Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    Estrada v. City 1531-CC00465 Post Judgment Order

    Uploaded by

    SNLeader
    Judge Michael Cordonnier ordered the city of Springfield to pay for Cpl. Alberto Estrada's attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The judge did not order the city to pay lost earnings or future retirement benefits like Estrada’s attorneys had wanted, which could have been hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Estrada v. City 1531-CC00465 Post Judgment Order

    Uploaded by

    SNLeader
    116 views6 pages
    Judge Michael Cordonnier ordered the city of Springfield to pay for Cpl. Alberto Estrada's attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The judge did not order the city to pay lost earnings or future retirement benefits like Estrada’s attorneys had wanted, which could have been hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

    Original Title

    Estrada v. City; 1531-CC00465; Post Judgment Order

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Michael Cordonnier ordered the city of Springfield to pay for Cpl. Alberto Estrada's attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The judge did not order the city to pay lost earnings or future retirement benefits like Estrada’s attorneys had wanted, which could have been hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    116 views6 pages

    Estrada v. City 1531-CC00465 Post Judgment Order

    Uploaded by

    SNLeader
    Judge Michael Cordonnier ordered the city of Springfield to pay for Cpl. Alberto Estrada's attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The judge did not order the city to pay lost earnings or future retirement benefits like Estrada’s attorneys had wanted, which could have been hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI

    ALBERTO ESTRADA ) Filed


    ) 6/12/2017
    Plaintiff, ) Greene County Circuit Court
    )
    v. ) Division 1
    ) Case No.: 1531-CC00465
    CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, )
    POLICE DEPARTMENT )
    )
    Defendant. )

    ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS POST JUDGMENT


    MOTIONS

    Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Judgment to Include

    Attorneys Fees, Litigation Costs and Promotion or Other Equitable Relief. Plaintiff has

    filed suggestions in support of his motions, and Defendant has filed suggestions in

    opposition to Plaintiffs motions. In addition the Court has heard the capable argument

    of counsel on the issues joined.

    The Court now grants Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Judgment to Include

    Attorneys Fees and Litigation Costs, and denies Plaintiffs Motion for Promotion or

    Other Equitable Relief.

    Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Attorneys Fee and


    Litigation Costs.

    Plaintiffs application for attorneys fees and costs was presented to the Court and

    supported by evidence consisting of affidavits, exhibits, and testimony. Upon

    consideration of the evidence presented, and the law applicable to the issues, the Court

    awards Plaintiff an additional amount of damages as attorney fees in the amount of


    $118,233.00, together with costs in the amount of $2,321.24, for a total additional

    award of $120,554.34. The Court will issue an Amended Judgment to reflect this

    additional award of damages.

    The parties have each capably briefed the law pertaining to the award of post-

    judgment attorneys fees, and it would serve no ultimate purpose for the Court to repeat

    that in this context. In short, Missouri law provides that a court may award court costs

    and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. Section 213.111.2 RSMo.

    Plaintiff claims that he is the prevailing party and that he is entitled to a post-

    judgment award of attorney fees. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is the prevailing

    party as against the Defendant. Alhalabi v. Missouri Dept of Natural

    Resources, 300 S.W.3d 518 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2009) A prevailing party is one that

    succeeds on any significant issue in litigation which achieved some of the benefit the

    parties sought in bringing suit. Id. At 530.

    In consideration of a just fee that should be awarded, the Court must use its own

    experience and presumed expertise in the analysis of attorney fee applications. In

    addition the Court considers a number of factors in the analysis of a reasonable attorney

    fee, including: 1) the rates customarily charged by the attorneys involved in the case and

    by other attorneys in the community for similar services; 2) the number of hours

    reasonably expended on the litigation; 3) the nature and character of the services

    rendered; 4) the degree of professional ability required; 5) the nature and importance of

    the subject matter; 6) the amount involved or the result obtained; and 7) the vigor of

    the opposition. See Gilliland v. Mo. Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 523 (Mo. banc

    2009).
    The Court, having considered the detailed time records of Plaintiffs attorneys,

    the affidavits of Plaintiffs attorneys, the affidavit of [another] local attorney with

    expertise in employment litigation and the Courts own observation of the pre-trial and

    trial work of Plaintiffs counsel finds as follows: 1) The rate charged by Plaintiffs

    counsel, while perhaps higher than that charged by counsel for Defendant, was in fact

    contingent on an uncertain outcome. The rate is similarly slightly higher than what may

    be charged by experienced attorneys in the immediate venue of the case. However, the

    Court finds it not unreasonable that Plaintiff would seek counsel out of the immediate

    locale in effort to pursue this litigation against this particular employer. Therefore, the

