Pediatrics by the Bay v. EMD Solutions, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/23/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100697 P e d i a t r i c s by the Bay v. EMD S o l u t i o n s , Inc. Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-09-900974) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . P e d i a t r i c s b y t h e B a y ("PBB") a p p e a l s from a judgment o f the Baldwin C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l court") Solutions, I n c . ("EMD"). We d i s m i s s t h e appeal a f f i r m t h e judgment i n p a r t . i n f a v o r o f EMD i n p a r t and 2100697 On A p r i l 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , EMD f i l e d Court $7,269.64 f r o m PBB on a p a s t - d u e a c c o u n t f o r s e r v i c e s i t h a d rendered. PBB a n s w e r e d a n d c o u n t e r c l a i m e d , and f r a u d . counterclaims, jurisdiction 2009, EMD liability EMD alleging over filed those court") i n the Baldwin District contract ("the d i s t r i c t a complaint filed that the district the t o PBB's case t o t h e t r i a l granted judgment counterclaims denying PBB f i l e d court. a On A u g u s t 17, court. on F e b r u a r y the t r i a l 10, 2 0 1 1 , i n f a v o r c o l l e c t i o n c l a i m a n d on PBB's c o u n t e r c l a i m s c o n t r a c t and f r a u d . lacked t h e motion and t r a n s f e r r e d F o l l o w i n g a one-day b e n c h t r i a l , a court PBB's A d d i t i o n a l l y , on May 20, motion t o t r a n s f e r t h e case t o t h e t r i a l court collect to dismiss and a s s e r t i n g a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s . 2009, t h e d i s t r i c t to a l l e g i n g breach of a motion claims. an a n s w e r seeking Specifically, court o f EMD entered on EMD's a l l e g i n g breach of the t r i a l judgment i n f a v o r o f EMD f o r $8,432.78, and s e t a h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e o f a t t o r n e y court entered including fees a interest, f o r M a r c h 9, 2011. Following collection the claim judgment a n d PBB's in favor counterclaims, 2 of EMD on EMD's the t r i a l court 2100697 conducted a hearing regarding attorney O n l y one witness testified f e e s on M a r c h 9, at that hearing. K o p e s k y , B r i t t & N o r t o n , L.L.C., t e s t i f i e d s t a t i n g t h a t t h e $13,703.76 i n a t t o r n e y was reasonable. expert on County. the PBB issue Britt r a t e o f $175 of per of the the 9, 2011, of fees requested Britt 62.5 c a s e was He collection was a fees by Baldwin hours b i l l e d counterclaims c l a i m , and issues to c o l l e c t involved i n the were i n t e r t w i n e d . at the b a s e d upon the a full defense On A p r i l 19, the on t h e p a s t - d u e collection Following h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d EMD EMD qualified in reasonable of EMD, a l s o s t a t e d t h a t the defense of t h e amount o f $13,703.76. this on b e h a l f attorney the n e c e s s a r y f o r EMD account because the and Brian B r i t t case r e q u i r e d d i s c o v e r y , m e d i a t i o n , of the c o u n t e r c l a i m s . was that hour i n t h i s on t h e m e r i t s counterclaims that reasonable testified the f a c t t h a t t h i s trial conceded 2011. the claim March attorney fees i n 2011, PBB appealed to court. In i t s appellate brief, PBB erred in finding i n f a v o r o f EMD counterclaim and t h a t the t r i a l in attorney awarding fees. We 3 argues t h a t the on PBB's trial court breach-of-contract court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n cannot address PBB's first 2100697 i s s u e r e g a r d i n g the t r i a l i n f a v o r o f EMD on PBB's c o u n t e r c l a i m . judgment d e t e r m i n e d leaving nothing a l l the v. App. The "[A] Inc., d e c i s i o n on 23 the 10, trial the 2011, court, i s s u e of See L i b e r t y Mut. So. the judgment February before attorney fees. Greenway E n t e r s . , 2009). claims 10, 2011, f o r f u r t h e r a d j u d i c a t i o n except t h e amount o f r e a s o n a b l e Co. court's February 3d 52, merits 55 Ins. (Ala. Civ. disposing of a l l c l a i m s i s a f i n a l d e c i s i o n f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l must be t i m e l y taken, whether a request a d j u d i c a t i o n . " S t a t e Bd. 899 ( A l a . 2002) 486 U.S. trial 196, attorney fees judgment. o f E d u c . v. W a l d r o p , 840 ( c i t i n g B u d i n i c h v. 199-200 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ) . See affect the Gonzalez, ( A l a . 