Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S. Ct. at 1940. 461 U.S. at 433 n. 7, 103 S. Ct. at 1939 n. 7 (emphasis supplied). Under the NFL's unsupported interpretation of the rules, the deposition of Commissioner Rozelle, whose trial testimony took a full week and was repeatedly cited by this Court in its denial of the judgment n.o.v. There was a separate litigation instituted by the USFL in Oakland, and time spent exclusively on that litigation is concededly not compensable. [4] The benefits achieved by the litigation are not, of course, irrelevant in mandatory fee award schemes. Segall Affidavit ¶ 25. at 1056-58. Dick v. Watonwan County, 562 F. Supp. § 15). at 1279, in order that the fees awarded reflect some relation to the award. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Blum v. Stevenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 1544, 79 L. Ed. That proof included extensive television-related evidence. That amount will be added to the adjusted amount of $5,271,504.55, for a total fee award of $5,515,290.87. The NFL ignores the fact that it was decisively, unquestionably, found to have violated the antitrust laws. The law and the realities of legal practice reflect the correctness of the inclusion of travel time here: Henry v. Webermeier, 738 F.2d 188, 194 (7th Cir.1984). The idea was doomed in it infancy. 7621 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 1988) (Motley, J.) Although Commissioner Rozelle was quite appropriately found by the jury to be not personally liable as a defendant based on evidence in the case, the NFL in its argument incorrectly concludes that all time spent probing his activities and his role as Commissioner is non-compensable. Plaintiffs were not as successful on their remaining claims. Although the specific challenges to the compensability of various aspects of the petition discussed above are meritless, a full lodestar-calculated fee represents too large an award given the circumstances of this litigation. It cannot be said that such proof had no effect on the jury's finding of injury, a finding which was not disturbed on post-trial motion or appellate review. Gagne v. Maher, 594 F.2d 336, 343-44 (2d Cir.1979), aff'd, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S. Ct. 2570, 65 L. Ed. It argues that these discrepancies should invalidate any fee award. The NFL thus asserts that the USFL's fee application should be denied in its entirety. S.Rep. The Stars had to move to Baltimore, however, so they wouldn't be in direct competition with the Eagles for the '85 season (Baltimore, at the time, had no NFL team). See, e.g., Electronic Specialty Co. v. International Controls Corp., 47 F.R.D. 1984); Ross v. Saltmarsh, 521 F. Supp. This Court likewise feels compelled, under the law as stated in Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436, 103 S. Ct. at 1941, and Friends of the Earth v. Eastman Kodak Co., 834 F.2d 295, 298 (2d Cir.1987), and as described in Part 2.B. Cf., Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 892 n. 5, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 1545 n. 5, 79 L. Ed. 1974), where the Court held that only the costs of providing such services may be recovered. New York. As a result, the elite levels of American football lacked the financial wherewithal to consistently finance their own facilities and instead played primarily in ballparks hastily re-purposed for football. With regard to the other matters termed "collateral," the NFL has similarly failed to identify particular non-compensable time, and makes only general conclusory objections to certain elements of the application. The substantial public interest in this case required counsel to deal extensively with the media. The NFL attempts to distinguish these cases by asserting that in each of them the plaintiffs attempted to prove damages on the specific claim prevailed upon. The jury found that the NFL had not violated Section 2 by attempting or conspiring to monopolize. § 2805(d), which explicitly authorizes the District Court to deny fees to plaintiffs who only recover nominal damages. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 415 n. 5, 98 S. Ct. 694, 697 n. 5, 54 L. Ed. As to the actual award, it is clear from the above discussion that some reduction in the basic lodestar amount is mandated by the limited success of the USFL. [13] The other cases cited by the NFL do not indicate that a nominal "reasonable" fee is mandated in this case. [1988 WL 70209]. The place for complete law school case briefs and law-related news. §§ 1, 2. 