Walker v. Giuffre
209 N.J. 124
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Courts in New Jersey apply the American Rule to attorney’s fees, with exceptions for statutory fee-shifting provisions.
- Rendine v. Pantzer (1995) established lodestar plus possible contingency enhancement under NJ fee-shifting statutes.
- Perdue v. Kenny A. (2010) restricted contingency enhancements in federal fee-shifting cases, guiding federal practice.
- This opinion consolidates two appeals challenging Rendine’s contingency enhancement framework as applied to LAD and other NJ statutes.
- NJ courts must continue Rendine’s framework unless and until clarified, while explaining its application for trial courts and records.
- Walker v. Giuffre involved a class-action CFA/TCCWNA claim with a large, contested fee request following prior Cerbo settlement.
- Humphries v. Powder Mill Shopping Plaza involved ADA/LAD claims; court awarded lodestar and considered a contingency enhancement, ultimately remanding for correct application of Rendine guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rendine’s framework remains viable for state statutory fee-shifting. | Walker/Humphries proponents rely on Rendine continuing as authority. | Defendants argue Perdue dictates no contingency enhancement. | Rendine framework remains viable; Perdue does not alter Rendine for NJ statutes. |
| How Rendine should be applied to determine the proper contingency enhancement here. | Contingency enhancement should reflect risk, complexity, and equitable relief. | Lower or no enhancement should be awarded given lodestar sufficiency and Perdue guidance. | Court reiterates Rendine factors; remands to apply within Rendine ranges with proper explanation. |
| Whether Perdue governs NJ fee-shifting awards and overrides Rendine in these cases. | Perdue should inform evaluation of enhancements. | Perdue does not govern NJ state statutes; Rendine controls. | Perdue not controlling for NJ statutes; Rendine framework governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (1995) (lodestar framework; contingency enhancements within ranges)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar as baseline; some Johnson factors absorbed)
- Dague v. City of Burlington, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (contingency enhancements not permitted under federal standard)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 130 S. Ct. 1672 (2010) (Six rules for evaluating fee enhancements; confirms federal stance on contingency)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (contingency enhancements rejected in federal context)