2002) although So. Therefore, for 2d 893, & Co., Becton Dickinson the f a i l u r e finality LLC February v. D i V i n c e n t i , 844 (holding a a motion to assess of the summary judgment attorney fees of the Pursuant from the to Rule date judgment t o f i l e of 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. the entry of the i t s n o t i c e of appeal. 4 10, 2011, 2d 1196, So. to be remained because award of a t t o r n e y f e e s i s c o l l a t e r a l days remains c o u r t t o a s c e r t a i n t h e amount o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i t s h o u l d award d i d not 1201 for App. to pending, judgment). P., PBB February PBB final, d i d not had 10, file 42 2011, any 2100697 postjudgment motions, w h i c h w o u l d have filing See an appeal. Rule 4(a)(3), A c c o r d i n g l y , PBB's A p r i l 19, 2011, its c o u n t e r c l a i m , w h i c h was entry of the Therefore, the February we trial filed 10, time for R. App. P. Ala. regarding more t h a n 42 d a y s a f t e r 2011, judgment the n o t i c e of appeal judgment, d i s m i s s PBB's a p p e a l court's tolled was the untimely. i n s o f a r as i t i s b a s e d in favor of EMD on on PBB's counterclaim. PBB also argues that the trial court d i s c r e t i o n by a w a r d i n g EMD attorney fees. a the notice of appeal judgment awarding consider that t h a t the t r i a l EMD i s s u e on to court's did timely f i l e March attorney fees, and, thus, appeal. Specifically, PBB 9, 2011, we will contends s a y s , t h e s e r v i c e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n EMD and l i m i t e d the award of a t t o r n e y f e e s t o those r e l a t e d t o the c o s t of c o l l e c t i o n ; the PBB, trial PBB its c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g $13,703.76 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s b e c a u s e , PBB PBB from exceeded award of a t t o r n e y i m p r o p e r l y p e r m i t s EMD collect on the f e e s t o EMD, says to recoup a t t o r n e y fees p a i d past-due account and to defend both PBB's counterclaims. "The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r an a t t o r n e y f e e i s r e a s o n a b l e i s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the 5 2100697 t r i a l c o u r t and i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on s u c h an i s s u e w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s i n a w a r d i n g the fee the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e Bd. o f E d u c . v. W a l d r o p , 840 So. 2d 893, 896 (Ala. 2 0 0 2 ) ; C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. H o r n , 810 So. 2d 667, 681-82 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; Ex p a r t e E d w a r d s , 601 So. 2d 82, 85 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , c i t i n g V a r n e r v. C e n t u r y F i n . Co., 738 F.2d 1143 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) . " T h i s C o u r t has s e t f o r t h 12 c r i t e r i a a c o u r t m i g h t c o n s i d e r when d e t e r m i n i n g t h e reasonableness o f an a t t o r n e y f e e : " ' ( 1 ) [ T ] h e n a t u r e and v a l u e o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e employment; (2) t h e l e a r n i n g , s k i l l , and l a b o r r e q u i s i t e t o i t s p r o p e r d i s c h a r g e ; (3) t h e t i m e consumed; (4) t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e and r e p u t a t i o n o f the attorney; (5) the weight of his responsibilities; (6) the measure of success achieved; (7) the reasonable e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d ; (8) w h e t h e r a f e e i s f i x e d or c o n t i n g e n t ; (9) t h e n a t u r e and l e n g t h o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ; (10) the fee c u s t o m a r i l y charged i n the l o c a l i t y for similar legal services; (11) the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r employment may p r e c l u d e o t h e r employment; and (12) the t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s i m p o s e d by t h e c l i e n t o r by t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' "Van S c h a a c k v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 530 So. 2d 740, 749 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . These c r i t e r i a a r e f o r p u r p o s e s o f e v a l u a t i n g w h e t h e r an a t t o r n e y f e e i s r e a s o n a b l e ; t h e y a r e n o t an e x h a u s t i v e l i s t o f s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a t h a t must a l l be met. B e a l Bank v. S c h i l l e c i , 896 So. 2d 395, 403 ( A l a . 