Court Opinion

ID: 9823718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:08:02.565046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:39.252445
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge (concurring):
¶22 I concur in the court's opinion. I write separately for a very limited purpose and that is to emphasize that the award of attorney fees premised on Fehr's bad faith must fall with the order dismissing his complaint. The main opinion makes that clear. And the main opinion goes on to state that "we express no opinion regarding the district court's finding of bad faith." Supra ¶ 20. That is solid analysis, and I do not disagree with it.
¶23 But I worry that the district court might read something into that neutral comment that we do not intend. Thus, I wish to point out-speaking only for myself, of course-that if the fee award were before us, I would have no trouble in voting to affirm it. The court's finding of bad faith was well supported in the record before the court. In my opinion, while the fee award was premature, it was not improper in an absolute sense.
¶24 I realize that my colleagues have no intention of suggesting otherwise in stating that we express no opinion on the question. I just want to ensure that in so stating we do not inadvertently chill Stockton's renewal of the request, nor the district court's careful consideration of it, at an appropriate juncture in the course of this lawsuit.