Source: http://avidanstern.blogspot.com/2007/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:12:21+00:00

Document:
Parties often stipulate to protective orders under which a producing party is given the right to designate appropriate documents to be treated as "confidential." However, as the court held in Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling Services, Inc., No. C-01-21151 JW (PVT) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2007), the designating party must bear the responsibility for determining which documents truly are appropriate for confidential treatment.
The particular order at issue in Del Campo included a specific provision requiring each designating party to “take care to limit any such designations to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards,” and noted that indiscriminate designations “expose the Designating Party to possible sanctions.” The court found that the defendants produced thousands of documents with a blanket confidentiality designation in violation of the order, including obviously public documents such as law review articles and Web pages, and then failed to support their designations when challenged. The court ordered defendants to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for challenging the over-designation.
The protective order here made the court's job a little easier because the court needed to look no further than the wording of the order to find violations. It seems likely, however, that even if a protective order lacked an express term concerning over-designation, a court easily could find violation of a protective order that merely permitted designation as "confidential" if the documents challenged clearly were not appropriate for confidential treatment.
The Seventh Circuit has issued an opinion that once again illustrates the dangers of waiting until the last moment under a statute of limitations.
In Jenkins v. Village of Maywood, No. 06-3411, 2007 WL 3239198 (7th Cir. Nov. 5, 2007), plaintiff filed a joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal of his Section 1983 action in federal court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) on March 9, 2004. The court prepared an order of dismissal on the same day, and the clerk entered it on the docket on March 15, 2004.
One year later, on March 15, 2005, plaintiff essentially re-filed the case in federal court. The statute of limitations for Section 1983 actions is derived from the appropriate state statute and its corresponding tolling rules. In this case, Illinois law applied and plaintiff's new case would have been out of time but for the existence of a special tolling statute. Under 735 ILCS 5/13-217, a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses a case may commence the action again within one year or within the remaining limitations period, whichever is greater. Plaintiff believed that his filing within one year of the dismissal was timely because the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure specifies that a voluntary dismissal is not effective for purposes of the one-year tolling rule until the clerk has entered the order onto the docket.
The Seventh Circuit disagreed, holding that the date that plaintiff filed the stipulation controlled instead. That is because federal, not state, procedural law governs a federal case even if the applicable statute of limitations is derived from state law. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), no order is needed to effect a voluntary dismissal. It specifically states that "an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court ... by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action." Thus, the dismissal became effective as a matter of applicable law when plaintiff filed the stipulation on March 9, 2004, not when the clerk entered it on the docket the following week.
The moral of the story: Don't file a complaint on what you think is the last possible day. Courts might find that you did not count correctly, or that the "mailbox rule" or other tolling rule did not work the way you thought it did, and you will have left no margin for error.
A plaintiff bringing a case that satisfies the requirements for both admiralty and diversity jurisdiction can elect to proceed on either basis, the primary difference being that a jury generally is not available if plaintiff files a libel in admiralty rather than an ordinary civil complaint. See In re: Chimenti, 79 F.3d 534, 537 (6th Cir. 1996). A plaintiff might want to exclude a jury for strategic reasons, and therefore could elect the admiralty route.
However, In re: Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 06-1344, 2007 WL 2793112 (4th Cir. Sept. 27, 2007), illustrates that a defendant can frustrate that election by bringing a declaratory judgment counterclaim and filing a jury demand. In Lockheed Martin, plaintiff successfully moved to strike defen­dant’s jury demand, arguing that the declaratory judgment claim was merely the “flipside” of plaintiff’s affirmative claims, and that defendant should not be permitted an end-run around plaintiff’s admiralty strategy. Defendant filed a mandamus petition.
Noting a split in the circuits, the appellate court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h) permitted a defendant to bring proper non-admiralty counterclaims and to have them tried to a jury. The court granted the writ of mandamus.
In addition to claims that fall within specific federal subject-matter jurisdiction, federal courts also are permitted to hear state-law claims pled as part of the same case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction).
It is well-established that if a defendant successfully moves to dismiss all of the claims for which federal jurisdiction exists, leaving only claims based on state law, the district court has the discretion to dismiss the state-law claims (which the plaintiff then might be able to assert in state court). District courts frequently do just that. See, e.g., Sanchez & Daniels v. Koresko, No. 07-1228, 2007 WL 2757761 (7th Cir. Sept. 24, 2007) (district court properly terminated case after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction).
