Robinson v. Point One Toyota
2017 IL App (1st) 152114
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Emma Robinson and Latanya Kemp sued Toyota-related defendants in 1995 asserting Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) and related state claims; only Kemp’s individual CLA sales-tax nondisclosure claim ultimately survived after multiple appeals.
- After extensive litigation and three appeals, the trial court awarded Kemp statutory and actual damages and had previously awarded significant attorney fees and costs; this court remanded for a fee determination limited to Kemp’s individual CLA claim.
- On remand Kemp sought $1,074,163 in fees (2,719.4 hours at $395/hr) and $11,328.74 in costs; defendants argued fees should be limited to ~10.5 hours at $300/hr for the single successful claim.
- The circuit court applied the lodestar approach, excluded extensive time spent on unsuccessful and unrelated joint claims, awarded 76.4 compensable hours at $395/hr ($30,178), and denied many costs (treating routine copying/mailing as overhead) and fees for post-2011 work and most appellate work.
- Kemp appealed only the amount of reimbursable attorney fees and costs; the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion (but treated pure legal methodology questions de novo) and affirmed the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper methodology for calculating fees (lodestar vs. Johnson factors) | Kemp: lodestar computed (hours × $395) is presumptively reasonable; trial court misapplied Johnson reductions | TMCC: fee must be tailored to the single successful CLA claim; exclude unrelated hours | Court: lodestar is the starting point; trial court properly used lodestar and limited, not double-counted, Johnson factors; no legal error or abuse of discretion |
| Adjustments/reductions of claimed hours and fees (including alleged arbitrary percentage cut) | Kemp: court arbitrarily cut ~97% without line-item findings; affidavits supported hours/rate | TMCC: majority of time was on unrelated/unsuccessful claims; reductions and exclusions appropriate | Court: reductions justified under Hensley—exclude unrelated/unsuccessful claim time; memorandum sufficiently explains reductions; no arbitrary cut |
| Recoverable costs and fees-for-fee-petition time | Kemp: routine litigation costs (copying, mail, binding) and fees to litigate fee petition are recoverable | TMCC: such overhead is included in hourly rate; post-2011 work was unsuccessful so not compensable | Court: trial court reasonably treated copying/mail as overhead and denied those costs; denying fees for post-2011 fee-petition work was proper given lack of success on that work; no abuse of discretion |
| Fees for appellate work (including multiple appeals and Supreme Court appeal) | Kemp: appellate work was reasonable and contributed to vindication of rights; fees-on-appeal should be awarded | TMCC: appeals largely concerned unsuccessful joint claims; appellate time not tied to Kemp’s individual success | Court: appellate fees limited to hours reasonably tied to Kemp’s individual claim (some early appeal work compensable, later appeals and Supreme Court work not compensable); no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (guides lodestar and limits fees for unsuccessful, unrelated claims)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (prefers lodestar; Johnson factors only to the extent not already reflected)
- Coutin v. Young & Rubicam Puerto Rico, Inc., 124 F.3d 331 (lodestar as starting point; need reasoned explanation when reducing fees)
- Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263 (tests relatedness of claims; common core of facts analysis)
- United States Football League v. National Football League, 887 F.2d 408 (district court may reduce lodestar by percentage where appropriate)
- Burda v. M. Ecker Co., 2 F.3d 769 (recoverability of documented litigation costs under governing statutes)
- Heiar v. Crawford County, 746 F.2d 1190 (court must justify large percentage cuts; non-arbitrary explanation required)
- Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050 (compensable work includes contributions to ultimate victory)