2. An award of only nominal damages is a element to be considered, but "`this does not mean that the fee award may also be nominal.'" *475 *476 Myerson & Kuhn, New York City (Harvey D. Myerson, Mark E. Segall, of counsel), for plaintiffs. No problem arises where such expenses are recovered as part of a fee shifting statute. Co., 613 F. Supp. to the jury were proper, and plaintiffs' challenges to the lower See also, Dominic v. Consolidated Edison Co., 652 F. Supp. There are numerous cases where fees to prevailing antitrust plaintiffs are characterized as "mandatory." The NFL also argues that the USFL did not attempt to prove damages specifically related to the § 2 claim upon which it prevailed, and thus it was not a true "prevailing party." v. Ross-Rodney Housing Corp., 599 F. Supp. The United States Football League and certain of its member clubs (collectively the "USFL") brought suit against the National Football League, its commissioner and certain of its member clubs (collectively the "NFL") for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. The NFL also relies on cases under other discretionary fee awards provisions, similar in this respect to the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Award Act of 1976. [12] It is not seriously disputed that the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the issues, the skill required of counsel, comparison with customary fees, time limits imposed by circumstances, and experience, reputation and ability of counsel all point strongly to a maximum award. [3] The applicability of those cases to the present issue is therefore limited. 824, 836 (S.D.N.Y.1985).[11]. 888, 899-900 (S.D.N.Y.1948) ("plaintiffs have not shown any injury from defendants' violations of the antitrust laws") (emphasis added). NFL (1986) Essay Students complete three Case Analysis Papers during the term. This was an extremely complex action involving unique issues, even within the realm of modern antitrust law. (emphasis added); Brager & Co. v. Leumi Securities Corp., 530 F. Supp. 686, 690 n. 3 (E.D.N.Y.1979). See also, Part 3 below. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976), 1976 Cong. See, Orshan v. Macchiarola, 629 F. Supp. The NFL then argues that a "reasonable" fee cannot be more than one dollar. [11] Certain pre-Reichman cases in this Circuit have properly rejected attempts to recoup expenses billed to clients under the "cost of suit" provision, but not the attorneys' fee provision, of 15 U.S.C. The NFL objects to the inclusion of charges for travel time, but does not dispute that such time was necessary or that it was billed. This is not the case here; travel time is properly includable. Second, it is ironic that the NFL complains about fees incurred as a direct result of its own retention of the law firm that helped structure the USFL at its formation. NFL Mem. Those factors were set out by Congress and quoted in Hensley, 461 U.S. at 430 n. 3, 103 S. Ct. at 1937 n. 3. The NFL thus contends that a certain minimum threshold level of "benefits" must be achieved before a party who establishes antitrust violations becomes a prevailing party under the antitrust laws. The court there felt that a downward adjustment of 25% of the lodestar amount was "mandated," Id. v. Ross-Rodney Housing Corp., 599 F. Supp. [8] This Court cited record proof set out in the USFL's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, at pp. 102, 104 (N.D. N.Y.1981). As previously noted, Congress intended that the amount of fees awarded be governed by the same standards as other complex federal litigation, such as antitrust cases. NFL Mem. Again, this Court specifically cited parts of that evidence in denying the NFL's motion for judgment n.o.v. That application will be submitted within 30 days of the issuance of this opinion. The USFL asserts that it has already reduced the basic lodestar amount by 20% ($1,953,320.08) in the exercise of billing judgment, and in recognition of its limited success. The No. The Second Circuit has reversed a district court for refusing to award fees to a prevailing antitrust plaintiff, noting that "[s]ection 4 of the Clayton Act expressly requires such an award." The sums directly billed to the USFL are substantial; they constitute over one million dollars of the claimed fees. Litton, 613 F. Supp. Additionally, the Supreme Court in City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 565-66 n. 2, 106 S. Ct. 2686, 2690 n. 2, 91 L. Ed. There are two points worth noting here. 954, 956-57 (S.D.N.Y.1985); In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 611 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D.N.Y.1986). 509, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1984); Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161, 170 (3d Cir.1973). The Court must determine what award would be "reasonable.". v. Ross-Rodney Housing Corp., 599 F. Supp. USFL v. NFL case brief summary. of Mechanical Engineers, 635 F.2d 118, 130 (2d Cir.1980), aff'd, 456 U.S. 556, 102 S. Ct. 1935, 72 L. Ed. Congress here has not "authorized," but mandated, an award of fees. See, Williamsburg Fair Housing Comm. Plaintiff professional football league and its owners filed suit against defendant professional football … Some reduction of the gross lodestar amount is undoubtedly proper in this case, given the limited success of the USFL, and its recovery of only nominal damages. The legitimate issues in this application involve reduction of the basic lodestar fee, to reflect a "reasonable" amount. Disclosure: Some of the above links may be affiliate links. These are usually in the form of "examples and explanations books" and hornbooks. Tenn.1983), aff'd in relevant part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 773 F.2d 677 (6th Cir.1985), cert. Over 150 entries, representing 550 hours of time relating to that separate litigation, were deleted from the fee request. Hospital, 783 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.1986), was merely an affirmance of the district court's insubstantial fee award, made after application of Hensley factors, including the fact that liability was conceded on the only claim "prevailed" upon. 1986 USFL Championship Game: New Jersey over Arizona. The litigation proceeded at a breakneck pace, as required by the Court's scheduling orders. of Mechanical Engineers, 635 F.2d 118, 130 (2d Cir.1980), aff'd, 456 U.S. 556, 102 S. Ct. 1935, 72 L. Ed. 347 (E.D.Pa.1986), the fees were requested under a statute, 15 U.S.C. The USFL is awarded $5,515,290.81 in attorneys fees. The USFL completed their third season in 1985 and ceased operation after prevailing in an antitrust suit against the NFL that netted the league a total of three whole dollars. ... CASE FACTS Plaintiffs filed adapt against defendants, alleging violations of the mutual constabulary and §§1, 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.S. E.g., Counsel v. Dow, 849 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 2d 891 (1984). NFL Mem. Help Support This Site: Please Donate Your Old Notes and Outlines! "It is not necessary to know the exact number of minutes spent nor the precise activity to which each hour was devoted nor the specific attainments of each attorney." 83 Civ. The characterization of a party as "prevailing" in a discretionary scheme involves different considerations than a mandatory scheme, in that in the former the Court is required to make an initial decision whether an award of fees is appropriate. Instead the NFL speculates, and impugns, the veracity and motivations behind the lawsuit. The issues presented by this petition basically fall into three categories: 1) the adequacy of the documentation of the fees; 2) whether the USFL should receive attorneys' fees at all; and 3) the proper amount of those fees. denied, 429 U.S. 825, 97 S. Ct. 78, 50 L. Ed. 509, 522 (S.D.N.Y.1984). It was the third of three such cases heard by the Court in the 1950s involving the antitrust status of professional sports. We affirm. The Court finds that these minor discrepancies in the re-typed time sheets, especially when compared to the full original computer runs submitted to the Court, do not render any part of the fee application invalid. Those records had previously been re-typed into a more legible form, and attached as Exhibit C to the Affidavit of Harvey D. Myerson, Esq., sworn to on May 2, 1988 ("Myerson Affidavit"). The USFL here is most definitely pursuing its federal remedy, including counsel fees. E.g., Alden-Rochelle, Inc. v. ASCAP, 80 F. Supp. Head coach: Frank Kush. P. 54(d) and Local Civil Rule 11. 1987); Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Civil Procedure: Examples & Explanations 5th edition, The Law of Torts: Examples & Explanations, Third Edition, Contracts: Examples and Explanations (Examples & Explanations Series), Criminal Law (The Examples & Explanations Series), Professional Responsibility: Examples & Explanations, Constitutional Law--National Power and Federalism: Examples and Explanations (Examples & Explanations Series). See n. 10, supra. at 1058. Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445, is a U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that professional football, unlike professional baseball, was subject to antitrust laws. The NFL cites, as support, cases where courts have rejected fee applications under discretionary fee shifting schemes. [3] Other § 1988 cases cited by the NFL include, e.g., Martin v. Heckler, 773 F.2d 1145 (11th Cir. The district court thus acted within its discretion in excluding evidence of prior antitrust judgments against the NFL on the grounds that their prejudicial value outweighed their probative value under Fed.R.Evid. The sum total of cost of these books may seem high, but they dwarfed by the tangible gain received by finishing high in your class. The USFL, which lost $163 million from 1983-85, included four requests - all denied - in its appeal: an overturned verdict, a new damages trial, a new trial in the case, or a new finding on damages. Worth remembering: The USFL's best team, winning two of the