    Court finds the rate charged by Plaintiffs counsel is reasonable in all respects; 2) The

    number of hours charged by Plaintiffs counsel is reasonable in all respects, with the

    exception of travel time discussed below; 3) The nature and character of the service

    provided Plaintiff by his counsel was superior in all respects and evidenced by an

    unwavering dedication to the pursuit of Plaintiffs claims; 4) Plaintiffs counsel, while

    not previously known to the Court, are nonetheless experienced and capable in the

    handling and trial of employment cases; 5) The Court is satisfied the nature of Plaintiffs

    claims are important, and the jurys verdict in his favor merely confirms that conclusion;

    6) The result obtained on behalf of Plaintiff was based on the jurys evaluation of

    Plaintiffs special and general damages and presumably was awarded in an amount so as

    to fully compensate Plaintiff for his damages; and 7) The attorneys for the Defendant are

    experienced, skilled, capable, and did vigorously represent and defend Defendant in

    response to all aspects of Plaintiffs claims. Based on this analysis, the Court does not

    hesitate in awarding Plaintiff his reasonable attorney fees and costs.


    Plaintiff seeks at total fee award of $150,27o.00 together with expenses of

    $2,321.34. Defendant has suggested that the fee award sought is excessive based on,

    inter alia, excessive number of hours expended, excessive hourly rate, limited skill level

    required, limited damage award and excessive billing. The Court has carefully reviewed

    the billing records of Plaintiffs counsel in light of the analysis of Defendant. While the

    Court is generally satisfied as analyzed above, the Court does remove travel time from

    the hours billed at the full rate as that activity does not merit the skilled billing

    component. In addition, the Court is mindful that a substantial portion of the Plaintiffs

    effort was in pursuit of persuading the jury that the Defendant should be responsible for

    punitive or exemplary damages. Plaintiff did not prevail on that claim. Therefore some

    reduction in the overall fee is required to account for that issue.

    After removing the travel time (admittedly somewhat difficult as the time records

    were not kept for this purpose, 36 hours at $400; and 12 hours at $375) and reducing

    the remaining statement by 10% based on the punitive damage issue, the Court will

    award Plaintiff the additional amount of $118,233.00 together with expenses of

    $2,321.34.00.

    Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Promotion of Other


    Equitable Relief.

    In addition to the compensatory damages awarded by the jury, and the post-

    judgment award of attorneys fees and expenses to be awarded by the Court, Plaintiff

    suggests to the Court that it [has] [should exercise] equitable power to order Defendant

    to promote Plaintiff in rank [from current rank of corporal to the higher rank of

    sergeant.] In addition, or in alternative to, the request for promotion, Plaintiff suggests
    the Court exercise its equitable power to order Defendant to award Plaintiff front pay

    (calculated as the difference between sergeant pay and corporal pay for the applicable

    period) and additional pension benefits that would have accrued had Plaintiff been

    earning at the higher sergeant pay level.

    Each of these equitable requests are based upon Plaintiffs conclusion stated in

    his suggestions as:

    It is clear from the jurys verdict that plaintiff was denied a promotion

    due to his race. In other words, absent race discrimination, he would be a

    Sergeant today at the top of the pay scale.

    This Court can draw no such clarity or conclusion from the jurys verdict. Simply

    put, given the state of the law in Missouri, the jury was not asked whether or not

    Plaintiff should have been promoted. Nor was the jury asked whether or not, absent his

    race, Plaintiff would have been promoted. Nor was the jury asked whether or not

    Plaintiffs race was a substantial, or important, or motivating, or even a significant factor

    in Plaintiffs lack promotion.

    The only query made of the jury was to determine whether or not Plaintiffs race

    was a contributing factor in such failure to promote. See: Instruction No. 6. Plaintiff

    was free to, and did argue to the jury, and properly so, that his race need only have

    contributed in the smallest amount in the decision not to promote in order for him to

    obtain a verdict. Plaintiff was never required to persuade the jury that had it not been

    for his race he would have been promoted, nor was the jury required to make such a

    finding.

    Given the law as submitted to the jury [the Court does not suggest the jury was

    not properly instructed in compliance with MAI] it is perhaps equally likely that the jury
    concluded that the Defendants decision not to promote Plaintiff was entirely proper

    based on all the circumstances then under consideration, but that indeed his race

    contributed in some [small] manner. Without doubt the Court cannot know what was in

    the mind of the jury when they considered the evidence, applied the law, and rendered

    the verdict. Neither can the Court purport to grant equitable relief based on a

    conclusion the jury was never asked to render.

    This Court must conclude, and be guided by the proposition that the jury applied

    the law they were given and did in fact award Plaintiff such sum as they believed would

    fairly and justly compensate him for any damages they believe Plaintiff sustained and is

    reasonably certain to sustain in the future as a direct result of the occurrence mentioned

    in the evidence. See: Instruction No. 7.

    Plaintiffs motion for equitable relief is denied.

    6/12/2017
    Dated: _________ _______________________
    Michael J. Cordonnier, Circuit Judge
    Greene County Circuit Court, Div. 1

    You might also like