Tag-along state UDAP claim leads to $18.5 million fee shift against unsuccessful plaintiff

Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., No. 12-24356-CIV, 2017 WL
3536917 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2017)
This case stands as a stark reminder that adding a state-law
deceptive trade practices claim to a federal claim can have serious
consequences—the only reason to do it as a plaintiff is if you think the
substantive standards will vary (certainly possible, depending on the state) or the
remedies will vary (likewise).  But where
that’s true, consider whether the fee-shifting standards will also vary.  In Florida, they do.
Here, Procaps is ordered to pay about $18.5 million in
attorneys’ fees and costs after losing “a full-throttle lawsuit which has
generated 1165 docket entries and an appeal (including oral argument) since it
was first filed in mid-December 2012.” 
Procaps’ main claim was a federal antitrust claim, but it brought a
coordinate Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim.  The federal antitrust statute authorizes an
award to a prevailing plaintiff but not to a prevailing defendant, but that
turns out not to matter even though the FDUTPA claim was a “tag-along” claim, “based
mostly (though not entirely) on the same circumstances at issue in its federal
Sherman Act antitrust claim.”
Under FDUTPA, a “prevailing defendant” is permitted to
recover its attorney’s fees and costs from a non-prevailing plaintiff after the
exhaustion of all appeals; the court has to consult a non-exhaustive list of
discretionary factors:
(1) the scope and history of the
litigation; (2) the opposing party’s ability to satisfy the award; (3) whether
an award would deter others from acting in similar circumstances; (4) the
merits of the respective positions, including the degree of [Procaps’]
culpability or bad faith; (5) whether the claim brought was not in subjective
bad faith but was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; (6) whether the
defense raised a defense mainly to frustrate or stall; and (7) whether the
claim brought was to resolve a significant legal question under FDUTPA law.
I’ll let the judge summarize the scope and history: “Nothing
was easy in this case. Nothing. Basically, the parties fought about anything
and everything.” Further descriptors: “difficult,” “problematic,” “stressful,”
“grueling,” “especially unpleasant and nasty.”  Procaps could pay.  On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit characterized
its theory as “intrinsically hopeless,” so that supported a fee award.  Procaps and its counsel, “at a minimum, … made
this case far more difficult than it had to be, and … this caused Patheon to
incur additional attorney’s fees and costs.” Frivolousness isn’t a requirement,
and courts award fees under FDUTPA to defendants who prevail on summary
judgment on a FDUTPA claim after a plaintiff initially gets past a motion to
dismiss.  Though the court declined to
find the claim frivolous, its antitrust theory was “either unreasonable or
approaching the level of being unreasonable,” because it needed and could not
show concerted action.
In terms of deterrence, the court considered that Procaps
apparently brought its antitrust claim because it was a limited exception to
the parties’ arbitration agreement “and because it wanted to use the threat of
treble damages to pressure Patheon into paying a hefty settlement.” Because of
the weakness of the antitrust claim, a fee award wouldn’t deter legitimate
antitrust claims brought by private attorneys general, but it would be good to
deter a putative plaintiff from bringing an “intrinsically hopeless” antitrust
claim.  The remaining factors were
neutral, and the court declined to follow a few federal district court cases
holding that FDUTPA fees shouldn’t be awarded when the FDUTPA claim is a
tag-along to a separate federal claim.
In fact, Florida state caselaw indicates that the prevailing
party should get the benefit of overlapping claims; fees can’t be deducted for
work unless it was clearly unrelated to the FDUTPA claim.  “[I]t is Procaps’ burden to establish that
the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Patheon were clearly not related to
the FDUTPA claim, which was largely based on the same antitrust theory as the
antitrust count.” Thus, “the time Patheon spent defending the Sherman Act claim
was time spent defending the FDUTPA claim.” 
And that’s $18.5 million.
The court emphasized that not every party who prevails on a
FDUTPA claim would be entitled to fees; if “some” of the factors had gone in
Procaps’ favor, the result could well have been different. But the factors
“strongly” favored a fee award.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2fXSuYg

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s