River Bridge Corp v. American Somax Ventures
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18978
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- ASV obtained a final judgment for $8,573,804 against River Bridge entities; the trial court awarded ASV attorney’s fees of $3,553,376.09 using lodestar plus a 2.0 contingency multiplier.
- After reversal of the underlying judgment on appeal, River Bridge moved for relief from the fee judgment, which the trial court denied without a hearing.
- The fee award originated from a prior fee hearing where ASV prevailed on the contract-based claims and the court applied a 2.0 multiplier to a lodestar of $1,576,434.85.
- The appellate court later reversed the damage award for the right of first refusal claim, reducing ASV’s overall recovery substantially, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that reversal.
- The issue presented concerns whether an evidentiary hearing was required to determine prevailing party status and the correct allocation and amount of fees after the underlying judgment was substantially altered on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying relief from judgment without a hearing. | River Bridge contends a hearing is needed to reassess prevailing party status and fees. | ASV asserts the fee award should stand despite reversal of the underlying judgment. | Yes, an evidentiary hearing is required. |
| Whether the right of first refusal claim is a separate, separable claim for fee purposes. | ASV treated all claims as interconnected and thus fees should be fully recoverable. | River Bridge argues the reversed right of first refusal claim is distinct and should affect fee allocation. | The issues must be analyzed for separateness; a hearing is needed to determine if the claims are separate. |
| Whether the reversal of the underlying judgment affects the “results obtained” factor under Rowe for the lodestar. | ASV’s success on most claims should support the existing fee award. | The reversal changes the outcomes, warranting reduction or reallocation of fees. | Yes, the results obtained factor requires review and possible adjustment. |
| Whether the court should adjust the fee award based on interrelation of claims and related core facts. | ASV would prevail on multiple related claims; full fee may be warranted. | Allocation should reflect separate/related claims and possible non-recoverable time. | An evidentiary hearing is needed to determine allocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viets v. American Recruiters Enters., 922 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversal of underlying judgment requires relief from fee judgment)
- Marty v. Bainter, 727 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (reversal of judgment can trigger relief from fee award)
- Schuman v. Int’l Consumer Corp., 50 So.3d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (colorable entitlement standard for relief from judgment)
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla.1992) (prevailing party for fees on significant issues; deference to trial court)
- Folta v. Bolton, 493 So.2d 440 (Fla.1986) (separate and distinct claims; related legal theories; full fee possible)
- Avatar Dev. Corp. v. DePani Constr., Inc., 883 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (separate and distinct claims may permit fee on each)
- Rosen Bldg. Supplies, Inc. v. Krupa, 927 So.2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (wages vs. wrongful termination as separate claims for fees)
- Fielder v. Weinstein Design Group, Inc., 842 So.2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (separate/related claim analysis for fee attribution)
- Warshall v. Price, 629 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (fees may be billed for related work under common core)
- Fashion Tile & Marble, Inc. v. Alpha One Constr. & Associates, Inc., 532 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (results obtained can independently reduce lodestar)