Opinion ID: 3026155
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counsel Fees and Prejudgment Interest

Text: 4 Kopacz contends that the District Court erred in denying him attorneys’ fees and costs. Our review of an award of counsel fees is for abuse of discretion. Diesler v. McCormack Aggregates, Co., 54 F.3d 1074, 1087 (3d Cir. 1995). Attorney fees and costs “cannot be recovered unless plaintiff can first establish defendant’s bad faith or recalcitrance.” Id. A finding of “bad faith” or absence thereof is reviewed for clear error. See Baker Indus. v. Cerberus, Ltd., 764 F.2d 204, 209-10 (3d Cir. 1985). In light of our finding that the Delaware River and Bay Authority did not act unreasonably in denying maintenance and cure, we affirm the District Court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and costs. With respect to Kopacz’s contention that he is entitled to prejudgment interest, “the calculation and award of prejudgment interest in admiralty...is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district court.” M&O Marine, Inc. v. Marquette Co., 730 F.2d 133, 136 (3d Cir. 1984). The record below does not illuminate the District Court’s reasoning in denying Kopacz prejudgment interest, although the parties’ briefings on this issue before the District Court are similar to those on appeal. The parties dispute whether prejudgment interest is even recoverable in a Jones Act or general maritime law case and whether prejudgment interest is properly an issue for the jury. We consider that Kopacz is not entitled to prejudgment interest in any event. As we stated in Diesler, “Prejudgment interest has traditionally been part of the compensation due to a plaintiff....Interest must be allowed if plaintiff is to be truly made whole for defendant’s breach of its duty to provide maintenance and care.” Diesler v. McCormack Aggregates, Co., 5 54 F.3d 1074, 1087 (3d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). The record shows Kopacz was paid sick and annual leave (the equivalent of his wages for the first ninety days of his disability and sixty percent of his wages thereafter) for all but just over a month of the period when he was found to be due maintenance and cure. Following trial, he was awarded maintenance (again the equivalent of his wages for ninety days and sixty percent thereafter), sick and annual leave (also based on his wages), and medical expenses. On this record, awarding Kopacz prejudgment interest would be punitive rather than compensatory.