The Eleventh Circuit recently considered a case in which the termination of all federal claims occurred by plaintiff’s voluntary amendment of the complaint. In contrast to the discretionary standard applicable after granting of a Rule 12 motion, in Pintando v Miami-Dade Housing Agency, 501 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. Sept. 25, 2007), the court found that when a party voluntarily withdraws all claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction, the judge is required to dismiss the case. Analogizing to Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. Unites States, 127 S. Ct. 1397 (2007) [covered in a previous post], the court held that the withdrawal of allegations in an amended complaint which had formed the basis of federal jurisdiction defeats jurisdiction altogether, and the case cannot continue in federal court.
Thus, if confronted with a situation like this one, a district court may grant a motion for leave to amend, and then must immediately dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an interim rule, effective August 27, 2007, that imposes a new, ‘opt-in’ procedure for oral argument. It does not appear that any other circuit has adopted such a requirement.
In a new twist on that rule, the Second Circuit’s Interim Local Rule 34 requires the parties to file a joint statement indicating whether they seek oral argument or agree to submit the case on the briefs. If the parties disagree, that must also be indicated. The joint statement is due within 14 days after the due date for the last brief. Any party failing to file the statement will be deemed not to seek oral argument.
The court allowed a one-month comment period, which expires September 27, 2007, and is running simultaneously with the adoption of the rule itself. There does not seem to have been much publicity about this, and because it is a unique and counter-intuitive change (going from an opt-out system to an opt-in system), the new rule seems like a trap for the unwary.
When Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), it appeared to resolve a circuit split regarding the threshold required for pleading a securities fraud cause of action. The courts of appeal agreed that securities fraud required scienter, but disagreed over whether a plaintiff must allege more than the conclusion that scienter existed. Congress adopted the most stringent approach, as expressed by the Second Circuit, that a plaintiff must “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the requisite state of mind,” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1). However, Congress did not codify the Second Circuit’s jurisprudence concerning the meaning of the term “strong inference,” and as a result courts diverged regarding the construction of that term.
In resolving that split in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S. Ct. 2499 (June 21, 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court said its task was “to prescribe a workable construction of the ‘strong inference’ standard, a reading geared to the PSLRA’s twin goals: to curb frivolous, lawyer-driven litigation, while preserving investors’ ability to recover on meritorious claims.” Its solution was to require a three-step process: (1) accept all factual allegations as true; (2) consider the complaint in its entirety plus documents incorporated into the complaint by reference or available through judicial notice; and (3) determine the plausible opposing inferences regarding scienter and dismiss the complaint unless “a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.” The Court rejected the argument that weighing competing inferences impinged upon the jury’s role, finding that Congress had the power to establish any special pleading requirements, as it had done in the PSLRA.
Tellabs does not represent a further application of the new fact-pleading rules emerging under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (May 21, 2007) (see previous post), because it involved interpretation of heightened pleading requirements specifically codified into statute, rather than the federal rules of civil procedure or common law.
The U.S. Supreme Court has given a strict reading to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) to bar appellate consideration of the substance of most remand orders, rejecting an exception that had developed in some of the circuits.
In Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2411 (U.S. June 18, 2007), one of the defendants removed the case based on the theory that it was a “foreign state” for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) and 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) (which permits foreign states under the FSIA to remove). Plaintiffs successfully moved to remand, challenging whether that defendant really was a “foreign state.” Defendant appealed the remand order, and all parties and the Ninth Circuit apparently agreed that appellate jurisdiction existed because the bar to appeal of remand orders contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) only applied to remands based on a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction at the time of removal. Here, several other removing defendants had proper grounds to remove the whole case that were not part of the FSIA ruling, so the original removal was not defective.
After the Ninth Circuit reached the merits and affirmed, the Supreme Court granted certiorari but dismissed the case for lack of appellate jurisdiction. It held that there was no textual support in the statute for allowing appellate review of removals that were initially proper, and found that Congress specifically intended to bar review of remands even if based on defects in subject-matter jurisdiction that developed later. The Court found that the only task for an appellate court in this type of case is to determine whether the remand was colorably based on a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction, in which case it must dismiss the appeal.
In Jaworowski v. Ciasulli, 490 F.3d 331 (3d Cir. June 18, 2007), a panel of the Third Circuit took the unusual step of overruling a prior decision of the same court. It acknowledged that ordinarily the only way for the court to overrule its own precedent is for the court to act en banc, but it found that an exception exists for cases based on diversity jurisdiction in which the court predicts how a state’s highest court would decide an issue.
