New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Arbitration Sanctions — Arbitration Panel Is Empowered to Award Attorneys’ Fees for Bad Faith Litigation Abuse

Download PDF

From First Auto. Serv. Corp. v. First Colonial Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66974 (M.D. Fla. June 16, 2010):

In the Final Award As To Attorneys' Fees And Costs dated September 26, 2009..., the panel awarded Northbrook $ 458,430.42 in attorneys' fees, plus $ 63,380.80 in costs (reflecting plaintiffs'/claimants' share of the unpaid statements of the panel), for a total of $ 521,811.22.... In doing so, the arbitration panel stated:

1. The Panel finds that it has the authority to award attorneys' fees pursuant to the bad faith exception to the "American Rule." The Panel also finds that it has the authority to award attorneys' fees due to the parties' express waiver of the provisions of Section 682.11 of the Florida statutes in that, by their actions, filings, and submissions, the parties expressly waived their right to have only a court decide the issue of attorney's fees.

2. The Panel finds that the acts of First Automotive Service Corporation ("FASC") and First Automotive Insurance Risk Retention Group (FAIRR) (collectively the "Claimants") preceding and during litigation were such that an award of attorneys' fees to Northbrook is warranted. ***

The arbitration panel cited to "the bad faith exception to the 'American Rule'" as the basis for its award of fees in favor of Northbrook. Litigants in the United States must follow the so-called "American Rule" for attorneys' fees; a litigant cannot collect attorneys' fees from a losing party unless a statute or contract provides for the award, or the losing party willfully disobeyed a court order or brought suit in bad faith. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 247, 257-60 (1975). "The bad faith exception to the American Rule is not limited to suits that are filed in bad faith. The exception also encompasses bad faith acts preceding and during litigation." Kreager v. Solomon & Flanagan, P.A., 775 F.2d 1541, 1543 (11th Cir. 1985). "Bad faith can serve as a basis for an attorney fee award in absence of contract or statute." Robert W. Baird & Co., 399 F. Supp.2d at 1319 n.5 (citing Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So.2d 356, 365 (Fla. 1998)). This exception is recognized by Florida courts. Diaz v. Diaz, 826 So.2d 229, 231 (Fla. 2002).

An arbitration panel has the power to award attorney's fees pursuant to this bad faith exception; "every judicial and quasi-judicial body has the right to award attorneys' fees under the common law bad faith exception to the 'American Rule.'" Marshall & Co. [v Duke, 114 F.3d 188, 189-90 (11th Cir. 1997)] ("the arbitrators have the power to award attorney's fees pursuant to the 'bad faith' exception to the American Rule that each party bears its own attorney's fees").

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice