Barley v. Fox Chase Cancer Center
54 F. Supp. 3d 396
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- Fox Chase prevailed on summary judgment against Barley’s ADA discrimination claim and seeks $125,907.05 in attorney’s fees and $7,826.54 in costs under Rule 54(d)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
- Fox Chase also seeks Rule 11 sanctions against Barley’s counsel; Barley’s counsel seeks sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against Fox Chase’s counsel for filing two fee/sanctions motions.
- Barley’s ADA claims were denied due to judicial estoppel and lack of causally linked retaliation evidence; the court found some basis for Barley’s claims before dismissal.
- Fox Chase’s fee motion relied on a redacted lodestar; the court found the submission insufficient to document hours and rate.
- The court denied Fox Chase’s attorney’s fees and Rule 11 sanctions, but granted Barley’s cross-motion under § 1927, ordering Littler Mendelson to pay Barley’s defense costs for the two sanction motions and scheduling a hearing on settlement representations.
- An amended bill of costs and a post-judgment costs submission were directed; Barley filed a notice of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fox Chase may recover attorney’s fees and costs as prevailing party | Barley’s claims were not frivolous; fees should be awarded if prevailing | Barley’s claims were frivolous or without foundation; fees justified | Fees denied; Barley’s claims not frivolous enough to warrant a fee award |
| Whether Barley’s ADA claims were frivolous to justify sanctions | Barley pursued non-frivolous facts; some basis existed | Barley’s refusal to withdraw and judicial estoppel show frivolity | Sanctions not awarded under Rule 11; no frivolousness proven; defenses upheld |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions were properly invoked and timely | Rule 11 sanctions anticipated; safe harbor not required to be observed due to timing | Sanctions motion untimely and not properly served; safe harbor unmet | Rule 11 sanctions denied; improper service and timing; no sanctions awarded |
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions should be imposed on defense counsel | Filing two sanctions motions multiplied proceedings vexatiously | Sanctions unavailable or not warranted given conduct | §1927 sanctions granted against defense counsel for two frivolous motions; costs awarded to Barley for defense |
| What costs are compensable and how treated given Barley’s indigence | Costs appropriate per Rule 54; indigence may affect payment | Costs appropriate only to extent justified; indigence argued for reduction | Costs awarded for depositions/materials; some deposition costs denied due to relevance; otherwise granted; indigence acknowledged |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation standard for fee shifting)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (lodestar framework; reasonable fees)
- L.B. Foster Co. v. EEOC, 123 F.3d 746 (3d Cir. 1997) (frivolity assessed; some basis permits denying fees to prevailing defendant)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1182 (3d Cir. 1990) (burden to support hours and rates; evidence-based adjustments)
- In re Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc., 542 F.3d 90 (3d Cir. 2008) (safe harbor considerations; Rule 11 compliance)
- Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973) (redacted billing records undermines fee transparency; need detailed entries)
- In re Bath and Kitchen Fixtures Antitrust Litig., 535 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction to award fees/costs post-judgment collateral matters)