i o d, ” ar g ui ngtha t i t un d er m i ne d the pur po se o fthe Act. T h e c o u r twa s n o tmo v e d t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s d e c i si o n, but i t di d l eave o pen t h e p ossibi l i ty ofr eco ver y forfees “upon a s how i ng o fextr em el y goo d cause a nd cl ear necess i ty.” Despi te the c ourt ’ s warni ngs, the parti es bo thc onti nue d t o i nc urs ubs ta nt i ale xpe ns es dur i ng th is period; ostens ibl y, th ose ex p en ses w er e f or oversi ght o fth e worko fthe i nd ependent consul tant. A fter the “ ti m e- out peri od” expi re d, H ydro Tech cont i nu ed to wo r ko n the l a nd p ur sua ntt o a wo r kp l a n I DEM a pprove d on M ar ch 28, 20 07. Aft era s er i es of mee ting s wi tha magi st r at e j udg e, the p arties even tu all y w ere abl e t o nail d ow n th e d etails ofa s e t t l e me n ta g r e e me n t
. U nd e r th e a g r e e me n t, S h e l l p r o mi sed to purchase the W i ckens es’ pro pertyf or$1 39, 900 and to pay $6 0, 100 i n “pro pertydam age s. ” The p arti es sti pu l ate d that the W i ckens es w er e e nti tl ed to attorneys’ f ees and cor re ctive ac ti on co sts , but they del ega ted to the c ourtthe j ob ofcal cul ati ng the am ount o ftho se cos ts. I n cal cul at in g the fee aw ar d, the di str i ct c ourtawarded the W i ckens es m os t o fwh at they w anted, but i t decl i ned to aw ar d anythi ng f oratto rneys’ fees i ncurr ed after Janu a r y 9, 2007. Shere’s w ork after that d ate, the cou rt expla i ned, was aim ed atachi evi ng succe sse s unre l ate d to the g oal s o fthe A ct a nd thus i t was n ot com pensabl e. Si m i lar ly, the cour t r efused to put She l l o n the hookf or H ydro Tech’s expenses past thi s date , with the exce pti on o fthe c o st s r el ated to wor kde vo te d t o c ar r y i ngo ut I D E M ’s M arc h 20 07 w ork plan

. Si nc e the fee aw ard w as not eas i l y a scer tai nabl e, the c ou rtdeci ded notto aw ar d prej ud gm ent inter est
.N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 7 N atur al l y, thi s was notthe en d . S hel l fi l ed postj udg m en t m o ti o ns unde r b o thF ED . R. C IV . P. 5 9( e) a nd 60(b)

. The co urt gr an te d in p ar t S hel l ’ s Rul e 5 9( e) m oti on to m odi fy o r al terthe j ud gm ent b y d ed u c ti ng fees that Sh er e re c eiv ed for t h e le ga l se rv ice s a tt rib u t a b l e t o h is w i f e, Col l een Sher e. A l though Col l een Sher e ha d o nce been l i censed t o pr ac tic e l aw i n I nd i ana, she had al l owed her l aw l i cense to l apse. The court concl ud ed that Sher e had i m proper l y b i l l ed herhour s as a tto rney ser vi ces and thus thos e a m ounts shoul d n ot h av e be en i nc l ude d i n h i s awar d. Af te r thi s dedu ction, the W i ck en se s recei ve d $ 39 1, 30 7. 83 i n a tt o r ne y s’ fee s an d $116 , 511. 27 f orco rr ecti ve acti on co sts
. Shel l ’ s Rul e 6 0( b) m oti on a ske d the co urt to vacat e it s j u d gm en t o n th e g ro u n d th at Sh er e h a d frau d u len tly co nc e a l e d Empl o y e r s ’ s r o l e i n fun di ng a l a r g e part of the Wi c k e ns e s ’ l i t i g a t i o n e ff o r t s . T he di s t r i c tc o ur ta dm on ish ed Sh er e fo r failin g t o d isc los e h is re lat ion sh ip w i th Em ploye rs wh en the i ssue offee ar ra ngem ents w as d iscus sed at a recen t hea ring. N everth eles s , the cou rt co nc l ude d tha t S he r e’ s ev as i ve ne ss di d no t war r an t r el i efunde r Rul e 60

. S he l l has a ppea l ed. Af te r the di s t r i c t c o ur t g r a nt e d S he r e ’ s mot i o n t o a l l o w hi m to appear in the case i n his ow n nam e a s the r ealparty i n i nt er es t, S he r e ha s cr o ss - appe al ed. ( W e a re no t co nce r ne d he r e ab o utthe a bil ity o fa ny c r edi to r o fthe W ick en se s t o re ac h th os e fu n d s, cf. A st ruev. Ra tl if f, 13 0 S. Ct. 25 21 ( 2010 ) ( hol ding that an award offees under th e E q u al A c c es s t o Ju st ice A c t, 28 U .S.C . § 24 12 (d ), i s p ay ab le t o t h e litig an t, n ot to th e a tt or n ey , an d th u s is av ai l ab l e to o ff se t a deb t to the g o vern m en t); a s no o ne8 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 has chal l enged the di strictco urt’ s deci si on t o al l ow S he r e t o a p p e a r a s th e p a r t y - i n - i n t e r e s t, we h a ve no fu rt h er co m m en t a b ou t it .)

