Opinion ID: 2513908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Trial Court Appropriately Accounted for Dike's Settlement with Concerned Citizens.

Text: Finally, the Cizeks argue that the superior court did not reduce Concerned Citizens' base fee amount by enough to account for its settlement with Dike. They point to our decision in Thorstenson v. ARCO Alaska, Inc. [25] as authority for their contention that Dike's participation in the case should have resulted in a greater reduction in the fees awarded against the Cizeks. In Thorstenson, the trial court awarded fees to a prevailing defendant after a co-plaintiff settled shortly before the case was resolved. [26] The trial court first estimated that approximately 75% of the work would have had to have been done had [defendant] been opposing but a single plaintiff. [27] The court then awarded the defendant seventy-five percent of that figure. [28] We noted that there was, so to speak, an overlap in the work performed in the defense of each plaintiff's claim. [29] But the trial court's methodology assigned to the remaining plaintiff the entire amount of this overlap, with no explanation. [30] We held that each plaintiff should be charged with a proportional share of the fees incurred prior to the resolution of his or her claims, as charging the last remaining plaintiff with a grossly disproportionate share of fees creates perverse incentives. [31] Notably, we did not hold that attorney's fees must always be equally apportioned, but rather that a remaining party may not be asked to bear an unreasonably heavier burden of the cost of litigation than a party who chooses to settle. [32] Here, unlike in Thorstenson, the trial court made specific findings to justify different treatment of the former co-parties. The court determined that Concerned Citizens' base allowance for fees should be discounted by $10,000 to account for its settlement with Dike for the following reasons: This $10,000 figure is a fair estimate of fees incurred solely against Dike[;] it cannot be a precise determination. It is relatively small because the Cizeks and Dike litigated as a unit against [Concerned Citizens], because the bulk of active litigation involved the case against the Cizeks, and because Dike's active efforts in this case were small, compared to the Cizeks'. The first reason for the court's unequal apportionment  that the Cizeks and Dike litigated as a unit against Concerned Citizens  actually supports an equal apportionment of fees. However, the court's second and third reasons for its apportionment provide sufficient support for an unequal apportionment. The superior court was in the best position to determine against whom Concerned Citizens' litigation efforts were focused, and it found the bulk of active litigation efforts to be directed against the Cizeks. The court separately found that Dike's active efforts were small. This finding too supports an unequal apportionment. Considering these factors, even if both Dike and the Cizeks had proceeded to trial, the court would have been justified in charging the Cizeks with a greater share of fees. Using as a basis for calculation the approximately $77,000 found by the superior court to have been incurred by Concerned Citizens before trial, the superior court's apportionment of $10,000 to Dike and award of $40,000 against the Cizeks in favor of Concerned Citizens results in the Cizeks being responsible for approximately fifteen percent more and Dike fifteen percent less than a theoretically equal apportionment. [33] We find the reasons offered by the superior court for its unequal apportionment of fees to be sufficient to justify this different treatment of the defendants, and therefore reject the Cizeks' argument that the court did not adequately account for Concerned Citizens' settlement with Dike in calculating the Cizeks' share of fees.