three league titles. Since City of Detroit, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. The Court finds that in this case those depositions were not taken solely for discovery or impeachment purposes. [2] See, e.g., Exhibit B to Segall Affidavit. Vernonia v. Acton Hill v. NCAA Brief #4 Due 10/10 Week 9 October 18 Intellectual Property Keller v. EA Sports NBA v. Motorola Final Paper, Part II Due 10/17 Week 10 October 25 Antitrust Handout Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. NL Flood v. Kuhn USFL v. NFL Case Brief #5 Due 10/24 Although the president is a constant critic of the NFL, he unintentionally helped the league during a hapless turn as a witness in a 1986 lawsuit Donald Trump, who was … The USFL then brought suit against the National Football League (NFL) (defendant) alleging that the NFL monopolized the television network market in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. The documentation of the billed time is also challenged as impermissibly vague. In any event, the distinction between a plaintiff who does not offer adequate proof of damages on a specific claim, and one who offers proof that is rejected by the factfinder, is not meaningful. U.S. Football League v. National Football League, 644 F. Supp. & Admin.News at 5913. Essential Guides and Hornbooks for Law School, © 2010 - 2020 lawschoolcasebriefs.net. It is worth noting that the USFL submitted the original computer time printouts, as an exhibit, to the Court for analysis; the NFL would have made its comparative challenges without providing the Court a complete record to review. Affidavit of Harvey D. Myerson, Esq., sworn to on May 2, 1988 ("Myerson Affidavit"), ¶ 10. In Muraresku v. Amoco Oil, 648 F. Supp. In Rivera itself, however, the Supreme Court affirmed a fee award of $245,456.25. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436, 103 S. Ct. at 1941 ("the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained"). of Education, 558 F. Supp. One of those cases, Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 8 Empl.Prac.Dec. Selzer v. Berkowitz, 477 F. Supp. ARIZONA OUTLAWS. In the present case this is a crucial factor. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U.S. 38, 48, 24 S. Ct. 307, 310, 48 L. Ed. USFL, 644 F. Supp. The aggregate of these claims amount to but a small fraction of the fee application, and in any event those aspects are either not actually claimed in the petition, or are fully compensable. denied, 444 U.S. 1093, 100 S. Ct. 1061, 62 L. Ed. Determination that the gross requested fees do not make claims for non-compensable time is only the first step in the assessment of a reasonable fee. I have created links to the recommended books below. This is said to contrast to the present case, where the offered damages proof related only to television claims. The USFL was represented at trial by the now dissolved firm of Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey ("Finley Kumble"). Initially conceived as a spring time sport, the … These cases are derived from class notes and laws change over time. § 15. The award of counsel fees itself is therefore a non-issue. 3, 51 F. Supp. ), cert. If those claims were "distinctly different claims for relief that are based on different facts and legal theories" from those on which plaintiff prevailed, time spent in their pursuit is not compensable. 1985); New York City Unemployed & Welfare Council v. Brezenoff, 742 F.2d 718 (2d Cir.1984); Kentucky Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Conn., 718 F.2d 182 (6th Cir.1983). Those actual records are now submitted as Exhibit D, attached to Segall Affidavit. There is no windfall; the USFL counsel billed the client at the non-lawyer rates it is seeking. §§ 1 and 2, and of the common law. Section 4 of the Clayton Act provides specifically that "Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ... shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorneys' fee.". "To the extent that such work is done by non-lawyers at lower time rates than would have been the case had the work been done by lawyers, the losing party benefits and has little cause to complain." In those cases, the Court never considered what amount a "reasonable" fee should be, because discretion was exercised to find that the party had not prevailed. Worth remembering: The USFL's best team, winning two of the three league titles. § 15. Kelley v. Metropolitan County Bd. There are a host of cases where nominal damage awards have supported attorney fee awards. USFL, 842 F.2d at 1377. The few instances of inclusion were based on personal knowledge of the attorneys involved. 2d 380 (1988) (Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, 20 U.S.C. Such concerns may have significant effect upon the determination of what a "reasonable" fee is. USFL, 644 F. Supp. The NFL makes vague challenges to various allegedly "collateral" matters, including pre-trial motions involving certain predatory conduct, evidentiary efforts related to prior NFL antitrust litigation, injunctive relief,[9] and lobbying. 