Judge chastises BigLaw firm for overbilling and seeking fees for research on ‘basic and banal’ legal principles

 "Mayer Brown took a thrashing last week from a Manhattan judge who denied the firm’s $126,000 fee request for helping two tenants [ son of a corporate CEO who is a client of the law firm] recover a $6,400 security deposit and treble damages from their landlord.

Judge Frank Nervo said a junior associate spent “a grossly unnecessary amount of time” on simple matters, and the firm had “unabashedly invoiced” oversight work by a senior associate with a billing rate of $615 an hour and a partner with a rate of $895 an hour."  More.
Originally posted Jan 21, 2014 6:15 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal

The Law Lady.  For more info about us, click here.  To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, HEALTH & INSURANCE, 11th CIRCUIT, or all FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.

Taxation, alimony, bank fraud, and simple roasted chicken with lemon, butter, and thyme

Civil procedure -- Stay -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by denying motion to stay Florida action pending resolution of earlier-filed federal lawsuits in U.S. District Court for District of Delaware -- Parties in lawsuits are substantially similar and related, and various claims and counterclaims are overlapping

BENIHANA OF TOKYO, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. BENIHANA, INC., et al., Respondents. 3rd District.

Dissolution of marriage -- Alimony -- Abuse of discretion to award former wife permanent periodic alimony where evidence did not reflect permanent inability on part of wife to become self-sustaining -- Equitable distribution -- Abuse of discretion to order wife to pay husband his one-half interest in marital home at rate of $150 a month, plus interest -- Installment payments spanning course of twenty years effectively deprived former husband of his present one-half interest in marital home

CHARLES D. EVANS, FORMER HUSBAND, Appellant, v. TALITHA NICOLE EVANS, FORMER WIFE, Appellee. 1st District.

Dissolution of marriage -- Attorney's fees -- Appeals -- Order determining entitlement to fees and costs without setting the amount is nonfinal and nonappealable

BRAD GREENBERG, Appellant, v. FRANCYNE GREENBERG, Appellee. 2nd District.

Torts -- Banks -- Action against bank seeking to recover damages allegedly suffered when bank allowed fraudulent or unauthorized conduct by an employee -- Error to dismiss fourth amended complaint based on finding that, as matter of law, plaintiff failed to allege any theory of liability or independent duty owed to plaintiff by bank distinct from contractual relationship based on depository agreement -- Plaintiff alleged independent torts and causes of action separate from bank's wrongful disbursement of funds on deposit -- Jury trial -- Error to find plaintiff was not entitled to jury trial based on a jury trial waiver contained within bank's “Rules and Regulations for Deposit Accounts” -- Waiver does not apply to independent torts or other causes of action asserted by plaintiff where wrongful acts alleged are acts or omissions separate from breach of depository agreement -- Fact that losses arising out of various claims of negligence or other causes of action may be same damages as those resulting from breach of depository agreement does not bar claims and does not control entitlement to jury trial arising out of separate wrongful acts alleged

MARIAN FARMS, INC., ETC., Appellant, v. SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., ETC., Appellee. 5th District.

Ford Motor Co. v. United States

Docket: 13-113

Opinion Date: December 2, 2013

Judge: per curiam

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law

The IRS advised Ford Motor that it had underpaid its taxes from 1983 until 1989. Ford remitted $875 million to stop the accrual of interest that Ford would otherwise owe once audits were completed and the amount of its underpayment was finally determined. Eventually it was determined that Ford had overpaid its taxes in the relevant years, entitling Ford to a return of the overpayment and. Ford argued that “the date of overpayment” for purposes of 26 U.S.C. 6611(a) was the date that it first remitted the deposits to the IRS. The IRS countered that the relevant date was the date that Ford requested that the IRS treat the remittances as payments of tax. The difference between the competing interpretations is worth some $445 million. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the government. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that section 6611 is a waiver of sovereign immunity that must be strictly construed in favor of the government. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, noting that the government was arguing, for the first time, that the only general waiver of sovereign immunity that encompasses Ford’s claim is the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. 1491(a). Although the government acquiesced in jurisdiction in the district court, the Tucker Act applies, jurisdiction over this case was proper only in the Court of Federal Claims. The Sixth Circuit should have the first opportunity to consider the argument.

http://j.st/tPj

           
The Law Lady.  For more info about us, click here.  To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, HEALTH & INSURANCE, 11th CIRCUIT, or all FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.