Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180301_0000118.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 17:07:14+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Dungee v. Davison Design & Development Inc.
Dungee v. Davison Design & Development Inc.
DAVISON DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT, INC., formerly known as DAVISON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant.
Plaintiff Deborah Dungee ("Dungee") filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant Davison Design & Development, Inc. ("Davison"), claiming that: (1) Davison breached its agreements with Dungee; (2) Davison violated the American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999, 35 U.S.C. § 297 (the "AIPA") by making material misrepresentations; and (3) Davison violated the AIPA by failing to make the proper disclosures under the statute. (D.I. 1.) After settling the "claims-made, " the court issued an order granting $1, 118, 936.40 in attorney's fees to Dungee's counsel ("Class Counsel"), which was calculated using the lodestar amount of $257, 226.76 enhanced by a multiplier of 4.35. (D.I. 36 at 8; D.I. 51 at 4 n.2; D.I. 61 at 4.) Davison appealed the award to the Third Circuit, and the case was remanded for the court to specify evidence on the record that supports the application of an enhancement multiplier. Dungee v. Davison Design & Development Inc., 674 Fed.App'x 153 (3d Cir. 2017).
Davison suggests that the court award Class Counsel the lodestar amount of $257, 226.76, which does not include fees for time spent on appeal or an enhancement multiplier. (D.I. 62.) For the following reasons, the court will grant Class Counsel an award of $325, 878.44 in attorney's fees and costs.
Davison timely appealed the court's fee award on March 11, 2016. (D.I. 55.) The Third Circuit vacated the award and remanded the case on January 6, 2017 for the court to "reassess whether an enhancement to the lodestar calculation is appropriate in this case and, if so, . . . [to] provide factual findings supporting any multiplier used." Dungee, 674 Fed.Appx. at 155.
The general rule in the United States is that each party must pay its own attorney's fees and expenses except where a federal statute explicitly authorizes otherwise. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 561 (1987); see also Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975). Under the ATP A, district courts are authorized to award the prevailing party reasonable costs and attorney's fees. 35 U.S.C. § 297(b)(1). The grant of attorney's fees is not automatic, rather the party seeking such fees bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of its request. Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. at 564 (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984)). Therefore, the grant of attorney's fees turns on the facts of each case, and the district court must use its discretion to determine how to calculate the fees and what fees are reasonable. In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 821 (3d Cir. 1995).
"There are two primary methods for calculating attorney's fees awards in the class action context: (1) the percentage-of-recovery method; and (2) the lodestar method." In re Cendant Corp. PRIDES Litig., 243 F.3d 722, 732 (3d Cir. 2001) (footnote omitted). The lodestar method is appropriate in cases involving a fee-shifting statute and carries with it a strong presumption of reasonableness. Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. at 565. The lodestar analysis starts with an assessment of reasonable fees using "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Id. at 564. Where the lodestar method is implemented, enhancement multipliers may be added if "rare" or "exceptional" circumstances of the case suggests "superior attorney performance." Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 554 (2010). The party requesting an enhancement to the lodestar carries the burden of showing that a multiplier is necessary to reach a fair and reasonable fee award using "specific evidence on the record." Dungee, 674 Fed.Appx. at 157.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 297
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 297
 v. 
 v.