Case No. 2D11-791

[Pages:57]IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 2D11-791

CHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICAS LLC, n/k/a TD AUTO FINANCE LLC, Defendant/Appellant, v. MILDRED JULIETTE PIATT, Plaintiff/Appellee.

On Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida

INITIAL BRIEF

Howard J. Roin (admitted pro hac vice) Joshua D. Yount (admitted pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 782-0600

Michael B. Buckley (Florida Bar No. 0365734) Eric W. Neilsen (Florida Bar No. 0476757) BUCKLEY, ZINOBER & CURTIS, P.A. 150 Second Avenue N., Suite 1200 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (727) 822-4800

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ..........................................................1

I. Represented By Two Different Law Firms, Piatt Litigated Against Sundance And Its Shareholders For Ten Years.......................2

II. Represented By Mechanik Nuccio, Piatt Pressed Claims Against Sundance's Shareholders And Chrysler Financial In Dade County..........................................................................................4

III. After Years Of Delay Resulting From Piatt's Motions And A Court Error, The Claims Against Chrysler Financial Were Finally Tried In Hillsborough County...................................................9

IV. Piatt Received An Attorneys' Fee Award That Exceeds The Judgment Amount By Well Over $1 Million......................................10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................13

STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................15

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................16

I. An Award Of $1.5 Million In Attorneys' Fees For Obtaining A $293,000 Judgment Is Against Manifest Justice And Should Be Reversed ..............................................................................................17

II. The Circuit Court Should Have Used Historical Rates, Rather Than Current Rates, To Calculate The Fee Award.............................22

III. Competent Expert Testimony Does Not Establish That Piatt's Lawyers Reasonably Expended 2,623 Hours In Litigating This Case .....................................................................................................29

IV. Chrysler Financial Should Not Have To Pay Attorneys' Fees For Separate Litigation Against Other Defendants.............................33

V. The Circumstances Of This Case Do Not Permit A Fee Multiplier.............................................................................................39

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

A. None Of The Factors That Allow A Fee Multiplier Are Present In This Case..................................................................41

B. The Circuit Court Relied On Inappropriate And Irrelevant Considerations In Imposing A Fee Multiplier .........46

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................48

ii

CASES

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Page(s)

Amisub (Am. Hosp.) Inc. v. Hernandez, 817 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ......................................................................................42, 43

Andrews v. Ocean Reef Club, Inc., No. 91-20-575-CA-18, 1993 WL 563622 (Fla. 16th Cir. Ct. Jan. 22, 1993) ...........................................................23

Black Diamond Props., Inc. v. Haines, 36 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) ...........................................................................................35

Brake v. Murphy, 736 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).....................................29, 30

Brevard County v. Canaveral Props., Inc., 696 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) .....................................................................................29, 33

Chodorow v. Moore, 947 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ..............................35, 37

City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) ..................................................40

Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1987) ................29

Crown Custom Homes, Inc. v. Sabatino, 18 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ................................................................................15, 31, 36

Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ..........................................................................18, 20, 31, 33

In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1991).....................................................18

Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)...................................................................... 16, 18, 23, 39, 40, 44, 47

Franzen v. Lacuna Golf Ltd. P'ship, 717 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ...............................................................................35, 36, 38

Gaines v. Dougherty County Bd. of Educ., 775 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1985)...................................................................................................27

Gonzalez v. Veloso, 731 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) .........................................46

Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 613 F.3d 1035 (11th Cir. 2010)....................24, 25

iii

TABLE OF CITATIONS (continued)

Page(s)

Haines v. Sophia, 711 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)....................................17, 30

Hartage v. Astrue, No. 4:09-CV-48, 2011 WL 1123401 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2011) ...................................................................................24

Jackson v. Ryan's Family Steak House, 27 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)................................................................................16, 17, 19

Jones v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 759 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ..........45, 46

Lubkey v. Compuvac Sys., Inc., 857 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ..........................................................................30, 31, 35, 36

Michnal v. Palm Coast Dev., Inc., 842 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) .........42, 48

Miller v. First Am. Bank & Trust, 607 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) .......... 18-20

N. Dade Church of God, Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc., 851 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ............................................................................................32

Ottaviano v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (M.D. Fla. 2010).................48

Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662 (2010) .....................24, 28, 40, 47

Plapinger v. E. States Props. Realty Corp., 716 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) .....................................................................................35, 37

Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 948 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ....................................................... 18-20, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47

Riggins v. Astrue, No. 3:09-cv-856, 2011 WL 2119338 (M.D. Fla. May 27, 2011)...................................................................................24

Rock v. Prairie Bldg. Solutions, Inc., 854 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)............38

Rosenberg v. Ross, 613 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ..................................47, 48

Santini v. Cleveland Clinic Fla., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1011, 2011 WL 1773561 (Fla. 4th DCA May 11, 2011)..............................................................15

iv

TABLE OF CITATIONS (continued)

Page(s)

Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)..............................................................................16, 39-41, 44, 46-48

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 555 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1990) .................. 20-22 Trumbull Ins. Co. v. Wolentarski, 2 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) .............31, 38 Ziontz v. Ocean Trail Unit Owners Ass'n, Inc., 663 So. 2d 1334

(Fla. 4th DCA 1993) ..................................................................................... 17-19 OTHER AUTHORITIES

v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

This appeal challenges a decision awarding plaintiff Mildred Juliette Piatt

over $1.5 million in attorneys' fees for obtaining a ruling that defendant Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC ("Chrysler Financial")1 is liable for a $96,000

default judgment against a rental car franchisee. [RI 3: 494-95 (A 122-23); RII 34: 6633-34 (A 79-80)]2 Although Florida precedents warn against fee awards that so

far exceed the amount in controversy, the circuit court chose to enhance the fee

award in several ways. The court used current billing rates, rather than historical

ones. [RI 3: 484 (A 111)] It approved fees on more than 2,600 hours of work,

without receiving a competent expert opinion supporting that enormous figure. [RI

3: 484-88 (A 111-15)] It required Chrysler Financial to pay hundreds of thousands

of dollars in attorneys' fees amassed in litigating Piatt's separate claims against

1 As the result of a post-judgment transaction in which Toronto Dominion Bank Group acquired Chrysler Financial, Chrysler Financial now operates under the name of its successor-in-interest, TD Auto Finance LLC. To avoid confusion, this brief refers to the defendant as Chrysler Financial. 2 This brief uses the following conventions in referencing record materials. "RI [v. #]: [p. #]" refers by volume and page to the record compiled from the proceedings on Piatt's petition for attorneys' fees. "TI: [p. #]" refers by page to the transcript from the evidentiary hearing on that petition. "RII [v. #]: [p. #]" refers by volume and page to the record compiled in Chrysler Financial's appeal from the liability judgment in this case, which has been made a part of the record in this appeal. "TII: [p. #]" refers by page to the transcript from the liability trial in this case. This brief also cites by page to an Appendix submitted in support of the brief, using the reference "A [p. #]."

1

other defendants. [RI 3: 486 (A 113)] And then it applied a "contingency risk" fee multiplier of 1.75 to further boost the fee award. [RI 3: 492 (A 119)]

In justifying the $1.5 million fee award, the circuit court accepted Piatt's characterization of the underlying litigation between the parties. In that account, Chrysler Financial mounted an especially stiff defense that prolonged the litigation for ten years and forced Piatt's lawyers to rack up thousands of hours. [RI 3: 486, 491 (A 113, 118)] The litigation--as described by Piatt--also involved unusually complex and novel issues and posed a substantial risk of non-payment. [RI 3: 486, 490 (A 113, 117)] Plus, in the retelling accepted by the court, Piatt could not have found a lawyer to take her case without the promise of a fee multiplier. [RI 3: 490 (A 117)] A review of the record evidence, however, belies Piatt's story and refutes any supposed justification for a $1.5 million fee award under the applicable precedents. I. Represented By Two Different Law Firms, Piatt Litigated Against

Sundance And Its Shareholders For Ten Years. In May 1990, Piatt got into a car accident with a person driving a car rented from a Dollar Rent-a-Car franchise owned by Sundance Carriage Corporation ("Sundance"). [RII 1: 62] She hired a law firm, Goldfarb & Gold, to represent her on a contingent basis in an effort to recover for her alleged injuries. [TI: 34, 37-38, 347-48 (A 130, 133-34, 258-59)]

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download