 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hanadel v. Blum2/27/2002
wers to each of two different sets of interrogatories and vehemently resisted signing the medical history release. As a result, the superior court fined Hanadel $100 and ordered him to comply with the defendants' discovery requests. When Hanadel refused to comply with this order, the court imposed additional sanctions of $250.
The superior court has broad discretion in sanctioning discovery violations, and we review such decisions for abuse of discretion. The discovery requests here directly related to Hanadel's claims and were "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Hanadel repeatedly and wilfully disobeyed the court's order. And the excuse that he offered - distrust of the state - lacks legal merit. Because the basis for Judge Shortell's ruling is factually and legally grounded and the sanction itself was reasonable, we find no abuse of discretion.
H. The Superior Court Abused Its Discretion by Not Making the Requisite Findings When Assessing Attorney's Fees for Federal Civil Rights Claims.
After determining that the state and Blum were the prevailing parties, the superior court awarded $14,550 in attorney's fees against Hanadel under Alaska Civil Rule 82(b)(2), which allows a prevailing party that recovers no money judgment in a case resolved without trial to recover twenty percent of the attorney's fees necessarily incurred in the litigation. Hanadel complains that this award was improper because federal law bars awards against plaintiffs asserting federal civil rights claims.
Hanadel's argument has merit. Some of Hanadel's claims were brought under federal civil rights laws; attorney's fee awards under such claims are not governed by Rule 82, but are governed by federal law. Because attorney's fees may not be assessed against a plaintiff bringing federal civil rights claims without specific findings that the plaintiff's claims were "unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious," and because the superior court made no specific findings to this effect here, we conclude that it was improper to award attorney's fees encompassing the entirety of the state's fees - including those incurred in defense of Hanadel's federal claims.
While the state concedes that the award of attorney's fees for the Title VII portion of this action is covered by federal law, it argues that these claims were "unreasonable, frivolous, and meritless," entitling the state to collect fees as a prevailing defendant. But as we have already noted, an award of fees for federal civil rights claims requires a specific finding by the trial court that the claims were frivolous; no award of attorney's fees may be made absent such a finding. Because no finding was made in this case, we must vacate the award.
On remand, if the state elects to pursue an award of fees, it may request the superior court to make a finding of frivolousness in regards to the federal claims; alternatively, it may identify and segregate fees incurred in defense of the state claims and seek an award for those fees under Rule 82.
IV. CONCLUSION
The superior court's summary judgment order is AFFIRMED. The award of attorney's fees is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|