II To a gr eat d egr ee, the i ssues o n the appeal and cr oss appeal o verl ap. S hel l and Sher e bo th at tackthe dist ri ct cour t’ s ca l cul atio n of att or neys’ fees and cor re cti ve acti on co sts
. S here thi nks th at the c ourtsho uld nothave used a cut
- o ffda te a t al l, a nd b o thpa r ti es di spu te the par ti cul arda te the c o ur t se l ecte d

. S he r e al so c o nt es ts the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s t re atm ent o ffees at tr ibuted to Col l een Sher e’ s workand the cour t’ s t abul ati on o fhi s bi l l s. W hatev erthe si ze ofthe att or neys’ fe es and cor re cti ve acti o n c o s t s a wa r d, S he r e c o nt e nd s tha t he i s e nt i t l e d to pr ej udg m en t i nt er es t. F o r i ts pa r t, S he l l a r g ue s th atthe di st r i ct c o ur t’ s dec i si o n s ho ul d ha ve b ee n t o ss ed o ut und erRule 60 ( b) bec ause Sher e m isr epres ented hi s fee ar ra ngem ent. Lastl y, S here quarr el s with the dist ri ct cour t’ s fi nd i ng s that a re cr i ti calo fhi s pro f ess i onal i sm an d ca n d or . W e a d d re ss ea c h iss u e in tu rn an d ap p ly the l aw o fI nd i ana, as thi s ca se i s ba sed o n the dive rs i ty j ur i sdi ct i o n.

A Tho ug h tr i al co ur ts ar e g i ve n wi de l at i tu de i n f orm ulat in g a w ar d s o f a t t or n ey s’ fe es , th eir d isc re tio n is cabine d i n a few i m port ant r espect s. I nd i ana co urts l oo kN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 9 f o r g ui dan ce t o a s er i es o fc o m m o n-s en se f ac to r s se t o ut i n the sta te’ s Rules o fPro f ess i onalCondu ct. S ee I nd

. Rule s ofPro f ess i onal Cond uct 1. 5( a) ( disc ussi ng thi ngs l i ke custo m ar y fees f orsi m i l arl ega l se rv i ces, ti m e, and l abor re quir ed). W hen the parti es haggl e o verthe num bero f att or n ey hour s bi l l ed, I nd i ana co urts per m i t the j ud ge to ta ke int o a c c ou n t t h e “ re sp on sib i l i t y of th e p ar tie s in i ncurr i ng the at torneys’ fee s. ” Weiss v. Ha rper, 80 3 N
. E.2 d 20 1, 2 08 ( I nd. Ct

. A pp. 2 00 3)

. F o r c as es r el y i ngo n the U nd er gr ound Sto ra ge Tank A ct, a cour t m ust a l so be car eful to al l oca te att or ney hours to each parti cul ar cause ofact i on, bec ause a co urt cannot “author i ze re i m bur se m en t o ffee s i nc ur r ed i n pur su i ng . . . no n- USTA cl ai m s . . . , r ega rdl ess o fh ow c los el y r el ate d those cl ai m s m i ght b e to the USTA cl ai m . ” She l l O i l Co. v. M eyer, 6 84 N .E .2d 5 04 , 524 (Ind . C t. A p p . 199 7); sum m arily a ffirm ed in releva nt p a rt, 705 N
. E
. 2d 962, 981 (1998 ). N oting tha t the A ct pr ote cts only a nar ro w r i ght t o con t r ib ut i o n f r o m a n o pe r a t o r f o r c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n c o sts , the di stric t cour t co ncl ud ed that the s tatutor y purpose i s s ati sfi ed “once a defe nd ant a ccepts i ts legalo bl i gati o n a nd a g r ee s to a ss um e r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r r emedi at i ng the si te. ” Wi cke ns , 56 9 F
. S up p. 2d at79 1. A fterthi s poi nt, an y fu rt h er ac tio n by th e p lain tiff’s a t t o r n ey logic ally m ust r el ate to cl ai m s o utsi de the sco pe ofthe A c t f or add i ti onaldam age s o r i nd em ni fi cati on. A pp l yi n g i ts st atut o r y - pur po se t es t, the di st r i ctc o ur t se l ec te d J an uary 9, 20 07, as th e dat e afte r whi ch S he r e’ s eff o r ts w ere no l o ng erf o cus ed on o bt aini ngr el i efunde r the Acta nd thus were not re cove rabl e from S hel l

. By J anuary9, 20 07,10 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 Shel l had off er ed to cov er al l o fthe W i ckens es’ past an d fut ure c orr ec ti ve a ct i o n c o st s; a l l tha t r emai ne d, the di s t r i c tc o ur te xp l a i ne d, we r e c l a i ms o ut s i de the s c o pe ofthe A ct foraddit i onaldam age s a nd at torneys’ fees . A s the par ti es have ra i sed o bj ecti ons to va riou s a spects ofthe di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n o n f e e s , i t i s he l pful to cl arify the st andard ofr evi ew thatper tai ns to ea ch i ssue. We r e v i e w deno vo the di st r i ct c o ur t’ s l eg ala na l y si s an d metho do l o g y, whi c h i nc l ud e s i t s de c i s i o n t o e mp l oy an ap p ro ac h ba se d on st at u to ry p u rp os e. M ontgom ery v . A etna P lyw o o d, Inc ., 2 3 1 F
. 3 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 )

. The appli cati on o fthatte st, as sum i ng th at i t i s the co rr ect o ne , i s su bj ec t to a mor e l en i en t ab us e- o f

- di sc r et i o n s ta nd ar d

. A nderso n v. AB Pa inti ng and Sa ndblast ing, Inc. , 57 8 F.3d 542 , 544 (7th C ir. 2009). W e begin w i th the fund am ental questi on w h ether th e c ou rt ’s u se of t h e st at u to ry -p u rp os e te st w as p er m iss ibl e. Ratherthan l oo ki ng atpurpose, S he re c on tends that the Act perm i ts re i m burse m ent o fal l fees thatco ntribute to th e pla i nti ff s’ succe ss. I n so ar gui ng, he r el i es on th e f o l low ing st at ementi n the s ta tu te : “ A per so n who brings a s uc ces s

