A collection of Legal Fee news articles from the past week…
KBR Wants Attorneys’ Fees From Woman Who Claimed Rape (Legal Newsline) – A former subsidiary corporation of Halliburton is seeking over $2 million dollars in attorneys fees from a woman who alleged the company caused her gang rape. Kellogg, Brown and Root, a company performing contracting work in Iraq, was cleared by a jury that the woman was raped and deemed the case consensual sex. KBR alleges that “Jones’ fabricated story of being drugged and raped demonstrates that her Title VII claims are not only frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless, but also that she brought those claims in bad faith.” KBR is seeking over $2 million dollars in damages and $145,073 in costs.
Judge Orders Audit of Monstanto Settlement (Anniston Star) – An Alabama Judge orders a public accounting of the settlement in a chemical contamination lawsuit, an audit of the settlement, and a hearing on the reasonableness of the attorneys fees. The mass tort case was settled in 2003, but the parties have been involved in litigation and disputes since then, with the settlement ending up in court in 2004, 2010, and 2011. The plaintiffs’ request to remove the administrator were denied, however the plaintiffs remain interested in litigating the fees in the case.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Sanctioned by Federal Court and Ordered to Pay $2.6 Million in Fees and Costs (Employment Screening Resources) – A Federal Judge eliminated almost 50% of the fees and costs requested by the Cintas corporation against the EEOC. The judge found that many of the claims were not related to the action, when the EEOC was not part of the action. Among the remaining fees, the judge cut the award by 10% reflecting vagueness and block billing. Finally, the judge ruled that 2 bottles of wine were not acceptable business charges.
DOJ To Oppose $90.8M Fee Request in Black Farmers Class Action (The BLT: Blog of Legal times) – The US Justice department is planning to oppose the almost $91 million dollar fee request. The plaintiff’s attorneys are seeking 7.4% of the settlement. The DOJ has not articulated its reasons for opposing the fee request as of now.
Travel Time and Excessive Preparation Time Cause a 10% Reduction in Fees (Sterling Analytics) – The court examined time spent counseling plaintiff on certain obligations of the district that occurred more than a year prior to the Due Process Hearing. The court found that although preparation well before a hearing may be justified, 13.5 hours was too long to have spent on this counseling, and as such reduced the time spent by 25%. The court also examined travel time billed by plaintiff’s attorney.
