Shirley Clow and Albert Gamble v. Sissy Baby Sport Fishing, Inc.
This action resulted out of the murders of four people on board a chartered fishing boat called the “Joe Cool”. The murderers were convicted and sent to prison.
The deceased individuals were all associated with or employees of the charter company that owned the boat. Plaintiffs, the representatives of the estates, filed suit against the vessel owners under the Death on the High Seas Act, DOHSA, the Jones Act, and general negligence theories.
All of the actions were consolidated, except one of them. All the complaints were filed identically, and this Court noted that the case had settled but a Motion for Fees and Costs.
Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that he is entitled to a lien on the parties’ settlement agreements under the “common fund” doctrine, quantum meruit and implied contract.
The Motion before this Court deal primarily with the common fund doctrine.
Was Plaintiffs’ counsel entitled to a lien on the parties’ settlement agreement?
Plaintiffs’ counsel contended he was entitled to fees because he spent a significant amount of time in connection with this matter engaged in discovery with defendants, eventually bringing this case to the point where defendants were willing to settle.
Counsel also asserted that he responded to the declaratory judgment action filed by the insurer and engaged in many meetings with former attorneys as well as attending the criminal trial.
The common fund doctrine (explained in detail in the comment section) is an exception to the general rule that each litigant must bear his own attorney’s fees and rests on the principle that nonparties who reap substantial benefits from litigation without contributing its cost should not be unjustly enriched.
The Court, however, swiftly dealt with counsel’s motion, that there was no common fund to begin with. Each plaintiff had filed their own matters separately and settled their matters upon their own accord.
As such, this Court found, there was no common fund and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for fees.
As explained the “common fund” doctrine is a deviation from the American rule that each litigant must bear his own attorney’s fees.
There are (5) requirements in order to establish the right to collection from a common fund (1) The existence of a fund over which court has jurisdiction and from which fees can be awarded. (2) The commencement of litigation by one party which is terminated successfully. (3) The existence of a class which received, without otherwise contributing to the lawsuit, substantial benefits as a result of the litigation (4) The creation, preservation, protection, or increase of the fund as a direct and proximate result of the efforts of counsel for litigant. (5) The reasonable relationship between the benefit established and the fees incurred.
Steve Gordon
<< PREVNEXT >>
