Summary
The Vermont Superior Court, Rutland Unit, addresses Defendant Jeremy Sullivan’s motion for recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees caused by a mistrial. The court concludes that Plaintiffs are responsible for the mistrial and that compensatory sanctions are authorized, but reduces the requested recovery to account for trial-preparation work likely to remain useful for a retrial and excludes certain fees. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Holdings
- The court may use its inherent authority to award reasonable costs and expenses caused by litigation misconduct resulting in a mistrial, but the award must be compensatory rather than punitive.
- First-trial preparation fees may not be categorically denied or reduced solely because some of the work may be useful in a future trial; however, on the evidence and the parties’ position in this case, a 50 percent reduction of first-trial-related preparation fees was appropriate.
- Fees for a junior associate’s attendance at trial are recoverable when the associate performs distinct second-chair functions and the attendance is reasonably necessary, even if the associate does not question witnesses or make arguments.
- A litigation-sanctions order is not a claim for relief under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and therefore does not qualify for Rule 54(b) final-judgment treatment.
- The compensatory sanctions award should be enforceable within 30 days rather than stayed until final resolution of the underlying case and appeals.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could impose compensatory sanctions under its inherent authority for misconduct that caused a mistrial.
- Whether Defendant’s reasonable first-trial preparation fees should be reduced because some preparation might be useful in a second trial.
- Whether fees for a junior associate’s attendance at trial were reasonably and distinctly incurred rather than duplicative or educational.
- Whether the sanctions order qualified as a claim for relief subject to final judgment under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
- Whether enforcement of the compensatory sanctions award should be stayed until the underlying litigation and any appeals were completed.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (17)
- In re Gould, 77 F. App’x 155, 163-64 (4th Cir. 2003) (per curiam; unpub.)(followed)
- Turner v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vt., 2009 VT 101, ¶ 16, 186 Vt. 396(followed in part)
- Bat v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., Civil Case No. 04-cv-02225-REB-BNB, 2007 WL 2320539, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 9, 2007)(rejected)
- Ferguson v. Valero Energy Corp., Civil Action No. 06-540, 2010 WL 2164493, at *8 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2010)(followed as analogy)
- Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858, 878-79 (2d Cir. 1998)(followed)
- O’Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713, 737 (1st Cir. 2001)(followed as analogy)
- Abner v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 541 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2008)(followed as analogy)
- Van Epps v. Johnston, 150 Vt. 324, 329(followed)
- Mason v. Me. Dep’t of Corr., 387 F. Supp. 2d 57, 62 (D. Me. 2005)(followed in part)
- Morris v. Eversley, 343 F. Supp. 2d 234, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)(followed as analogy)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…