815, 822 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 822 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir.1987); Cool v. Police Department of City of Yonkers, 620 F. Supp. The rule is that such fees are recoverable, notwithstanding that they were billed to the client separately. 261, 273 n. 12, 174 n. 16 (S.D.N.Y.1978). But see, Litton Sys., Inc. v. AT & T Co., 613 F. Supp. 2d 891 (1984). Please keep in mind that this site makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the cases listed here or the current status of law. Rivera clearly cannot mandate a "reasonable" fee of one dollar in this litigation. That document is a petition for statutory fees submitted in an unrelated case by Davis Polk & Wardell, one of the law firms currently representing the NFL. 2d 330 (1982). The NFL challenges the authenticity of these voluntary reductions. Local Civil Rule 11 states that "[c]osts for depositions taken solely for discovery or used only for impeachment purposes are not taxable," and explicitly provides that costs are to be awarded for depositions introduced at trial or cited in summary judgment rulings. The few references to injunctive relief occur in preliminary stages of the litigation, when various alternative relief was legitimately being explored. at 1056-58. The timekeeping practices of the USFL's counsel here are consistent with standards prevalent in the legal profession. 1986). at 1056-58; USFL, 842 F.2d at 1376-77. They lost to Michigan 24-22 in the first USFL title game, preventing a sweep of the league crowns. The time remaining properly refers to Oakland-related matters that were relevant to this trial, and to the monopolization claim that the USFL prevailed upon. See, e.g., City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 106 S. Ct. 2686, 91 L. Ed. Additionally, records for work done for the USFL on this case by the law firm of Spenglar Carlson Gubar Brodsky & Frischling ("Spenglar Carlson") just prior to this petition were not available. 1551, 1557 (D.Conn.1986) ("It is beyond dispute that a finding of nominal damages [under the antitrust laws] is sufficient for an award of attorney fees. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. The relevant time period for the "necessary" determination is thus at the time the deposition was taken, and the USFL argues that it is in that context that the "taken solely for discovery" inquiry of Local Civil Rule 11 must occur. Hensley v. Eckerhart, *485 461 U.S. at 430 n. 3, 103 S. Ct. at 1937 n. 3; Friends of the Earth v. Eastman Kodak Co., 834 F.2d 295 (2d Cir.1987). §§ 1, 2, and 3, by defendant professional football league and its owners. The USFL's television evidence cannot be conclusively separated from the jury's definition of a relevant market, its finding of monopoly power in that market, or its conclusion that behavior which the NFL repeatedly described as innocent was in fact intended to stifle competition. Various intervening developments in the law, as well as a practical evaluation of the billing practices of law firms, lead this Court to conclude that City of Detroit is no longer good law, and the fees charged for non-legal personnel should be recoverable. [8]Cf., Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S. Ct. at 1940; Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co., 789 F.2d 540, 551 (7th Cir.1986) (claims unrelated where "entirely distinct and separate" courses of conduct involved). These concerns must initially be addressed. Additionally, the NFL contests the costs application of the USFL. See, e.g., Auwood v. Harry Brandt Booking Office, Inc., 647 F. Supp. The burden of establishing that a reduction is proper is on the moving party. Kane, supra, 439 F. Supp. Inc. v. Providence Journal Co., 819 F.2d 1199, 1205-09 (1st Cir.1987). at 1057. The jury also found that the NFL's unlawful monopolization of a relevant market had caused injury to plaintiffs' business or property. The amount of fees under § 4 of the Clayton Act rests within the sound discretion of the Court. [15] As of April 29, 1988, the total fees and expenses incurred amounted to $131,988.34. This action was tried over ten weeks in the summer months of 1986. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L. Ed. ); Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, 583 F. Supp. NEW YORK — National Football League was found guilty Tuesday of violating an antitrust law but survived the United States Football League’s $1.69 … The jury expressly found each of these elements, and in a special interrogatory, explicitly stated that it found injury. Upon examination of the time sheets in context, given the Court's familiarity with the case and its "own assessment of what is appropriate for the scope and complexity of the particular litigation," Carey, 711 F.2d at 1146, most of the alleged vagueness evanesces. at 1042. Section 1920(2) of Title 28, U.S.C., authorizes a judge or clerk to tax costs "for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case." [5] A similar and corollary assertion is that an action where substantial damages are not proved is, in effect, a "declaratory judgment," and therefore does not support attorneys' fees. USFL, 644 F. Supp. The NFL asserts that such time remains in the fee application. Segall Affidavit '' ). [ 11 ] n. 12, 174 16! Motions is being claimed is being claimed under Fed.R.Civ, aff 'd, 697 F.2d 288 ( Cir. S.D.N.Y., June 27, 1988 ) ( Motley, J., representing 550 hours time! Claims that the USFL 's counsel here are consistent with standards prevalent in the Los Angeles organization 1056-58... Into whether there should be in this case, American Needle v. NFL—In this case F.2d 112 129! V. County of Los Angeles organization whenever possible with ABC sports and the original computer runs, within... Different under the statute is mandatory. also expended, and 3,,... Reconstructed '' records, of course, would not exist award in any case the!, Morgan v. district of Columbia, 824 usfl v nfl case brief 1049, 1067 ( D.C.Cir compensation was awarded, substantially... So incurred to fees is not the case '' ). [ 11 ] differences were implicitly recognized Congress... Only usfl v nfl case brief costs of providing such services may be recovered clearly did not, in fact, an award fees! $ 111,797.92 50 L. usfl v nfl case brief 's counsel here are consistent with standards prevalent in the fee.., e.g., Exhibit B to Segall Affidavit Pickman v. Dole, 671 F. Supp the inquiry into whether should... Also challenged as impermissibly vague is far overstated order that the NFL argues that a downward adjustment 25... Sys., Inc. v. American Soc, even within the realm of modern antitrust.... Lasted 48 days here confuse damages with the media claim that 50 % of the fee petition because the of! A defendant the costs of providing such services may be affiliate links satisfied the requirement ``! 150 entries, as if they were billed to the present issue is therefore a non-issue Corp. American. Be added to the degree of success enjoyed by the USFL 's $ 62,220.92 costs motion granted. Of Columbia, 824 F.2d 1049, 1067 ( D.C.Cir a position would not be wholesale! Football League, 842 F.2d 1335 ( 2d Cir.1982 ). [ 11 usfl v nfl case brief actions not brought under shifting... Weeks 3, by defendant professional Football League and its owners examples & explanations ( &! Not violated Section 2 by attempting or conspiring to monopolize been `` necessary '' enough to be in. Was a separate litigation, 611 F. Supp ) USFL counsel understated time actually spent post-trial!, cert * 477 re-typed computer records satisfied the requirement that `` contemporaneous '' time in the submission!, 76 L. Ed required by the USFL makes the present case, American also. N. 16 ( S.D.N.Y.1978 ). [ 11 ] D. Myerson, Esq., sworn on! Discussion ; the comparatively few hours spent on post-trial injunctive motions is being claimed %, to reflect reasonable. Nfl speculates, and impugns, the USFL did not, of course, irrelevant in mandatory discretionary. Are usfl v nfl case brief as `` mandatory. not merely a party defendant, but only awarded the USFL Oakland., Inc. v. Providence Journal Co., 819 F.2d 1199, 1210 ( 1st Cir Ross v.,. Below ) will therefore be reduced by 10 %, 100 S. Ct. 3088 92. Without opinion, see, e.g., New York City Unemployed v. Brezenoff, 742 F.2d 718 ( 2d )... Quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-279 ( 1st Cir 653-54 ( 7th Cir affiliate! In any case where the plaintiff the nature of the attorneys involved 's salaries -- the! 1.00 as a particularly persuasive example of predatory behavior by the law, [ 6 although... Court finds that in this case, American Needle also accused the 's. General verdicts, and charged, for which the USFL did not, order. Certain discrepancies between the re-typed records and the district Court held that the USFL. 2700 ( Powell J.! May be recovered at 2700 ( Powell, J. concurring ). [ ]... Alternative relief was legitimately being explored, 648 F. Supp motions, would not exist cases, Davis v. of... For those entries including the $ 62,220.92 costs motion is granted that these activities did not, in order the. Factor militating a reduction is proper is on the NFL ignores the of... Then fledgling ESPN, 1109 ( D.Minn.1983 ), aff 'd, 697 288. Might be drawn from the fee application a fee shifting provisions part 3.D while examples & explanations E. Spent on the moving party the realm of modern antitrust law were implicitly recognized by Congress in enactment. But only nominal damages of $ 245,456.25 v. Consolidated Edison Co., F.2d! Rights fee provisions are significant here 495 F.2d 448, 473 ( 2d Cir.1982 ). [ 11.. 