The panel said that in such circumstances an appellate court should be free to reexamine the validity of a previous prediction in light of subsequent decisions of the state’s highest court. It concluded that, although the New Jersey Supreme Court still had not decided the particular matter at issue, there were sufficient new decisions to reveal a “change in the legal landscape” and a clear direction for the Third Circuit to follow to change its prediction.
The Chief Magistrate Judge of the federal court in Maryland has issued an important opinion analyzing a myriad of evidentiary issues that parties using electronic documents face in summary judgment and trial situations.
In Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. May 4, 2007), the court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the grounds that courts may only consider on summary judgment those materials that are in the form of admissible evidence, and the electronic evidence offered here was not shown to be admissible. In analyzing the motions, the court published a lengthy opinion studying in detail a variety of means to satisfy federal evidentiary requirements for the admission of electronically stored information (“ESI”).
In a unanimous opinion, Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2301 (June 11, 2007), the Supreme Court rejected application of the “Federal Officer” removal statute to private parties other than govern­ment contractors.
Plaintiffs had filed a state-court class action claiming that Philip Morris violated Arkansas unfair business practice laws in selling so-called “light” cigarettes. Philip Morris removed, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which permits removal by any officer of the United States “or any person acting under that officer.” The district court and the Eight Circuit agreed that in following the FTC’s detailed instructions governing cigarette testing and tar/nicotine disclosures in advertising, defendants were “acting under” the agency’s orders for purposes of the removal statute.
However, the Supreme Court found that Congress did not intend to encompass private parties whom a federal regulatory agency directs, supervises, and monitors, even if very closely and in considerable detail. In the Court’s view, such activities amount to nothing more than regulation and compliance, as opposed to “acting under” the direction of a federal officer, and mere com­pliance with regulations does not open the door to federal jurisdiction. It distinguished cases in which removal was permitted by private government contractors, finding that such cases involve helping federal officers fulfill tasks that the government otherwise would have to perform itself.
In a matter of first impression, New York’s highest court has held that the statute of limitations applicable to accounting malpractice actions was not tolled under the “continuous representation doctrine” where the parties’ course of dealing was to enter into a separate contract for each year’s annual audit. Williamson v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 N.Y.3d 1, 872 N.E.2d 842, 840 N.Y.S.3d 730 (June 7, 2007).
In Williamson, the court held that the doctrine was not available under the circumstances present, but it did not appear to reject its application to accountants altogether. Rather, it emphasized that the doctrine requires a “mutual understanding” between the parties that the relationship with the client would be ongoing, and that no such understanding was present here.
Before considering dispositive motions going to the merits of the case, federal courts typically must be satisfied that they have subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.
In Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 127 S. Ct. 1184 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2007), the Supreme Court confirmed that the same considerations do not apply to a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens because such a motion is not a disposition on the merits. Such motions do not entail the court’s assumption of any substantive law-declaring power; therefore, there is no requirement that the court first undertake the discovery necessary to ascertain that it has either subject-matter or personal juris­diction. Here, the Supreme Court characterized the international dispute at issue as being a textbook case for immediate dismissal because the jurisdictional issues would be difficult to determine and the forum non conveniens considerations weighed heavily in favor of dismissal.
In Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 1397 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2007), the Supreme Court noted that the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729, et seq., eliminated federal court jurisdiction over qui tam actions brought by a private party “relator” based upon the public disclosure of allegations reported in the news media unless such party is “an original source of the information.” In this case, a former Rockwell engineer named James Stone brought a qui tam action alleging that Rockwell knowingly employed a defective system for disposing of toxic waste, and the Government intervened. Ultimately the case proceeded to trial and the jury found in part for Stone, and the lower courts affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Stone was not the “original source” of the information upon which the claims were based. The Court held that where claims are brought based on publicly disclosed information, a relator’s status as the original source of that information is jurisdictional and must be considered de novo even where, as argued here, the defendant conceded the issue. Here, Stone had informed Rockwell that its system was faulty due to a defective piping system, but the final pretrial order (which superseded the pleadings), and all the proofs at trial, concerned an entirely different defect. Because Stone had no independent knowledge of the defect that actually was at stake, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
In Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756 v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 585 (Cal. App. (2d Dist.) Feb. 28, 2007, modified Mar. 22, 2007), the court held that that despite the lack of any express language in proposition 64 concerning class actions, the reference to § 382 was meant to engraft onto the Unfair Competition Law the requirement that any representative action proceed as a class action and satisfy traditional certification requirements.
