Opinion ID: 214654
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Apportionment of Attorneys’ Fees

Text: Finally, AmeriCor argues that the district court erred by failing to apportion attorneys’ fees in the same manner as the jury apportioned liability. We review a district court’s ruling concerning fee allocation for abuse of discretion. Rein v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 568 F.3d 345, 350 (2d Cir. 2009). A district court may “hold the responsible parties jointly and severally liable for the fee award,” so long as the court “make[s] every effort to achieve the most fair and sensible solution that is possible.” Koster v. Perales, 903 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir. 1990). “Although apportionment may in some cases be a more equitable resolution, there is no rule in this circuit that requires it whenever possible.” Id. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that allocation of the attorneys’ fees was unnecessary. As the court noted, in this case “the action . . . of several defendants produce[d] a single indivisible injury,” and therefore AmeriCor could properly be held jointly and severally liable for plaintiffs’ fees. In addition, AmeriCor was the only defendant that chose not to settle – a decision that increased plaintiffs’ fees. Finally, if AmeriCor had been from the outset the only defendant named in the suit, and the nonappellant defendants had never been involved, plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees would likely have been similar to what they turned out to be, since plaintiffs’ claims against AmeriCor overlapped substantially with the claims against the other defendants, and since AmeriCor in such a case would surely have attempted to cast blame on the County officers, as it did here, resulting in similar discovery about their actions. 13