District Court, E.D. Missouri — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Morris v. American Nat. Can Corp.
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1992-06-05 · cited 2×
This case concerns a request for enhancement of attorneys' fees following a plaintiff's victory in an employment discrimination action against American National Can Corporation, where the plaintiff had been awarded $16,214.90 in damages and $61,608 in fees. On remand from the Eighth Circuit, the district court considered whether to apply a contingency multiplier to the fee award under the standards from Delaware Valley II, focusing on whether the St. Louis legal market compensates for risk in contingency cases as a class and whether the plaintiff would have faced substantial difficulties finding counsel without the prospect of enhancement. After reviewing affidavits, hearing evidence of a developing trend toward limited enhancements in the local market, and noting the plaintiff's showing of risk and reluctance among attorneys to take such cases, the court granted a 50% enhancement on the original fees but denied any multiplier on supplemental fees for the fee litigation itself, resulting in a total award of $108,299. The ruling emphasized objective market evidence and overall reasonableness without awarding the full 100% enhancement sought.
labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure
Conopco, Inc. v. May Dept. Stores Co.
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1992-05-26 · cited 3×
This case involved plaintiff Conopco suing defendants May Department Stores, Venture Stores, Ansehl, and Kessler for patent infringement, trademark infringement, and trade dress infringement. Following a prior judgment in favor of Conopco, the court addressed multiple post-trial motions from the defendants seeking to amend findings, alter the judgment, or obtain a new trial, along with Conopco's motion to correct a clerical error in the findings of fact. The court granted the correction to change a reference from "nondesigned" to "designed," denied most motions challenging liability and damages based on prior stipulations and evidence of contributory infringement, partially granted Ansehl's motion to recalculate prejudgment interest using specified rates and accrual methods, and granted a stay of execution conditioned on the defendants posting a $5 million supersedeas bond.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Conopco, Inc. v. May Dept. Stores Co.
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1992-01-02 · cited 11×
This case involved Conopco, Inc., the manufacturer of Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion, suing May Department Stores Company, Venture Stores, Benjamin Ansehl Company, and Kessler Containers for patent infringement of its lotion formula under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and for trademark and trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1121, based on defendants' sales of a competing skin care lotion in similar packaging. After an eight-day bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that defendants infringed plaintiff's patent, trademark, and trade dress rights, while dismissing defendant Ansehl's counterclaim for bad faith prosecution. The court awarded plaintiff damages of $799,193 (trebled to $2,397,579) for patent infringement and additional trebled damages for trademark and trade dress infringement, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees, and issued a permanent injunction against further infringement and an order for recall and destruction of infringing materials. The rulings rested on trial evidence establishing the validity of plaintiff's patent and the substantial similarity of defendants' product formula and packaging to plaintiff's protected elements.
propertybusiness & regulatory
United States Customs Service v. Apex Oil Co. (In Re Apex Oil Co.)
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1991-08-27 · cited 6×
The case concerned cross-appeals in the bankruptcy of Apex Oil Company arising from Customs' claims for repayment of excessive duty drawbacks on petroleum exports and additional duties on oil imports claimed to be of Soviet origin. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that Customs' post-petition actions—including liquidating drawback entries, denying protests, and issuing pre-penalty notices—violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) because they constituted continuation of administrative proceedings to recover pre-petition claims. It vacated the bankruptcy court's decision to permissively abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) and delegate the claims to the Court of International Trade, holding that abstention was an abuse of discretion due to the need for duplicative proceedings, strict prepayment jurisdictional requirements in the CIT, and potential conflicts with the confirmed reorganization plan.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Teramoto v. Bowen
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1991-08-23 · cited 3×
In this case, plaintiff Shirley Teramoto sought judicial review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. After the court remanded the matter, an administrative hearing resulted in an award of benefits retroactive to 1980. Plaintiff then moved for entry of final judgment and attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court granted final judgment in plaintiff's favor and awarded a reduced total of $14,162.60 in fees and costs, finding plaintiff was the prevailing party and the government's position was not substantially justified, while reducing hours claimed by court-appointed counsel for excessive time on briefing and unrelated matters.
healthcarefederal powerprocedure
Apex Oil Co. v. Palans
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1991-05-13 · cited 4×
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in the Apex Oil Company proceedings that awarded examiner Lloyd A. Palans a 15% fee enhancement of $170,106.30 on top of his firm's $1,272,137.52 in fees. The district court reviewed whether the bankruptcy judge abused discretion by granting the bonus solely based on the quality of services and results obtained under 11 U.S.C. § 330. The court held that such enhancements require rare and exceptional circumstances not already reflected in the lodestar calculation and must align compensation with comparable non-bankruptcy services, following Ninth Circuit precedent. It reversed the full bonus because the bankruptcy court failed to explain why the lodestar was inadequate or why the enhancement was necessary, but it awarded a reduced $45,288 enhancement to cover the examiner's below-market hourly rate. The standard of review was abuse of discretion, with reversal only for improper legal standards or clearly erroneous facts.
business & regulatoryprocedure