In 1991, the Ninth Circuit held that an unsecured creditor is precluded from recovering attorney’s fees authorized by a prepetition contract if such fees were incurred in postpetition litigation involving issues peculiar to bankruptcy law rather than basic contract enforcement questions. In re Fobian, 951 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1991).
Resolving a split in the circuits, the Supreme Court held in Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 127 S. Ct. 1199 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2007), that the Fobian rule was not supported by the Bankruptcy Code. Finding that “claims enforceable under applicable state law will be allowed in bankruptcy unless they are expressly disallowed, the Court held that the absence of textual support for the Ninth Circuit’s rule was “fatal,” and it rejected the applicable lower court precedents.
In Jet Source Charter, Inc. v. Doherty, 148 Cal. App. 4th 1, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 176 (4th Dist. Jan. 30, 2007, modified Feb. 28, 2007), the plaintiffs successfully sued aircraft brokers for breach of fiduciary duty in selling them aircraft while willfully deceiving them concerning the price the brokers had negotiated with the sellers (and thereby making additional money on the side). The jury awarded approximately $5 million in compensatory damages, and more than $25 million in punitive damages against various defendants.
On appeal, the court held, “Where, as here, substantial compensatory damages have been awarded, and the conduct in question only involves economic damage to a single plaintiff who is not particularly vulnerable, an award which exceeds the compensatory damages awarded is not consistent with due process” under State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).
In Franklin Capital Corp. v. Wilson, 148 Cal. App. 4th 187, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 424 (4th Dist. Feb. 28, 2007), the plaintiff attempted to take a voluntary dismissal without prejudice on the eve of a mandatory settlement conference with the court. Nevertheless, the court held the conference, vacated the voluntary dismissal and entered dismissal with prejudice. By that time, plaintiff’s counsel already had a long record of missed court hearings and had been ordered to pay sanctions.
Nevertheless, the appellate court found that a plaintiff has an absolute right pursuant to statute to take a voluntary dismissal without prejudice at any time prior to commencement of “trial” or the pendency of an impending dispositive procedure, and that the mandatory settlement conference did not fall under any of those categories. Thus, the trial court had no authority to convert the voluntary dismissal to one with prejudice.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a case that was not removable when originally filed may still be removed if the defendants receive an “amended pleading, motion or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” The defendants may file a notice of removal within 30 days of receiving that indication that the case is now removable. Typically such an indication is the filing by one of the parties of an amended pleading or other paper that raises a federal question.
However, in Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. Feb. 28, 2007), defendants argued that the publication of a new precedent in the Eighth Circuit establishing that cases like the one in Dahl were removable started a new 30-day clock under § 1446(b). The Eighth Circuit rejected that argument, holding that the receipt of an opinion from a different case did not constitute an “amended pleading, motion or other paper” for purposes of the removal statutes.
Most states recognize an absolute privilege for statements in testimony or pleadings in a judicial proceeding. In MacGregor v. Rutberg, 478 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. Feb. 27, 2007), the plaintiff attempted to carve out an exception for expert testimony. She argued that while acting as an expert for a patient that was suing her for malpractice, defendant neurosurgeon gave testimony that defamed her. Applying Illinois law, the court refused to exempt expert testimony from the absolute testimonial privilege. The court observed, "Litigation is costly enough without judges’ making it more so by throwing open the door to defamation suits against expert witnesses."
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(D)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6), “costs” are awarded to prevailing parties “as of course” for various trial-related expenses including court fees, reporters, and court-appointed experts.
In In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 481 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2007), the district court ordered an attorney for an objector to the proposed class-action settlement to pay the compensation of a settlement administrator hired to disburse $80 million in settlement funds to the class. After unsuccessfully objecting to the settlement, the objector took an appeal, which was dismissed for failure to post bond. On remand the class plaintiffs sought sanctions and costs caused by the delay. The district court rejected various sanctions but awarded costs of over $250,000 for the settlement administrator’s fees as a court-appointed expert under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6).
The Sixth Circuit reversed because the award was charged to objector’s counsel, while the court interpreted the statute and rules to permit awards to be charged only to parties, i.e., the objector here and not her counsel. The court rejected the argument that district courts have inherent or equitable power to charge awards of “costs” to counsel. However, in remanding, the court noted without deciding the question of whether settlement administrators are “court-appointed experts” for purposes of § 1920(6), and cited a circuit split.
In Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 420 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2005), plaintiffs brought a class action against a tobacco company for selling “Light” cigarettes allegedly in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The defendants removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which permits removal by any officer of the United States “or any person acting under that officer.” The district court and the Eight Circuit agreed that in following the FTC’s detailed instructions governing cigarette testing and tar/nicotine disclosures in advertising, defendants were “acting under” the agency’s orders for purposes of the removal statute.
After plaintiffs filed a cert. petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court asked the Solicitor General’s Office to weigh in. The SG concluded that Eighth Circuit made a fact-specific error but recommended that the case was not worthy of decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court, 146 Cal. App. 4th 536, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 115 (4th Dist. Jan. 4, 2007), the California Appellate Court held that trial courts do not have the authority to order parties in a complex civil action to attend and pay for private mediation.
In this multi-party construction case, the trial court deemed the matter “complex” within the local rules, and appointed a mediator to conduct settlement conferences for up to 100 hours at $500 per hour. Jeld Wen served objections and did not attend the mediation sessions but invited informal settlement talks. The trial court granted the other parties’ motion to compel Jeld-Wen to attend the mediation, and Jen-Weld appealed.
Reversing, the appellate court noted that although there are certain statutes in place requiring mediation for cases valued at under $50,000, this case exceeded that threshold. It held that in larger cases mediation is purely voluntary, and the trial court must have the agreement of all parties before it can enter an order requiring mediation. Moreover, even after a case is ordered to mediation, the parties have the absolute right to withdraw.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to resolve an apparent conflict in the federal appellate courts concerning whether a plaintiff who successfully obtains a preliminary injunction is a “prevailing party” for purposes of fee-shifting statutes. Struhs v. Wyner, 127 S. Ct. 1055 (granting cert. Jan. 12, 2007).
In the context of a patent dispute, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that federal jurisdiction exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act even though a plaintiff actually performs under a disputed contract, as long as the plaintiff maintains that performance is subject to controversy.
In MedImmune v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 764 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2007), Genentech maintained that MedImmune’s primary product infringed on its patent and demanded royalties. MedImmune maintained that the patent was not enforceable but agreed to pay royalties through a license agreement under protest because of the risk of liability for treble damages and attorney’s fees. It then brought a declaratory judgment action, but the trial court and the Federal Circuit held that such claims could not be brought because MedImmune in fact was performing under the contract so there was no dispute for purposes of Article III.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that jurisdiction did exist, and that by enacting the Declaratory Judgment Act, Congress specifically wanted to avoid requiring a party to breach a contract as a precondition to federal jurisdiction. It noted that the Court’s jurisprudence in government cases made this clear (i.e., Congress did not require a party to actually perform an illegal act for there to be jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment action), and agreed with the many lower courts that had reached the same conclusion with respect to disputes among private parties.
It is well-established federal practice that where an action arises under federal law but Congress has not established a specific limitations period, courts borrow the statute of limitations for the most closely analogous action in the relevant state. However, in S.J. v. Issaquah School Dist. No. 411, 470 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2006), the court noted that this rule does not extend to borrowing state procedural rules that might be included in that statute.
In this case, it was undisputed that the district court properly applied the limitations period in the Washington Administrative Procedure Act (“WAPA”) to plaintiffs’ claims under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act. However, the appellate court held that the lower court should not also have applied the 30-day limitations period from the WAPA governing the amount of time in which to effect service of process. Instead, it should have applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), which establishes a 120-day limit for serving process.
The Texas Supreme Court has considered the effect on an attorney’s fee award of an appellate ruling that drastically reduced the damages awarded.
In Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. Nov. 17, 2006), plaintiffs sued for multiple breaches of contract going back several years. Over objections that most of the claims were untimely, the court entered judgment on a jury verdict for $112,000 and for attorney’s fees under the contract of $250,000. The intermediate appellate court struck all but $16,180 in damages, but held that appeal of the attorney’s fees issue had been waived. The Supreme Court upheld the reduction in damages, but reversed on the waiver issue.
Finding that there was no proper record on which to base a reduction of the fee award at the appellate level, the court remanded for a new trial on the amount of fees attributable to the upheld claims. The court noted that “[n]ot every appellate adjustment to the damages which a jury considered as ‘results obtained’ when making attorney’s fees findings will require reversal,” but in this case the large reduction in damages showed that the error was not harmless and required a new trial.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1333
 § 1367
 v. 
 v. 
 § 78
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1447
 v. 
 § 1441
 § 1447
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1442
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 382
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1446
 v. 
 § 1446
 v. 
 § 1920
 § 1920
 § 1920
 v. 
 § 1442
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.