12 F. Supp. 3d 59
D.D.C.2014Background
- Peter Hans obtained a $267,960 arbitration award against FBR Capital Markets & Co.; FBR petitioned the federal court to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- Hans moved to compel confirmation of the arbitration award under both the FAA and the District of Columbia Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (DCRUAA).
- The District Court denied FBR’s petition to vacate and granted Hans’s motion to compel, criticizing FBR for attempting to relitigate settled arbitration matters.
- Hans sought attorneys’ fees ($35,727.50) and costs ($3,183.51) under the DCRUAA; his billing included time spent opposing the FAA-based petition, preparing a reply, filing a notice of supplemental authority (Oxford Health), and drafting the fee motion.
- FBR opposed fees and costs, arguing (1) FAA-based work cannot support a fee award, (2) Hans had not shown a basis for discretionary fees under the DCRUAA, (3) some entries were duplicative, and (4) transcript costs were not recoverable.
- The Court concluded Hans was the prevailing party under the DCRUAA, that much of the FAA-related work overlapped with DCRUAA work (and that FAA decisions inform DCRUAA interpretation), denied FBR’s objections, and awarded Hans $35,727.50 in fees and $3,183.51 in costs (total $38,911.01).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hans can recover attorneys’ fees under the DCRUAA after opposing an FAA-based petition | Hans: As prevailing party under the DCRUAA, he may recover reasonable fees; his FAA-related work overlapped with DCRUAA work | FBR: FAA does not authorize fees, so hours spent opposing the FAA petition cannot support a fee award | Court: Hours are recoverable if they also relate to the DCRUAA-based motion because the two briefs used identical facts and arguments; awarded full fees |
| Whether hours spent on a notice of supplemental authority (Oxford Health) are compensable | Hans: Oxford Health (an FAA case) was relevant authority for interpreting DCRUAA and warranted billing time | FBR: Oxford Health deals only with the FAA and is irrelevant to DCRUAA fee entitlement | Court: FAA cases are persuasive for DCRUAA interpretation; compensable |
| Whether discretionary fees should be denied absent a showing of unjustified refusal to comply with the award | Hans: Victory on the motion to compel and the court’s criticism of FBR justify awarding fees | FBR: Fees should be limited to cases of unjustified refusal to comply with awards; DCRUAA discretion counsels denial | Court: Discretion favors Hans given his clear victory and the absence of compelling reason to withhold fees; awarded fees |
| Whether specific time entries and transcript costs should be disallowed | Hans: Time entries and transcript costs are reasonable and necessary | FBR: 1.2 hours are duplicative; transcript costs relate to FAA work and should be denied | Court: Did not strike the 1.2 hours; transcript costs awarded because they related to overlapping work |
Key Cases Cited
- Masurovsky v. Green, 687 A.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (FAA interpretations are persuasive authority for interpreting similar D.C. arbitration provisions)
- Cathedral Ave. Coop., Inc. v. Carter, 947 A.2d 1143 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discusses attorney-fee principles in arbitration-confirmation context)
- Blitz v. Beth Isaac Adas Israel Congregation, 720 A.2d 912 (Md. 1998) (addresses scope of "disbursements" and fee issues in arbitration context)
- Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013) (Supreme Court FAA decision cited as relevant authority)