Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)

Citation: Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)
Parent Document: Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-03-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/231/quigley-v-winter/ ↗

Full Text

1,300 chars

The district court’s explanation for its award of attorney fees is puzzling. The
court stated, “There is no need to discuss the lodestar calculations or the skill and
experience of the plaintiff’s lawyers.” Instead, the district court relied upon the
“Kloberdanz theory.” This Kloberdanz theory apparently came from an unpublished
district court case, United States v. Kloberdanz, No. CR 76-2013 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 30,
1976) (McManus, J.), which did not address the issue of attorney fees. According to
the district court, Kloberdanz involved the criminal prosecution of a postal employee
for theft, and the Kloberdanz court found there was no need for an excessive fine
because, in the district court’s words, “it was a two bit case and he was going to
receive a two bit fine.” The district court then noted Quigley’s case “is not a two bit
case . . . [but] there is still a matter of justice, there is still a matter of basic fairness,
there is still a matter of equity.” The district court declared its belief that it was
“appropriate to determine or consider the effect on [Winter], whether he can pay [the
attorney fees] or not.” The district court concluded, “[W]hile they certainly are good
lawyers and they certainly did a good job, . . . attorney fees in the sum of $20,000.00
are appropriate.”

Other Sections in This Document (232)

Full Text