Opinion ID: 161333
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compensation for FMFS

Text: First Marine next argues that the fee award is unreasonable because it includes compensation for time billed as part of the Lathams’ effort to bring second defendant FMFS into the lawsuit. First Marine tells us that “FMFS should never have been a party to this case,” since it is merely a holding company. Appellant’s Br. at 14. Again, we defer to the district court. At the attorneys’ fee hearing, the court repeated its view that, like the Lathams’ bad faith claim, the potential liability of FMFS “is not clear one way or the other.” Appellant’s App., Vol. II at 382. “[T]here is,” the district court found, “a basis for including the second defendant.” Id. at 388. We note too, as stated earlier, that FMFS and First Marine each had pending before the district court motions for summary judgment at the time First Marine extended and the Lathams accepted the offer of judgment. By securing the dismissal of the lawsuit before the motions were decided, both First Marine and FMFS tactically avoided the uncertainty of an unfavorable decision from the district court . Under these circumstances, we will not disturb the district court ’s conclusion that the Lathams were entitled to some compensation for efforts directed at holding FMFS liable. -7-