f ul ac t i on to re cei ve a co ntributi on fro m an o w n ero r oper ato r i s a l so enti tl ed to r ecei ve re asonab l e a tto rney ’ s fees and cour t co sts fro m the own er or op er at or .” In d . C od e § 13 -23 -13 -8(b ) (em p h as is add ed). S here co ntends thatthe dist ri ct c ourti gnor ed si gn ifica nt l ega l vi cto ri es that he achi eve d fo r hi s cl i ents aft er Jan u ar y 9, 20 07
. T h is arg u m en t, h ow ev er , e n t ire ly i gn or es the f act that the Ind i ana co urts have i nter prete d the s tatutor y l anguage to b e lim i ted to cl ai m s underN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 11 th e Act; i n M eyer, the cou rtexpre ssl y hel d that fees m ay not be aw ar ded on the basi s of non- A ct cl ai m s. 684 N
. E.2 d at 5 24. T h e d i str i ct c ourtwas ther ef or e co rr ect t o di sr ega rd the f a c ttha tthe Wi c k e ns e s r e c e i v e d a lar ge lum p -su m p ay m en t fro m Sh ell or th at Sh ell pro mi s e d t o i nd e mni fy the W i c k e ns e s f o r t o r tl i abi l i tyr el at ed to the c o nt ami na ti o n. S he r e al so com p la i ns , r el y i ngo n Ande rs on , 57 8 F
. 3d at 545, thatthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp ro ac h t o att or neys’ fees w as inap p rop riately gu ided by i ts con cern that the p arti es’ l i ti gat i on co sts were dispr opor ti onate t o the v al ue o f the W i ckens es’ pro perty
. The r eco rd, how ev er , doe s no t su ppo r t th i s ac cus at i o n. S he r e po i nts t o onl y a few i nstanc es wher e th e co ur t m ade a n o ff

- ha nd r eferen ce co m par i ng th e r el at i ve si ze o f th e sett l ement wi th S h e r e ’ s a t t o r n e y s ’ fe e s r e q u e s t
. A t mo s t, th e s e c o mm ents m i gh t i nd i cate thatthe cour t m om entar i l y l ost si gh t of the l ar ge proj ecte d costo ffuture cor re cti ve acti on. The co urt’ s r em ar ks do not, howe ver, i m plythat i t ca lcu late d i ts f ee aw ar d usi ng an i napp ro pri ate pro port i onal i ty anal ysi s. The o nl y r eas onabl e infe re nce f r o m th e r e c o r d i s th a tth e d i s p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s we r e t he tim e when the fees were i ncurr ed and thei r re l ati on t o the W i ckens es’ cl ai m s under the Act, and nothi ng el se. The c o ur t’ s dec i si o n t o r el y o n the pur po se b eh i nd the A ct was t h er efore supp or ted byI nd i ana l aw and not othe rwis e o bj ecti onable. Th e m or e di ffi cul t quest i on

— or at l eas t the questi on to w hi ch the parti es h av e d evo ted m or e e nergy

— re lat es to the c ourt ’ s s el ecti on o fa date bywhi chthe s ta tu to r y pu rp ose was ful l y s at i sfi ed. The12 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620

cou rt use d J an ua ry 9, 200 7, as the ap p rop riate cut-off date. Shel l sugge sts thre e ear l i er al ter nati ve d at es as bett erchoi ces: Ja nuary 13, 20 05; A ugust 2 1, 20 06; o r N ove m ber21 , 20 06. S here , notsur pri si ngl y, urg es us to choos e a l ate r date. W e co nsi d er fir st w hetheri t was an abuse o fdi scr eti on to choos e a ny d at e l ate r than J anuary13 , 20 05, wh en S he l l ’ s attorne y a l l eg edl y o ff er ed to r emedi at e th e W i ckens es’ pro pertyand to r espond i n go od f ai th to ID E M . A ss u m in g th at Sh ell d id in fa c t m ak e t h is offe r, a fac t Shere con tests , the d istri ct cou rt found that Shell’ s re fusalto take re sponsibi l i ty f orthe Gardner pr oper ty was a n abdi ca ti o n o fthe dut i es th e companyo wed t o the W i ckens es und erthe A ct. I DE M , r ecal l, had com bi ned bo thpi ec es o fpr o per tyi nt o a s i ng l e i nv esti gati o n, a nd the di str i ct c ourtf ound that the s ta te agency’ s a cti on eff ec ti ve l y made th e W i ck en se s r es po ns ibl e forthe G ar d n er p ro p er ty . U n d er th os e c irc u m st an c es , i t w ou ld n ot m ak e a n y s en se fo r t h e W ick en se s t o a gr ee to lim it Shel l ’ s l i abi l i ty s olel y t o thei r own pro pertywh en the y be l i ev ed that S he l l s ho ul d a l so b e o n the ho o kf o r the l i abi l i ty the W i ckens es f aced be cause Shel l ’ s t anks al l egedl y c aused har m to the Gardner pr oper ty. Shel l co ntends th at the Act does not re quir e i t t o tak e r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r a no th erpe r so n’ s pr op er tya nd thus th ata tt o r ne y s’ fee s wer e no t av ai l ab l e f o r th is pa r t o fthe W i ckens es’ cas e. T h e A ct, however, speci fi cal l y pr ovi des that any perso n wh o ei thervo l untari l y o r by or der fro m I DE M undertak es cor re cti ve acti ons “i s e nti tl ed to re ceive a co ntributi on fro m a perso n w ho o w ned orN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 13 oper ate d the undergr ound storag e tank. ” Ind

. Code § 13- 23

- 13

- 8(b)

