Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

ROSE CARLSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v OPTIMA OIL ENTERPRISES, INC., and ALI DAMSAZ, Defendants-Appellants.

UNPUBLISHED July 16, 2009

Nos. 279603; 285853 Washtenaw Circuit Court LC No. 06-000571-CD

Before: Meter, P.J., and Murray and Beckering, JJ. PER CURIAM. In Docket No. 279603, defendants appeal as of right the trial court's July 11, 2007, order awarding plaintiff attorney fees, costs, and interest pursuant to the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. In particular, defendants dispute the validity and the amount of the attorney fee award. In Docket No. 285853, defendants appeal on leave granted the trial court's denial of their motion for a directed verdict of plaintiff's WPA claim. This Court consolidated the separate appeals for a decision. We affirm. Plaintiff was terminated from her job after she cooperated with the Michigan Department of Agriculture's investigation of the gas station she managed on behalf of defendants. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that she was terminated in violation of the WPA and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq. The case proceeded to trial and the jury found that defendants violated the WPA, but not the ELCRA. The jury awarded plaintiff $36,537 for past economic loss, $75,000 for future economic loss, and $18,200 for her past noneconomic loss, resulting in a total award of $129,737. I Defendants argue that plaintiff was not entitled to an attorney fee award because she lost her ELCRA claims and there was insufficient evidence to support the WPA claim upon which she was successful. Alternatively, defendants assert that the attorney fee award was excessive and unreasonable because it amounts to almost one-half the verdict amount and because the majority of plaintiff's attorney's time spent on the case was in connection with the ELCRA claims, which were rejected by the jury.

-1-

Generally, attorney fees are not recoverable unless expressly authorized by statute, court rule, judicial exception or contract. Haliw v Sterling Hts, 471 Mich 700, 707; 691 NW2d 753 (2005). The WPA provides that attorney fees may be awarded to a successful plaintiff. MCL 15.364 states that, in addition to other remedies, "[a] court may also award the complainant all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees and witness fees, if the court determines that the award is appropriate." In other words, in awarding costs and attorney fees under the WPA, the trial court is merely required to determine that "the award is appropriate." This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion the trial court's decision to award attorney fees and its determination of the reasonableness of the fees requested. Windemere Commons I Ass'n v O'Brien, 269 Mich App 681, 682; 713 NW2d 814 (2006). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court chooses a decision falling outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006). The factual findings underlying an award of attorney fees are reviewed for clear error, Solution Source, Inc v LPR Assoc Ltd Partnership, 252 Mich App 368, 381; 652 NW2d 474 (2002), and underlying questions of law are reviewed de novo, Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 438; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). "A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court . . . is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made." Solution Source, supra at 381-382. When assessing the reasonableness of attorney fees, the trial court should consider the following nonexclusive list of factors: "`(1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time, and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.'" Wood v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exch, 413 Mich 573, 588; 321 NW2d 653 (1982), quoting Crawley v Schick, 48 Mich App 728, 737; 211 NW2d 217 (1973) (citations omitted).1 In this case, the trial court not only stated on the record

In Univ Rehabilitation Alliance, Inc v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 279 Mich App 691, 700-701 n 3; 760 NW2d 574 (2008), this Court addressed the limited applicability of the Michigan Supreme Court's recent ruling in Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519; 751 NW2d 472 (2008), in determining the reasonableness of an attorney fee: We acknowledge that our Supreme Court has recently held in a plurality opinion that a trial court, when determining a reasonable attorney fee as part of caseevaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O), must first determine a "baseline" fee by multiplying the reasonable hourly rate

Download ROSE CARLSON V OPTIMA OIL ENTERPRISES INC.pdf

Michigan Law