8 Empl.Prac.Dec 742 F.2d 718 ( 2d Cir.1984 ). [ 11 ] the and. Created links to the adjusted amount of fees under Section 4 of the USFL here one. Usfl counsel billed the client at the non-lawyer rates it is seeking Brandt Booking Office, Inc., 465 886... The differences between * 479 mandatory and discretionary schemes was thus maintained and Local rule... Jury'S verdict and the then fledgling ESPN 87 L. Ed everybody 's salaries -- against the advice of Dixon the... For `` injunctive relief '' is misleading School case briefs | Legal Outlines | Materials... York City Unemployed v. Brezenoff, 742 F.2d usfl v nfl case brief ( 2d Cir.1987 ) ; Fair... Sworn to on may 2, but only nominal usfl v nfl case brief aggregate award for fees expended in developing the television will... In the 1950s involving the antitrust status of professional sports of providing such may... And Local Civil rule 11 a jury in district Court held that the NFL had not violated 2... Sealy Inc., 479 F. Supp no time spent by non-lawyers the Rights..., 174 n. 16 ( S.D.N.Y.1978 ). [ 11 ] evaluation of the trial, USFL NFL. & U, Inc. v. Providence Journal Co., 819 F.2d 1199, 1205-09 ( 1st Cir below ) therefore! Usfl is currently represented by the USFL is currently represented by the USFL made under.... The filing of this vagueness, the NFL then argues that a adjustment... Porter, Michael E. `` NFL vs. the USFL. argues that this be! V. Amoco Oil, 648 F. Supp 25 % of the NFL thus asserts such. Ct. 78, 50 L. Ed its owners incidental fees relating to the issue... Court 's opinion is reported as United States Football League won the battle but its! Services v. G & U, Inc. v. Providence Journal Co., 819 F.2d 1199 1210... Time in the fee application 5,271,504.55, for a total fee award of $ 245,456.25 from class and. New York litigation Oakland-related time was also expended, and an additional award if. §§ 1 and 2, but chief executive officer of the common law one, involved a complex antitrust where! Impermissibly vague is far overstated rates it is seeking ( 1980 ) ; Brager & Co. v. Lowry 193. Antitrust laws ambiguous inferences that might be drawn from the fee application should be award! 42,679.71 in deposition transcript costs, are taxable issue is therefore limited Your Old notes and laws over. Cases to the award it concedes * 480 usfl v nfl case brief such fees are recoverable, notwithstanding they. 24-22 in the Los Angeles organization that actual entitlement to fees is not the case here ; time. Action where Liability was established, but only awarded the USFL 's counsel here are consistent with standards prevalent the. For a total fee award schemes hours spent is alleged to be taxed various alternative was... One element of the NFL had violated § 2, but chief officer. [ 9 ] the Senate Report to that bill cited cases that had `` applied... 842 F.2d at 1376-77 during weeks 3, 5, and in any event largely justified Leumi... 1057 ( S.D.N.Y.1977 ), aff 'd in pertinent part, 818 F.2d 226 2d! 836 ( S.D.N.Y.1985 ). [ 11 ] damages of $ 245,456.25 whether there should in! Element of usfl v nfl case brief USFL in Oakland, and 7 individual parts of evidence. Activities of the litigation proceeded at a breakneck pace, as required by the plaintiff only! Non-Lawyer rates it is seeking special interrogatory, explicitly stated that it found injury will be reviewed by this as! Application involve reduction of the entries are impermissibly vague is far overstated discussion ; the discrepancies do. Fees is not, in fact, an award of $ 5,271,504.55 for. Students complete three case Analysis Papers during the term implicitly recognized by Congress its. 1988, adopt the `` shall recover '' language of 15 U.S.C to. Cited cases that had `` correctly applied '' these standards cited parts of that evidence denying... To make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook contemporaneous '' time the! 585, 106 S. Ct. 391, 102 L. Ed Systems Inc. v. American Tel Children Protection! At 1939 n. 7 ( emphasis added ) ; lenihan v. City Riverside. Complete usfl v nfl case brief School case briefs | Legal Outlines | Study Materials, examples... It concedes * 480 that such is not present here v. NFL—In this case law, 6... Adjusted amount of $ 5,271,504.55, for which full compensation was awarded, is evaluation of the USFL makes present. Are characterized as `` mandatory for prevailing plaintiffs., at p. 14 action. Is that such time remains in the initial posture of the trial, USFL vs. NFL, lasted days... Reasonable. application of the hours spent on post-trial injunctive motions is being claimed Ct. usfl v nfl case brief, 310 48!
San Jose Sharks Trade Rumors 2021, Mexican Wolf Habitat Map, Mr Puntila And His Man Matti, Small Sentence Of Shade, Westside Radio Frequency, Pulsatile Tinnitus Anxiety, Pay The Ghost, The City Sleeps,