. Thi s l an g ua g e sh o ws tha t i t i s i r rel ev an t und erthe A ct whether the per son or dered to ta ke acti on o wns the pr o per ty, a nd thus tha t Sh el l ’ s ar g um en t c an n ot p re va il. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtals o e rre d , S h ell as se rt s, w h en it f o un d t hat the Wi c k e ns e s “ l a c k e d the p o we r . . . t o a c c e pt S he l l ’s par ti ala cc ept an ce o fr es po ns ibi l i ty ” i n J an uar y 2 005. B ecause the A ct a l l owed the W i ckens es to re cove r a “ contr ibuti on” f ro m S hel l, S hel l r eas ons that the W i ckens es had the ab i l i ty to a c c ept S hel l ’ s o ff erto c ov er a p or tio n o ft h e liab ility . Th ou gh th is is o b vio u sly t r ue , i ti s b e s i de the p o i nt
. T he Wi c k e ns e s h a d a r i gh t unde r the Actt o ho l d S he l l l i ab l e f o r the ful l e xtent ofthe correctiv e a cti on co sts theyo w ed, and that amoun t was g r eatertha n the o ff erS he l l was making at the t i m e. Shel l ’ s fi rs t f al lbackposit i on fro m i ts prefer re d date o f J anuary20 05 i s A ugust 2 1, 20 06, wh i ch i s when itsubmi t t e d i t s Fu r th e r S i t e I n v e s t i g a t i o n w o r kp l a n t o I D E M. Shellas ser ts that a few m onths ear l i er, o n M ar ch 13, 2006 , i t info rm ed I DE M thati t would t ake r es p on sibi l i ty f o r t h e Wi c k e n s e s ’ p r o p e r t y . D e l i v e r y o fth e wo r kp l an, i t co nti nues, was the fin al s tep nee ded to ta ke fullr esponsibi l i ty und erthe A ct. The di st rict co urt rej ecte d thi s a l ter nati ve date be cause Shel l’s w ork pla n w as nei therapprov ed by I DE M n oracc om panie d by a n express co m m i tm ent t o i nd em ni fy the W i cken ses f or future cor re cti ve acti on cos ts. Ind eed, at that ti m e Sh ell w as sti l l co ntending that som e of t h e co ntam i nati on o n14 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 the W i ckens es’ pro pertywas att ributabl e t o the o ther com pany’s ta nks o n the Gardner l ot. Inco n te st in g t h e d i s t ric t c ou rt ’s c on c lu sio n, Sh ell ar g ue s th atI DEM ’ s r ej ec ti o n ofi ts wor kpl ani s i r r el ev an t to the fee i nquir y, i nti m ati ng tha t i t w as suffi ci ent for She llto m ake a good -f aith effort to com p ly w ith I D E M ’s di r ec ti ve s. Eve n i f th i s w ere true

— and w e a re not sa yin g t h at it is

— th e di st rictc o ur t was e nt i tl ed to fi nd tha tS he l l h a d n o tme te v e n tha tmo r e mo de s ts t a nd a r d. N otabl y, as o f A ugust 2 1, 20 06, S hel l st i l l had not prom i sed to co verthe W i ckens es’ co rr ecti ve acti on cos ts. I nd em ni fyi ng the W i ckens es f orthes e co sts, Shel l co unters , i s o utsi de the sc op e o fthe A ct b ecause “i nde mn i fi c a t i o n a n d s t a t u t o r y c o n t r ib u t i o n ” a r e “ t wo separ ate theo ri es. ” B o urbo n M ini-M a rt, Inc
. v. G a st Fuel Servic es, Inc. , 783 N .E .2d 25 3, 25 7 (In d . 200 3). Bour b on M in i -M a rt, h ow ev er , d oe s n ot h elp Sh ell, be c au se in that case the cour t w as draw i ng a dist i ncti on be tw een i nde m ni fi ca ti o n f o r t o r t cl ai m s an d l i ab i li ty underthe A c t. Id. at 25 6-5 7. T h e W ick en se s’ re q u es t fo r in d em n ifica tio n ag ain st fu tu re co rre c tiv e a c tio n co st s d ea ls strictl y with the l i abi l i ty i m posed pursuant to the Act. A s the A c t p e rm its plaintiff s to recover futu re corr ec ti ve a ct i o n c o st s, the r e is no i m pedi m en t to s ee k i ng in d em n ifica tio n u n d er its te rm s. M eyer, 68 4 N

. E.2 d at 52 0-2 1. Shel l ’ s fi nal f al lbackdate i s Novem ber21 , 20 06, the day w he n it offered “t o pa y 100% of th e pa st an d fut u re c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n c o s t s a tth e Wi c k e n s p r o p e r t y, t o i n d e mni fy the W i ckens and any future own er s o r tenants o fN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 15 the pr oper ty aga i nst these cos ts
. . . , and to pay re aso nabl e co sts o fl i ti gat i on a s dete rm i ned by the Cou rt .” Though the di str i ct cou rt adm i tte d that “ [ Sher e’ s] eff or ts at thi s poi nt to co l l ect att or n ey s’ f ees and re paym ent o f cos ts f ro m S hel l cl ear l y a pp earto be dri vi ng t he l i ti gati on, ” i t r eco gni zed thatnego ti ati ons ove r att or neys’ fees w as “rou tine” an d noth ing ind icated that Shere’s acti o ns i n pr o l o ng i ngthe l i ti g at i o n a t th i s st ag e w ere unreas onabl e. S hel l ’ s r efusalto acc ept the m agi str ate j ud ge’ s Decem ber20 06 set tl em ent pr oposa l, the dist ri ct c ou rtrea so n ed , i m p lied th at Sh ell to o w as res p on sib le f o r the c o nt i nua ti o n o fthe l i ti g at i o n. Sh ell c om es clo se st to a re as on ab le p os itio n w ith th is argu m en t, bu t w e are sat is fied that the d istri ct cou rt did notabuse i ts d iscr eti on wh en i t r ej ecte d thi s o pti on as w el l