2004), c i t i n g Graddick v. First Farmers & M e r c h a n t s N a t ' l Bank o f T r o y , 453 So. 2d 1305, 1311 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . 6 2100697 "We defer to the trial court in an a t t o r n e y - f e e c a s e b e c a u s e we r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t , w h i c h has p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e e n t i r e l i t i g a t i o n , has a s u p e r i o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s t h a t must be r e s o l v e d i n an a t t o r n e y - f e e d e t e r m i n a t i o n . H o r n , 810 So. 2d a t 681-82, c i t i n g H e n s l e y v. E c k e r h a r t , 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)." Pharmacia Corp. v. McGowan, 915 So. 2d 549, 552-53 (Ala. 2004). I n a s s e r t i n g i t s a r g u m e n t , PBB r e l i e s upon p a r a g r a p h 1.15 of the s e r v i c e agreement, w h i c h s t a t e s : "1.15 Default. [PBB] a g r e e s t o pay a l l cost of c o l l e c t i o n i n c u r r e d by [EMD] with respect to any a t t e m p t by [EMD] t o c o l l e c t an amount due h e r e u n d e r i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , a l l Court c o s t s , witness f e e s , d e p o s i t i o n c o s t s , and a reasonable attorneys fee." Although can be p a r a g r a p h 1.15 recovered by EMD i s c l e a r t h a t the are limited to attorney those fees that incurred in a c o l l e c t i o n a t t e m p t , t h e p a r a g r a p h i s a l s o c l e a r t h a t PBB must pay " a l l c o s t of c o l l e c t i o n . " that the defense of the its collection testimony on testified that charged i n the counterclaims claim. the he In t h i s is familiar County area 7 EMD issue. with EMD necessary Moreover, attorney-fee Baldwin was case, to p r e v a i l on presented expert Specifically, Britt reasonable and argued attorney that attorney fees fees in 2100697 t h e amount o f $13,703.76 i n t h i s c a s e were r e a s o n a b l e . Britt stated years that EMD had litigating this discovery, mediation, a collection c l a i m , and the regard the order to case, spent 62.5 hours over several w h i c h r e q u i r e d a s u b s t a n t i a l amount full on defense of necessity t o p r e v a i l on t h e trial of of the counterclaims. the defending collection the In the merits of counterclaims claim, B r i t t in stated: " I f a m i l i a r i z e d m y s e l f enough w i t h t h e f a c t s o f t h e case to r e c o g n i z e t h a t both the o r i g i n a l claim against [PBB] as w e l l as the defense of the c o u n t e r c l a i m r e v o l v e d a r o u n d r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s under the c o n t r a c t between the p a r t i e s . Defense of t h a t c o u n t e r c l a i m was p a r t and p a r c e l t o [EMD's a t t o r n e y ] ' s p r o s e c u t i o n of the o r i g i n a l c o l l e c t i o n m a t t e r . He c o u l d n o t have c o l l e c t e d t h e f e e s and c o u l d n o t have a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d h i s c l i e n t i n that c o l l e c t i o n e f f o r t without e f f e c t i v e l y defending t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m , w h i c h he d i d q u i t e w e l l . " A d d i t i o n a l l y , PBB c o n c e d e d t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount o f $13,703.76 were r e a s o n a b l e defense of the f o r the counterclaims. d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d the t r i a l a w a r d and case, we because of cannot the discretion i n i t s award a f f i r m the attorney-fee Because of and the substantial c o u r t r e g a r d i n g an attorney-fee the testimony trial attorney award. 8 of effort the expert conclude collection presented court fees. in this exceeded its Accordingly, we 2100697 Conclusion We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l court's judgment i n f a v o r a f f i r m the t r i a l AFFIRMED Thompson, i n s o f a r as i t p e r t a i n s t o t h e t r i a l o f EMD on PBB's c o u n t e r c l a i m . c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g EMD a t t o r n e y We fees. IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART. P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 9 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.