Clarification Granted

As I previously reported, there was a motion for clarification filed in the Service Experts v. Northside case. It didn’t actually have to do with the jurisdiction issue. Rather, it focused on a sentence in the opinion that seemed like throwaway dicta to the court, but made a big difference to our client on remand. Today, the court granted the motion in part, and struck the offending sentence from its opinion. [.pdf]

This just goes to show that even though motions for clarification under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 should not be undertaken lightly, a narrowly tailored and focused motion can get traction.

Jurisdiction and Extraordinary Writs

Sometimes, you can win the battle and lose the war. So it can be with jurisdiction. Even if you are correct that there is no jurisdiction over an appeal in the Florida intermediate appellate courts, the Court still has the discretion to treat an appeal as a request for an extraordinary writ.

And that’s exactly what the Second District Court of Appeal did to late last month. (Full disclosure, I was attorney of record for the Appellee on this case). On the eve of a hearing on the Defendants’ summary judgment motion, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Defendant asked the trial court to strike the notice of voluntary dismissal, arguing that it had attained rights in the case precluding voluntary dismissal and fraud on the court. The trial court did so, and the plaintiff appealed.

The problem, however, was that the order they were attempting to appeal was neither a final appealable order nor an order available for interlocutory appeal. And I elloquently told the court so.

The Second DCA knew I was right:

We briefly address this court’s jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Service Experts’ notice of appeal was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5). The Northside defendants have argued that this court does not have jurisdiction under rule 9.130(a)(5) because that rule applies to orders entered on motions for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. They state that their motion to strike the notice of voluntary dismissal was not made pursuant to rule 1.540 because that rule applies to final judgments, decrees, orders, or proceedings, and the voluntary dismissal they sought to set aside was not a final judgment, decree, or order. We agree with their procedural assessment.

However, the Court dug deep and created a remedy for the Plaintiff by converting the appeal to a writ of prohibition, pursuant to Rule 9.040(c):

Based on the facts of this case, appellate jurisdiction does not neatly fall within the confines of rule 9.130(a)(5). Nevertheless, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) provides that when a party seeks an improper remedy, “the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought.” Here, a writ of prohibition is appropriate “to forestall an impending injury where no other appropriate and adequate legal remedy exists and only when damage is likely to follow.” City of Ocala v. Gard, 988 So.2d 1281, 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). It is “the appropriate remedy to prevent an inferior tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction” where there is no right to remedy the wrong at issue by direct appeal. Id. at 1283. Because we conclude that the trial court’s order was in excess of its jurisdiction, we have appellate jurisdiction to “forestall an impending injury”-forced litigation after the plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal was filed. As there is no other adequate remedy, we convert this appeal to a writ of prohibition.

Now, the rules geek in me does, in fact, feel vindicated that I was right about the jurisdiction issue. But that’s not much comfort to the client, who had a favorable ruling overturned.

A request for clarification is pending on the appeal. The case is Service Experts, LLC v. Northside Air Conditioning & Elec. Service, Inc., No. 2D09-5416, ___ So.3d ____ (September 22, 2010) [.pdf].

The Role of Experts in Proving Appellate Attorney’s Fees

You’ve won your appeal. You’ve gotten an award entitling you to appellate attorney’s fees. And now, you have to prove up what your attorney’s efforts are going to cost the other side. This is a case of “you have to spend money to make money” — because if you do not pay an expert to testify to the reasonablness of the fee, your award will be in jeopardy.

Experts Are Required to Prove Reasonablness of Fees

In Sourcetrack, LLC v. Ariba, Inc., 34 So.2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA May 7, 2010) [.pdf], the Court struck a $302,617.75 award of appellate attorney’s fees because the party entitled to fees failed to present any expert testimony regarding the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. The Second DCA held that while a trial court has discretion in awarding attorney’s fees, that discretion can only be exercised based upon the evidence in the record. (Other DCA’s may be more lax on this, but why take a chance?). The Court also admonished that the award will be limited to what is considered a fair fee for a competant local attorney — so if you bring in expensive counsel from out of state, don’t expect to get reimbursed for their full fees.

What Is a Reasonable Attorney’s Fee?

Not a month later, the Second District overturned another award of fees, but this time, for being too low. In D’Alusio v. Gould & Lamb LLC, 26 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA June 2, 2010) [.pdf], the Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only $6,875 in fees where the parties and their experts pretty much agreed that the attorneys should reasonably be reimbursed for around 85 hours at $275-450 an hour for their work, for a total of $20-25,000. The Court held:

the circuit court abused its discretion in drastically reducing the number of hours that was reasonable for this appeal, in contravention of the amount agreed to by both experts, without any specific findings. Although the judge was not bound by the expert opinions or attorney affidavits in setting the award, the record is totally devoid of any evidence to support a conclusion that the award was reasonable.

Do I get Reimbursed for the Expert’s Fees?

The Court also held that the fees paid to the expert to testify as to reasonablenes of attorney’s fees are taxable as costs, and reversed the trial court’s failure to make such an award:

[e]xpert witness fees paid to the testifying expert are not discretionary if the attorney expects to be compensated for his testimony. (citations omitted).

There’s a lot of meat in D’Alusio, so definitely give it a read if you are pursuing attorney’s fees on appeal, especially in the Second DCA. It’s not enough to win an award, you have to prove what the attorney’s time was worth, too.