. A s the co urt note d, thi s o ffer di d not r eso l ve the i ssue ofthe preci se am ount of c os ts and fe es that Shel l would ass um e. S here r esponded to i t with an em ai l dated N ove m ber3 0, 20 06, i n w hi ch he di d propose s p ecifi c nu m bers, but Sh ellrej ecte d that cou nt eroffer. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o o kth e p o s i t i o n th a tS h e l l ’ s N o v e mber21 , 20 06, o ff erdi d not e ff ecti vel y r eso l ve the c ase ; th e r e i s no r i g i d r ul e s a y i ng tha t o ff e r s t o l i t i g a t e m ust be accepte d. Se e Mo r i a r tyv. Sv e c& S o n s F u n e r a l Ho me, 23 3 F
. 3d 95 5, 967-68 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( no tingtha t a se tt l ement offer i s only one of m an y factors to be taken i nt o cons iderati on wh en awardi ng at torneys’ fees ) . T h ou gh the fees aw ar ded by the cour t a re r equi re d to be reasonab l e, coun selm ay l egi ti m ate l y ho l d out f ora bett erdeal( f or atl ea sts o m e ti m e) b ecau se fee l i ti g at i o n i s co st l y a nd o ft e n i s n o tr e i mbu r s e d a s p a r to fthe fe e a wa r d.16 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 H avi ng di spose d ofS hell’s chal l enges to the dist ri ct c o u r t ’ s cho i c e o fJ a n u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 7, a s th e c u t
- o ffd a t e , we tu rn n ow to Sher e ’s a rgum en ts for a later dat e. She re cri ti ci zes the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d eci si on be cause i t was base d i n p ar t on the cour t’ s e ar l i er“t i m e- out” or der tem p oraril y l im iti ng attorn eys’ fees. Th at ord er, Shere as se rt s, co n flict ed w ith th e fe e- sh iftin g p ro vis ion s in the A ct. A s detai l ed abov e, the dist ri ct c ou rt p er m i tte d Sher e t o re cove r f ees i ncurr ed afterS hel l ’ s Novem ber21 , 2006 , settlem en t offer, becau se it r ecogn ized that Shere needed som e t i m e t o try to t ie up the l astfew detai l s o f a fullse ttl em ent. But the cour t was e n tit l ed to f or ce a n en d to that p rocess , a n d t h a t is j us t w ha t it d id by d eterm i ni ng tha t o n J anuary9, 20 07, i t would notw ait an y lon ge r for th e p ar tie s t o re so lve th e fe e d isp u te . In f act, the cour t w as m or e gener ous than thi s, si nce it re str i cted fees f or onl y 90 days w hi l e the l i ti gat i on was on p au se . Th er e w as th u s litt le re as on for Sh e r e ’ s h yp erb olic emer gen cymot i o n t o r ec o ns i derthe i m po si ti o n o fthe

“ t i me - o u t ” p e r i o d

. T h e c o u r ts aw S h e r e ’ s o v e rb l o wn re acti on a s evi dence thatby thi s t i m e he w as unnecessa r i l y e xpa ndi ngthe s co pe o fthe I DEM i nv es ti g at i o n. Sher e al so chal l enges the dist ri ct cour t’ s deci si on to deny fees r el ate d t o th e w or k he did afterJ anuary9, 20 07, d ra ftin g t h e s et tle m en t a gr ee m en t. T h e c os ts as so c iat ed w ith p u tt in g a n ag re em en t in to w rit in g w ou ld have been i ncurr ed eve n i fthe W i ckens es had agr eed to s e t t l e b e f o r e J a n u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 7
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d , h o weve r, award Sher e fees f orth e m onth a nd a hal fafter S he l l o ff er ed to l i ti g at e th e f ee a war d i n c o ur t. Thi s, the c o u r tw a s e n t i t l e d t o c o n c l u d e , w a s e n o u g h

. T h e s a meN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 17

re as on in g a p p lies to Sh er e ’ s co n te n tio n th at h e s h ou ld h ave bee n awarded fe es f orhi s worki n l i ti gat i ng hi s fee peti ti on. The dist ric t co urt did notabuse i ts disc re ti on w hen i t cho se not to sor t thro ugh Sher e’ s bi l l s t o cal cul ate ho w m an y ho ur s wer e d evo te d s o l el y t o fi na l i zingthe set tl em ent a gr eem ent o r l i ti gat i ng the fee dispute. The cut- offdate i s no t the o nl y b on e of content i on S he r e ha s wi ththe di st r i ct cou rt. He a l so o bj ec ts t o the cour t’ s decis i on t o gr ant S hel l ’ s Rul e 5 9( e) m oti on r eq u es tin g t h at C olle en Sh er e’s f e e s b e d ed u c te d from h is f e e a wa r d. ( Th e a wa r d di d no t i de nt i fy Co l l e e n S here as the r eci pie nt o fthes e fees ; i nstea d, they w er e f ol ded i nt o Shere ’ s o wn awar d. ) The di st r i ctc o ur t ex pla i ned that these fees could notbe re cove re d because Col l ee n S he r e was no t a l i ce ns ed attor ne y a nd thus w as not auth or ize d to bi l l herse rv i ces as an at torney unde r Rul e 5. 5 o fthe Indi an a Rul es o fPr o f es si o na l Co ndu ct. O n ap p eal, Shere con ten d s tha t C oll een Shere’s w ork w as cos t- eff ecti ve and consi ste nt with th e pr acti ce o f unl i ce ns ed at to r ne y s te m po r ar i l y wor k i ngunde r the su pervi si on o fo therat torneys w hi l e they s eekan I nd i an a license. Yet, as the dist ri ct c ourtpoi nted out, Col l een S here w as n ot acti vel y t ry i ng to r ei nstat e her l i ce ns e. Nothi ngpr ev en te d S he r e f r o m s i m pl y b i l l i ng Col l ee n S he r e’ s ti m e us i ngs o m e no n- at to r ne y de si g na ti o n. Sh er e no te s th at ev en if th e d ist ric t cou rt p r o p er ly ex clud ed the fees assoc iated w ith C oll ee n Sh ere’s w ork product , the cour t m ade a sm al l cal cul ati on e rr orthat sh o ul d b e co r r ec te d. I n i ts A ug us t 2 00 8 fi na l j udg m en t18 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620

