Johnson v. Old World Craftsmen, Ltd., 81 C 7053.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 81 C 7053.,81 C 7053. |
| Citation | 638 F. Supp. 289 |
| Parties | Stewart JOHNSON d/b/a Stewart Johnson Design Studio, Plaintiff, v. OLD WORLD CRAFTSMEN, LTD., Don Zivanov, Walter F. Neumann and Thor Thoresen, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Robert D. Silver, Park Ridge, Ill. and Gerald C. Risner, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Merrill B. Meyer, Rappaport & Meyer, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
This case involves a contract claim for $32,501.20 which became a RICO action and was settled for $75,000 plus interest. The settlement agreement was arrived at in May 1983, and provided that $25,000 was to be paid to the plaintiff within 30 days of execution of the settlement agreement and the remaining $50,000 within 180 days. Plaintiff's RICO action was to be dismissed. The agreement also provided that, in the event of a breach of any provision of the agreement, the plaintiff could have the complaint reinstated and judgment entered for the amount of the settlement "plus reasonable attorneys' fees and any costs both incurred in connection with reinstatement of the complaint and collection of said judgment." Defendants did not pay the required $25,000 within 30 days of the execution of the settlement agreement, and in August 1983 the complaint was reinstated and this court entered judgment against the defendants in the amount of $75,000. The judgment was paid in full by November 1983. Plaintiff next sought $181,052.43 for attorneys' fees allegedly incurred in collecting the settlement. We referred the case to a magistrate for decision of the attorneys' fees issue. Magistrate Bucklo found that plaintiff was entitled to some attorneys' fees but that $181,052.43 was an unreasonable fee for three months worth of collection efforts which concerned a $75,000 judgment. She awarded plaintiff $16,390.44 in fees and expenses. We incorporate her detailed report of January 28, 1986 into this Memorandum by reference.
Now both plaintiff and defendants object to the magistrate's findings, one claiming that the award is unreasonably low, the other that it is unreasonably high. We find that the magistrate correctly resolved all of the legal issues raised by the parties and did a commendable job of working through excessively long but nonetheless improperly documented fee petitions to reach the result she did. We accord her careful consideration of the minutia of this voluminous record great weight and well-deserved praise, and adopt her report in full.
At the outset, the question of the standard of review applicable to such a magistrate's order presents itself. Although no standard of review has been proposed by either of the parties, we find the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard applicable to decisions of magistrates regarding nondispositive pretrial motions, Fed.R. Civ.P. 72(a), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), appropriate for review of nondispositive collateral motions, such as motions for attorneys' fees and costs, as well.
A motion for attorneys' fees, while not "pretrial" at all in the temporal sense, is a motion "capable of determination without trial of the general issue," U.S. v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 586 (1st Cir.1981), and thus can in a sense be considered pretrial because not related to trial. Since the issue of attorneys' fees is severable from the main legal issues addressed at trial, it is appropriate for the consideration of a magistrate. In addition, decision of a motion for attorneys' fees generally involves factual rather than legal questions, and does not in any case affect the substantive rights of the parties. Such a motion is thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perales v. Casillas
...have considered the issue, the district court finally settled on the clearly erroneous standard. See, e.g., Johnson v. Old World Craftsmen, Ltd., 638 F.Supp. 289, 291 (N.D.Ill.1986) (concluding that the clearly erroneous standard should apply). But see West v. Redman, 530 F.Supp. 546, 548 (......
-
Callier v. Gray
...one ultimately resulting in a default judgment in this case.9 We reject the strained logic of cases such as Johnson v. Old World Craftsmen, Ltd., 638 F.Supp. 289, 291 (N.D.Ill.1986), which holds that though a motion for attorneys' fees and costs was not pretrial in the temporal sense, it co......
-
Westefer v. Snyder
...meaning of Rule 72(a). See Adkins v. Mid-American Growers, Inc., 143 F.R.D. 171, 175 n. 3 (N.D.Ill.1992); Johnson v. Old World Craftsmen, Ltd., 638 F.Supp. 289, 291 (N.D.Ill.1986). Accord Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir.1990). The clearly erroneous standard......
-
Realpe v. Scully
...... 23 at about 6:45 p.m., Detectives Johnson and Rodriguez of the Task Force went to the ...Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 81, 407 N.Y. S.2d 682, 684, 379 N.E.2d 208, 210, ......
-
The power to award sanctions: does it belong in the hands of magistrate judges?
..."essential to a full disposition of the petitioner's claim and the defendants' liability'), with Johnson v. Old World Craftsmen, Ltd., 638 F. Supp. 289, 291 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (finding that a postjudgment motion for attorney fees, not awarded as a sanction, is properly determined by a magistr......