ETHICS & ATTORNEY'S FEES CASES

• Pruett v. Harris County Bail Bond Bd.
• Wade v. Soo Line R.R. Corp.
• Autotech Techs. v. Integral Research & Dev. Corp.
• Merrick v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.
• Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.
• Aageson Grain & Cattle v. US Dep't of Agric.
• Oliver v. Coca Cola Co.
• Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux
• Bd. of Managers of Eleventh St. Loftominium Ass'n v. Wabash Loftominium
• Truserv v. Ernst & Young LLP.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 28, 2007
Pruett v. Harris County Bail Bond Bd., No. 05-20714
A decision finding that a Texas statute restricting solicitation of potential customers denied bail bondsmen their First Amendment rights is affirmed in part and reversed in part where all but one of the restrictions violated the bondsmen's right to commercial speech. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 29, 2007
Wade v. Soo Line R.R. Corp., No. 06-1878
In a personal injury suit against an employer, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion since the evidence of bad faith in plaintiff's attorney's withholding of documents was manifest. Sanctions against the attorney are affirmed but remanded for recalculation. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 29, 2007
Autotech Techs. v. Integral Research & Dev. Corp., No. 06-1718
In a dispute over an exclusivity agreement, a contempt order against defendant is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not remove the district court's subject matter jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding; 2) defendant is entitled to appeal the contempt order; 3) plaintiff's failure properly to serve defendant with the motion for contempt deprived defendant of notice of the proceeding and, consequently, its right to a full and fair hearing; 4) a writ of execution issued was defective, because it failed to identify specific properties in the U.S. against which the judgment could be executed; and 5) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant was in contempt, and offered no competent proof supporting the sanction. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 31, 2007
Merrick v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., No. 05-16380, 05-17059
In an action stemming from defendant-insurers' denial of plaintiff's disability insurance claim, a jury verdict awarding $1.65 million in compensatory and $10 million in punitive damages to plaintiff for breach of contract and of the duty of good faith and fair dealing is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages due to the district court's failure to give an adequate limiting jury instruction under Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007). Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 31, 2007
Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., No. 05-56452
Orders declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant and ordering that he obtain leave of the court before filing any claims under Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in a particular district court, as well as an order sanctioning his law firm, are both affirmed as there was no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the orders. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 31, 2007
Aageson Grain & Cattle v. US Dep't of Agric., No. 05-36172
In proceedings arising after farmers successfully challenged denials of claims under the 2003 Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, an order remanding the case to the National Appeals Division (NAD) of the USDA to determine eligibility for an attorney's fees and costs award under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) is affirmed as: 1) the statutory scheme that creates and implements the NAD satisfies all three procedural protections stated in APA section 554; and 2) thus, adversarial proceedings before the NAD are "subject to" APA section 554, and the EAJA applies. Read more...

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 29, 2007
Oliver v. Coca Cola Co., No. 05-16509
In case involving the Long Term Disability Income Plan of the Coca-Cola Company, summary judgment and attorney fees for plaintiff is affirmed where defendant Coca-Cola acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiff's claim and no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. However, since the defendant was not the plan administrator, it was not a proper defendant and summary judgment against it is reversed. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, August 28, 2007
Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux, No. A114667
In case involving commercial landlord-tenant dispute, award of attorney's fees to plaintiffs is affirmed over claim that the lower court was without jurisdiction to award plaintiffs their appellate attorney's fees because the court of appeal did not make an award of costs. Read more...

Illinois Courts of Appeal, August 27, 2007
Bd. of Managers of Eleventh St. Loftominium Ass'n v. Wabash Loftominium, No. 1060104, 1061179cons.
In a consolidated interlocutory appeal arising from separate suits concerning condominium conversions and allegations of unrepaired common elements and inadequate capital reserves, an order disqualifying plaintiff's counsel after he joined a new law firm that was already representing corporations that were or are managed by the individual defendants is affirmed where the trial judges did not abuse their discretion when they entered the disqualification orders on appeal. Read more...

Illinois Courts of Appeal, August 28, 2007
Truserv v. Ernst & Young LLP., No. 1062749, 1063484cons.
In an action for breach of contract, professional malpractice, common-law fraud, and consumer fraud under the Consumer Fraud Act, an order confirming the arbitration award and denying plaintiff-TruServ's petition to vacate that portion of the award requiring it to pay attorney fees and costs incurred by defendant-Ernst & Young is reversed and remanded where; 1) the circuit court correctly refused to vacate the fee award; 2) the arbitration award does not reflect a gross mistake of law and is not subject to vacatur based on the inclusion of costs for general litigation expenses; and 3) there no abuse of discretion where plaintiff has not shown clear evidence of impropriety or of any other fundamental defect in the arbitration proceeding that the requested discovery would substantiate. Read more...