or der, the cour t a w ar de d 8 9% o fCol l een S here ’ s fees , because i t deter m i ned that 11% of al l att or neys ’ fees i nc ur r ed pr i or to J an ua r y 9 , 2 00 7, wer e dev o te d t o the pu rs uito fcl ai m s no t co ver ed by t h e A ct. Later, i n i ts rul i ng o n Shel l ’ s Rul e 5 9 m oti on, the dist ri ct c ou rt subtracte d $ 9 ,275 , w hich cons titute d 100% of th e fees Shere or igin ally req u es te d for C olle en Sh er e’s w or k. T h is ap p ears to ha ve bee n a cl e r ic a l error that cos t Shere $ 1 , 0 2 0
. 2 5 ; thu s , thi s e r r o r s ho ul d b e c o r r e c t e d o n r e man d. Rel ate dly, S here c lai m s that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s fee aw ar d fa i l ed to acc ount f or$5 , 419. 23 i n dis burse m ents. H e dr aws thi s co ur t’ s at te nt i o n t o a s er i es o fbi l l s an d re c eip ts i n th e re c or d th at p u rp or te d ly su p p or t t h is cl ai m . Gi ve n the c o m pl ex i tyo fthe b i l l s i nv o l ve d a nd th e n ee d to ap p or tio n p re - an d p os t-c u t-o ff d at e c os ts , i t is st ar tl i ngtha t S he r e f ai l ed to pr es en t ev i den ce l i nk i ngup in d ivid u al b illing en tr ies w ith h is t ot al c alc u lat ion . Th is cour t wil l notdo Sh er e’s w or k forhi m , es peci al l y when ou r re vie w of th e m at er ials ind ica te s t h a tit is like ly that Sher e m ade se ver alm i scalcu lati ons. W i thout a be tt ers ho wi ngfr o m hi m , we wi l l a ssum e th atthe dist ri ct c ourtdi d i ts j ob prop er l y when i t deci ded to aw ar d $37, 443. 25 i n l i ti gat i on co sts and dis burse m ents.

B A tt or n ey s’ fe es are n ot th e o n ly to p ic o n ap p ea l. Sh ell al so tak es i ssue w i th the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o awar d the W i ck en se s co st s r el at ed to the e nv i r o nm en ta l t es tingtha t H y dr o Te chc o nduc te d i n May an d Ju n e 2007. W hile the cou rt fel t tha t H yd roTe ch and ShereN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 19

wer e bythe n unne ce ss ar il y expa ndi ngthe s co pe o fthe IDE M i nvest i gat i on, i t co ncl ud ed that the W i ckens es w er e no nethel ess e n titl ed to thes e co sts bec ause they w er e in c u rre d p u rs u an t t o a n ID E M -ap p ro v ed p lan . Th is d e c i s i o n, S h e l l a s s e r t s , i n c o r r e c t l y p r e s u me d th a t I DEM offi ci al l y a pp ro ved H ydro Tech’s pl an. Fur ther m or e, as n o n e o fH y d r o T e c h ’ s d a t a w a s e v e r su pp l i e d t o I D E M, S he l l s ay s th ati t i s be y o nd the pa l e to r ei m bur se the W i ckens es f orusel ess work. The co urt’s approa ch to correct ive action cost s w as irreconc il able, in Shell’ s vi ew, wi thi ts de ci si o n de ny i nga tt o rney s’ fee s co ve r i ng the s am e per i od. It w as S here , S hel l ar gues, wh o pu shed f o r the e xpa nde d M ar ch2 00 7 wor kpl an . W e r evi ew a dist rict c ourt ’ s a w ar d ofdam age s under th e d efe re n tia l c lea r er ro r st an d ar d , Int’ l Production Spec ialis ts, Inc. v. Schwing A m er ica, Inc. , 58 0 F
. 3d 587 , 59 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) , a nd S he l l ha s n o t co m e cl o se t o ups et ting ou r confiden ce in th e d istri ct cou rt’s dec is ion
. Shell’ s rep r e sen tation th at IDE M nev er ap p roved H yd roTe ch ’s w or k p lan is m isle ad in g. In fa c t, ID E M co n d itio n ally approve d t h e w or k pl an and or dered H ydro Tech to com m ence furtheri nvest i gat i on o r ri sk bei ng subj ecte d to ci vi l penal ti es. The f act that H ydro Tech neversubm i tte d the data to I DE M i s a l m os t c ertai nl y a r esul t o fthe m agi str ate j ud ge’ s o rdero n J uly18 , 20 07, bar ri ng the part i es f ro m enga gi ng i n any further c orre cti ve acti on. Though H yd ro T ec h m ay h av e fin ish ed te st in g b y t h at tim e, it m aystil l ha ve b ee n c o m pi l i ngi ts da ta a nd wor k i ngo n a r epo r t. Be f o r e th e m ag i st r at e j udg e’ s o r derwas l i fte d, the20 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 p ar tie s s et tle d . A t t h at p oin t, H yd ro T ec h id ea lly sh ou ld have hand ed ove r w hat i t had to I DE M , but i t i s h ard to bl ame i t f o r i na ct i o n whe n i t no l o ng er woul d b e co m pen sa te d for its tim e. (Sh ell ap p ar en tly h as n o in te re st in H yd ro T ec h ’s d at a.) There i s a dm i tte dlyso m e t ensio n bet w een the di str i ct cour t’ s t re atm en t of c or re cti ve acti on co sts and i ts ha nd li ng of attorn eys’ fees. Ev en so, the d istri ct cou rt coul d rea son abl y hav e be l i eve d that c ar ry i ng o ut a sensibl e ( albei t e xpansive ) i n vest i gat i on a s o rder ed by I DE M was l ess bl am ew or thy than prol ongin g the l i ti gati on pastJ anuary20 07 by usi ng the W ickenses’ co ntro l ofthe i nvest i gat i on a s l eve ra ge ove r Shel l

. T h us, we see no e rr orin or deri ng S hel l to pay for the cor re cti ve acti on co sts i ncurr ed i n M ay and June 2007
.
C I n hi s cr oss - appeal, Sh er e a l so ar gues that the di str i ct co ur t er red w he n i t den i ed hi s r eque stf o r pr ej udg m en t i n te re st on the at torneys’ fees and cor re cti ve acti on co sts aw ar ded

. U nd er I nd i ana l aw , prej ud gm ent inter est is w arran ted i f th e d am ages are “ a s c ertainab le in ac cordance w i th fi xed rul es ofev i dence and acc epted st an d ar d s o fv alu at ion atth e t im e t h e d am ag es ac c ru ed .” C in ci n nati Ins. Co
. v. BA C T Holdings, Inc. , 72 3 N
. E.2 d 436, 441 ( I nd

