Graham v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.
Plaintiffs appealed and Chrysler cross-appealed. Chrysler contends that the court erred in finding that plaintiffs (I) made a reasonable attempt to settle the dispute before litigation, (II) filed a lawsuit with merit, and (III) were entitled to a 2.0 multiplier for fees on fees for the work done in the original trial court proceeding. Plaintiffs contend (IV) that the court erred in not awarding them attorney fees for their appeals.
Court reject contentions (I) and (II), agreeing with plaintiffs and the trial court that plaintiffs successfully proved the two new elements of the catalyst theory entitling them to attorney fees. Regarding contention (III), court conclude that the court abused its discretion in selecting the multiplier on the fees for fees by relying in part on plaintiffs' appellate work and results. Regarding contention (IV), court conclude the trial court erred in finding that it did not have authority to determine attorney fees on appeal. Court reverse those portions of the order setting the 2.0 multiplier and denying plaintiffs appellate attorney fees and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects court affirm the judgment.
Comments on Graham v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.