Sun Pub. Co., Inc. v. Mecklenburg News, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2538,86-2538 |
| Parties | 1987-1 Trade Cases 67,643 SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., t/a The Sun, Appellant, v. MECKLENBURG NEWS, INC., t/a The News-Progress, a Virginia corporation; Keith A. Shelton; Douglas E. Loftis, Jr.; Halifax Gazette Publishing Co., Inc., Appellees, and The South Hill Publishing Co., Incorporated, t/a The South Hill Enterprise, a Virginia corporation; Frank L. Nanney, Jr.; Harry J. Nanney; Tucker W. McLaughlin; South Boston News, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Alan W. Clarke (Clarke & Clarke, Kilmarnock, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Franklin M. Slayton (Slayton, Bennett & Rand, P.C., South Boston, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before RUSSELL, and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and KISER, United States District Judge, sitting by designation.
Sun Publishing Company, Inc. appeals from the district court's denial of its second supplemental petition for attorneys' fees. Sun Publishing contends that because the district court denied its petition without a detailed analysis, the case must be remanded to the district court for an explanation. Because we hold that a request for attorneys' fees, which is so exorbitant as to shock the conscience of the court, may be denied without an analysis of the factors enunciated by this court in Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc., 577 F.2d 216 (4th Cir.1978), the decision of the district court is affirmed.
Two small town publishing businesses, Sun Publishing and Mecklenburg News, Inc. became embroiled in a law suit. At trial of antitrust claims and counterclaims, the details of which are irrelevant to the narrow issue on appeal, the jury found for Sun Publishing on all liability issues and returned a verdict of $158,000 for violation of the Sherman Act. Damages were trebled to $474,000, but later reduced by remittitur to $87,284.61, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees. An award of attorneys' fees is mandated under Sec. 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. Sec. 15(a) (Supp.1987).
Subsequently, attorneys' fee litigation took place. The attorneys for Sun Publishing petitioned for a fee of $491,894.38 plus costs of $23,806.14. This was supplemented by a second fee petition seeking $21,815 for time spent in preparation of the initial fee petition. The district court awarded Sun Publishing attorneys' fees on the initial fee petition of $279,850.68 and attorneys' fees on the supplemental petition for time spent preparing and prosecuting the fee petition of $18,517.94, plus costs and interest. Sun Publishing Co. v. Mecklenburg News, Inc., 594 F.Supp. 1512, 1525 (E.D.Va.1984).
Mecklenburg sought to reduce the attorneys' fee award based upon its inability to pay and the danger of bankruptcy. After a two and one-half hour hearing, the district judge rejected this challenge. 1 Subsequently, Sun Publishing's lawyers filed their second supplemental petition for attorneys' fees together with an array of supporting affidavits outlining attorney time, hourly rates, and other assorted costs. In this motion, Sun Publishing requested an additional $41,826.21 in attorneys' fees allegedly incurred as a result of its opposition to Mecklenburg's petition to reduce the original award of attorneys' fees because of its claim of inability to pay.
With its order denying Sun Publishing's petition for additional attorneys fees, the district court sent a letter to the attorneys stating that it would not award additional fees. The court pointed out that attorneys fees over $200,000 in excess of the judgment had already been awarded, that the second supplemental petition was "unconscionable" and it declined, absent direction from this court, to award additional attorneys fees.
Sun Publishing argues that the district court erred by failing to support its decision to deny attorneys' fees with a memorandum opinion discussing the 12 factors outlined in Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc., that the order of the district court should be reversed, and that the matter be remanded to the district court for a reconsideration of Sun Publishing's motion. In Barber, this court adopted the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit expressed in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer v. General Elec. Co.
...and insufficiently specific in its allocation of time between compensable and non-compensable claims. See Sun Publishing Co. v. Mecklenburg News, 823 F.2d 818, 820 (4th Cir. 1987). The Court ultimately concludes that Rule 68 precludes the award of fees incurred after February 17, 1988, but ......
-
American Canoe Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.
...proper exercise of its discretion, [to] deny the fee request in its entirety." Id. at 97-98 (quoting Sun Publishing Co., Inc. v. Mecklenburg News, Inc., 823 F.2d 818, 819 (4th Cir.1987)). Mindful of the Supreme Court's recognition in Hensley "that there is no certain method of determining w......
-
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm.
...Cir.1991) (finding that unreasonably high fee demand in civil rights case forfeited all rights to a fee); Sun Publishing Co. v. Mecklenburg News, Inc., 823 F.2d 818, 820 (4th Cir.1987) (affirming summary denial of fee petition so "exorbitant and unreasonable as to shock the conscience"); cf......
-
Alexander S. By and Through Bowers v. Boyd, Civil Action No. 3:90-3062-17.
...when unnecessary duplication is brought about by having an excessive number of attorneys involved in a case. Sun Pub. Co. v. Mecklenburg News, Inc., 823 F.2d 818 (4th Cir.1987); Goodwin v. Metts, 973 F.2d 378, 381 (4th Cir.1992); Singer v. Shannon & Luchs Co., 779 F.2d 69, 70-71 (D.C.Cir.19......