. Ct. A pp . 20 00) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om i tted)

. Though d am ag es m ust typi cal l y b e s ubj ect to “si m ple m athem ati calcal cul ati on, ” co u rts hav e a w ar ded prej ud gm ent inter est“ ev en wh er e s om e degr ee ofj ud gm ent m ust be used to m eas ure dam age s. ” Hay e s v. Chap-N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 21

m an , 89 4 N

. E.2 d 1047, 10 54 (In d. Ct. A pp . 20 08)

. Thus, an at to rn ey m ay re c ov er p rej u d gm en t int er es t for b i l ls r el at ed to l i ti g ati on ev entho ug h h erc l i en t di spu te d the bi l l an d the cour t r ej ecte d the at torney’ s pro posed h ou rly rat e. C om m unity St ate B ankRo yal Centerv. O ’Nei ll, 55 3 N
. E. 2d 174, 1 77

- 78 ( I nd. Ct

. App

. 1 99 0) ( appl y i ng gen eral r ule to attorn eys’ fees). N onethel ess, “[ d]am age s that a re the subj ect ofa goo d f ai thdi spu te c an no t al l o w f o r an a war d o fpr ej udg m en t in teres t. ” Whit ed v . W hit ed, 8 5 9 N. E. 2 d 6 5 7, 6 6 5 ( I nd

. 2007 ) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). A s the di str i ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e co r r ec ti ve a ct ion cos ts a nd att or neys’ f ees w er e re aso nabl y conte ste d, i t decl in ed to aw ar d prej ud gm ent inter est
. W e r evi ew thi s deci si on f or a n a b us e o fdi s c r e t i o n. S ee Tw enha f e l v. St at eAut o Pr op. and Cas. Ins . Co. , 581 F.3d 625 , 630-31 (7th C ir. 2009). W e a re te m p te d to sa y t h at P ar ts II .A a n d I I.B of th is op inion sh ow conc lusively that th e aw ard s here w ere su bj ec t to di spu te a nd thus no t el i g ibl e f o r pr ej udg m en t i nter estunder Ind i ana l aw . W e w i l l nonethel ess ad d re ss Sh er e’s arg u m en t b rie fly. Fir s t, th e d ec isio n in M eyer do es no t m an dat e th e i m po si ti on of pr ej udg m en t i nter est
. The co urt ther e a pp ro ved the aw ar d ofi nter est o n ly a s a better alterna tive to the trial cou rt’s use of a l o des ta r - m ul ti pl i ert o c aptur e i ts c o nc ern abo utthe d ela y in p ay m en t. M eyer, 684 N

. E
. 2d at 526-27. Furth ermo r e , th e a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s i n M ey erw ere m uc h m ore eas i l y c al cul abl e than i n thi s ca se: i n or der t o dist i ngui sh betw een c laim s w ithin an d outs ide th e A ct, the cou rt h ad on ly to rev iew th e b illin g r e c o rd s o r ap p ly a sim p le ap p o r t ion m en t fo rm u la. Id

. at52 4- 25; se e a l so O ’Nei ll,22 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 55 3 N .E .2d at17 7-7 8 (ro u tin e d isp u te ov er h ou rly ra te ). In co n tr as t, t h e d ist ric t c ou rth er e c ou ld n ot be gin to c al cul at e fees or co st s unt i l i t ha d de te r m i ne d the preci se poi nt at w hi ch the goa l s o fthe l i ti gat i on shi fted aw ay from pursui ng the W i ckens es’ cl ai m under th e Act. S ee Whit ed, 8 5 9 N. E
. 2 d a t6 6 5 ( d en y i ng c l a i m f o r p r ej u d g me n ti n t e r e s tb e c a u s e o fc o mpl e x d a mag es ca lcu lat ion s); H am m e s v. Frank, 57 9 N
. E.2 d 1348, 1357( I nd

. Ct. A pp . 19 91) ( sam e)

. Thi s m etho dol ogy in vo lve d m or e th an a “sim p le m at h em at ic a l ca lcu lat ion ,” and so the di str i ct c ou rt d i d not abuse i ts disc re ti on i n denyi ng S here ’ s r equest f orprej ud gm ent inter est
.
D F i na l l y, S he l l a r g ue s th atthe di stri ctc o ur t’ s j udg m en t sh ou ld be va c at ed p u rs u an t t o Fe d e ra l R u les of C ivil P r o c e d u r e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) b e c a u s e S h e r e f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e E mplo yer s’ s r ol e a s a m ajor so urce ofthe W i ckens es’ l i ti gation fun d s. T hou gh the d istri ct cou rt faulted Shere for n ot rev ea lin g h is re lat ion s h ip w ith E m p loy er s, it dec i ded th atS he r e’ s co nduc t di d no t war ra ntthe re l i e fr e qu e s t e d. We r e v i e w the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng S he l l ’ s Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) mot i o n f o r a n a b us e o fdi sc re tio n . M usch v. D om tar Indust ri es, Inc. , 58 7 F
. 3d 857, 86 1 (7th C ir. 2009). Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) p r o v i de s tha ta c o ur tm ay s e ta s i de a jud gm en t if a p a rt y e n ga ge d in “ fra u d (w h et h er p re vio us l y c al l ed i nt r i ns i c o r e xt ri ns i c) , mis r epr es en ta ti o n, orm i sco nd uct byan o pp osin g party
. ” To obt ai n re l i ef un de r Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) , a pa r t y mus t s ho w tha t s he has aN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 23

m er ito riou s c laim th at s h e w as p re ve n te d from “fu lly and fa i rly pre senting” a t t ri alas a re sul t o fthe advers e party ’ s fra ud , m i sr epres entat i on, o r m i sco nd uct. S ee Ty Inc. v. Softb el ly’s Inc. , 353 F. 3d 528, 536 ( 7th C ir . 2 0 0 3); Lons dor f v. Se e f e l dt, 47 F. 3d 893, 897 ( 7th Cir

