Lee v. Scotia Prince Cruises Ltd.
This text of Lee v. Scotia Prince Cruises Ltd. (Lee v. Scotia Prince Cruises Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION a DOCKET NO. CV-01-359 - A @ Y3 77 CUM SLfpeo4 GASTON C. S. LEE, ag wy i AS 13 RE CL Plaintiff v. ORDER ON SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEFS. COSTS AND EXPENSES DOMALB LT bad SCOTIA PRINCE CRUISES LIMITED, LAr ee Defendant MAY 21 2004
The counterclaim defendant, Gaston C.S. Lee seeks an award of attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of $34,387.95 for the period from August 1, 2003 through March 16, 2004. The fees claimed arise out of opposition to Scotia Prince’s appeal to the Law Court of this court’s Second Allowance of Fees and Costs (“Lee IT”) and preparation of and support for this Second Supplemental Submission (third Submission).
The counterclaim defendant substantially prevailed in the Law Court in Lee I, where $58,637.69 of the trial court award of $60,813.69 was affirmed. That case was decided on briefs without oral argument and the only issue on appeal was the propriety of the fee award.
Although the Law Court in Lee IJ did not expressly remand the matter to this court for a determination of attorney fees as it did in Lee I, this court is authorized to consider the request pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 54(b)(3).
The counterclaim defendant’s entitlement to fees arises from Scotia’s Bye-Law 125 which the Law Court held covered “expenses Lee incurred while defending against
Scotia’s counterclaim, but not to cover expenses incurred while prosecuting his complaint”. This Bye-Law provision does not allow for costs incurred in establishing
the right to indemnity Chadwick-Ba Ross, Inc. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 483 A.2d 711,
717 (Me. 1984) which was established by the Law Court's decision in Lee I.
Where there is an entitlement to the recovery of attorney fees, the further award of additional fees incurred on appeal in defending fees awarded or in preparing a fee application is justified. Any fees awarded must be reasonable in light of the factors
enunciated by the Law Court in Villas by the Sea Owners Association v. Garrity, 2001
ME 93, 774 A.2d 1115, 1117.
In this case, the issue on appeal was finite, focused and straightforward. The record was limited and there was no oral argument. The questions presented were neither novel nor difficult. The records presented to support the fees claimed are records maintained in the ordinary course of counsel’s practice and ought to be readily accessible. The legal support for the fee award under the Garrity factors is well understood by counsel and the courts.
Under these circumstances, the court awards fees and expenses to the defendant counterclaimant as follows:
Attorney fees $15,000.00
Costs and Expenses $ 429.95 $15,429.95 Total
Dated: May 11, 2004 KML
Robert E. Crowley Justice, Superior Court
Date Filed 6-29-01
CUMBERLAND
Action CONTRACT
County
GASTONC.S. LEE
vs.
Docket No. CVO1L-359
SCOTIA PRINCE CRUISES LTD d/b/a PRINCE OF FUNDY CRUISES PRINCE OF FUNDY CRUISES LTD
Plaintiff's Attorney
Seth Brewster, Esq. P.O. Box 586 Portland ME 04112
Date of Entry
Defendant’s Attorney
Frederick Finberg Esq. 773-4775 121 Middle Street, Suite 300
PO BOX 7799
Portland ME 04112
PETER BENNETT, ESQ. _
121 MIDDLE STREET.
P.O. BOX 7799
PORTLAND, MAINE 04112-7799 207-773-4775
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lee v. Scotia Prince Cruises Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-scotia-prince-cruises-ltd-mesuperct-2004.