 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Catalina Yachts v. Pierce1/14/2005
torney's fees because allowing a fee award to a manufacturer "would run counter" to the Act's purpose of encouraging consumers to pursue legal action to protect their rights under a warranty. The court therefore refused to award Catalina post-offer fees.
The court awarded the Pierces fees and costs of $20,000. When added to interest ($10,460.76) and the jury's original award ($12,445), this resulted in a total judgment of $42,905.76.
Catalina filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that it was seeking fees not under Magnuson-Moss but under Alaska Civil Rules 68 and 82, that the language of Rule 68 is mandatory, and that Rule 68 and Magnuson-Moss are not incompatible. The superior court denied Catalina's motion, concluding that "the federal statute, federal preemption and the reasoning of the majority of courts faced with this issue leave no room to award fees to Catalina."
Catalina appeals the superior court's decision.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Whether Rule 68 applies in a given case is a question of law. Whether a federal statute preempts a state court rule is also a question of law. We review questions of law de novo, "adopting the rule of law most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy."
B. Rule 68 Applies in This Case
Catalina moved for attorney's fees and costs under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 68(b) (applicable to cases filed before August 7, 1997), which provided in relevant part:
If the judgment finally rendered by the court is not more favorable to the offeree than the offer, the prejudgment interest accrued up to the date judgment is entered shall be adjusted as follows: (1) if the offeree is the party making the claim, the interest rate will be reduced by the amount specified in AS 09.30.065 and the offeree must pay the costs and attorney's fees incurred after the making of the offer (as would be calculated under Civil Rules 79 and 82 if the offeror were the prevailing party). The offeree may not be awarded costs or attorney's fees incurred after the making of the offer.
Catalina would not be eligible for fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82, which gives way to a "specific statutory scheme for attorney's fees" like that in Magnuson-Moss. Rule 68's reference to Rule 82, however, does not prevent a fee award. Rule 68 refers to Rule 82 only for the purpose of calculating the amount of the award. The operative language of Rule 68 is mandatory, providing that "the offeree must pay the costs and attorney's fees incurred after the making of the offer." It does not condition this requirement on the offeree's qualification for an award under any other rule.
The superior court found that the attorney's fee provisions of Magnuson-Moss conflict with Rule 68. Under the court's reasoning, the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution thus required that Magnuson-Moss preempt Rule 68, leaving the court with authority to award fees only to the Pierces, not to Catalina. "Federal law preempts state [court rule] if Congress expressly or implicitly declares the state [rule] preempted or if the state [rule] conflicts with the federal law to the extent that (a) it is impossible to comply simultaneously with both or (b) the state [rule] obstructs the execution of the purpose of the federal ." Magnuson-Moss contains no express preemption of state court rules governing attorney's fee awards. We therefore turn to the question whether it conflicts with Alaska Civil Rule 68.
1. There is no Direct Conflict Between Rule 68 and Magnuson-Moss
Magnuson-Moss authorizes awards of attorney's fees only to prevailing "consumers." In
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|