. 1995 )

. “It i s wel l

- est abl i shed th at Rule 60(b) r el i efi s a n extr aor dinar y re m edy and i s g ra nted onl y in excepti onal ci rcum sta nces. ” D ick erson v. B o a rd o f E du c., 32 F. 3d 1114, 1116 ( 7th C ir. 1994) (int erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). R ule 60(b)(3) d oes no t, h o w ever, disp lace a j ud ge’s p ow er to se t a sid e a j u d gm en t fo r fra u d on th e c ou rt . F ED . R. C IV . P . 60(d )(3) . Fra u d ont h e c ou rtis ac tio n ab le on ly i f i t prej ud i ces the advers e p ar ty . S ee Oxxf or d Cl othes XX, Inc. v. Ex pedit ors Int’ l of Washington, Inc. , 1 2 7 F
. 3 d 5 74, 57 8 ( 7th C ir. 1 99 7)

. A par tys ee k i ngt o s eta si de a j udg m en t und erRule 60 ( b) ( 3) o r the cou rt ’ s i nherentpow erm ust prove fra ud by cl earand co nvi nci ng ev i dence. S ee Ty Inc. v. Softb el ly’s, Inc. , 517 F.3d 494 , 498 (7t h Cir. 2008); Lo nsd o rf, 47 F. 3d at 897. S he l l c o n t e n d s th a tS h e r e h i d E mpl o y e r s ’ s r o l e i n t he l i t i g a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o fi t s o b l i g a t i o n un de r the F e de r al R ule s o fCi vi l Pro cedure to disc l ose i nsurance ar ra ngem ents. The r ule s pro vi de t h at a l i ti gant m ust a utom ati cal l y di scl ose “a ny i nsurance agr eem ent under w h ich a n ins u ra n c e b u sin es s m ay be liab le t o s at isfy all orparto fa possibl e jud gm en t in the a cti on o r to ind em nify or reim bu rse for p ay m e n t s m ad e to satisfy the j ud gm ent. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 26( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i v)

. Giv en Em pl o y er s’ s i nv o l ve m en t as the i ns ur an ce c o m pan y fun di ngthe l i t i g a t i o n, the di s t r i c tc our tc o nc l ud e d, a s do w e, thatS here appears to have ev aded his r esponsibi l i ti es.24 N os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 The c ho i ce o fa pr o persa nc ti o n f o r v i o l at i o ns o fthe di sc o ve r y r ul es , ho wev er, l i es i n the di sc r et i o n o fthe di st r i ctc o urt. Her e, the c o ur t r ea so nabl y dr ew a l i ne b et w ee n an ap p ar en t d isc ov er y v iola tio n an d frau d . In i ts Rule 60(b) m oti on, S hel l has not com e cl ose to sh o wi ng by cl ea r an d co nv i nc i ng ev i den ce that the di st r i ctc o ur t e r r ed an d tha t S he r e’ s ac ti o ns wer e f r au dul ent in nature
. Fur ther m or e, S hel l suff er ed no prej ud i ce as a r es ul t o fS he r e’ s m i sr epr es en ta ti o ns . Tho ug h the dist ri ct c ourtcr i ti ci zed Em plo yer s fordoi ng l i ttl e t o c o n t r o l th e c o s t s o fl i t i g a t i o n, S h e l l ’ s kn o wl e d g e o fE mp loyers’s role w ou ld n ot hav e ch an ged anyt hin g. She ll ’s ass er ti on that it would have re ached a diff er ent s ett l em ent i fi t knew abo ut Em plo yer s’ s “ d ee p pocket s” m ay e v e n c ut a g a i ns t i t
. I n tha t s i t ua t i o n, S he l l mi ght ha ve off er ed a l ar gerse ttl em ent, thi nki ng th at it co uld not si m plywaitunti l the W i ckens es’ fund s r an o ut.

E S he re de vo te s a si g ni fi ca ntpo r ti o n o fhi s br i eft o c o nte st in g a num bero fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs that p or tr ay h im in a les s t h an fa v o r a b le ligh t. B u t h is r e q u e s ts h o ws wh y we c a n n o t d o a n y th i n gab o u tth i s . He say s, i n hi s br i ef, that“ thi s a pp ealal so concerns page s of dic ta , p ar tia lly an d am b igu ou sly w ith d ra w n, in whi c h th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg a v e s c a th i n gt r e a t me n tt o h a r dear ned profess i onalr eputati ons. The undersigned re

spe ct ful l y r eque st s th atthi s Cou r t va ca te a nd r emand th e d istri ct cou rt’s orders to all ow this d ict a to be corr ec te d. ” Eve n i fthe di st r i ct cour t ha d f o r m al l y f o undN os. 09

- 2737& 09

- 2620 25

m isc on d u c t, an ap p ea l is n ot th e p ro p er rem ed y. Se e, e . g. , Seym ourv. H ug, 48 5 F
. 3d 92 6, 92 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ex pl aini ng th at attorn eys can only app eal m o n e tary san ctions ). W ha t Shere d oes not m en tion is th at th e d is t r ict court w as, i n m any pl aces , equal l y c ri ti calo fS hel l ’ s ap p roach to thi s ca se, and th at i t had so m e co m pli m entar y thi ngs to sayabo ut S here

. W e s i t t o re vi ew j u d gm ents, not p articu lar langu age in d istri ct cou rt o p in ions, an d Shere wi l l ha ve t o b e s atisfi ed wi tho urde ci si o n o n the me r i t s , w h i c h i s l a r g e l y f a v o r a b l e t o h i m.

* * * W e R EVER S E th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s jud gm en t in so far as it m i scal cul ate d w hen it d ed ucted Col l een S here ’ s fees f r o m S h e r e ’ s a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s a wa r d a nd R EMA ND f or fu r th e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n tw i th th i s o p i n i o n . We A F F I R M the r em ai nd ero fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent.

8- 31- 10