Opinion
CIVIL NO. 04-1952 (GAG).
June 18, 2007
ORDER
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees (Docket No. 143) is hereby DENIED.
In the case at bar, plaintiff was awarded zero compensatory damages. Plaintiff never sought an instruction to the jury on nominal damages, nor requested a $1.00 additur following the verdict. See Kerr-Selgas v. American Airlines, 69 F. 3d 1205, 1215 (1st Cir. 1995). Consequently, attorney's fees may not be predicated solely on the jury's finding of liability with no compensatory damages. Cf. Díaz Rivera v. Rivera Rodríguez, 119, 124-127 (1st Cir. 2004) (awarding attorney's fees based on $1.00 nominal damages award).
The jury did, however, award plaintiff punitive damages. Defendants contest said award as grossly excessive and exceeding constitutional parameters (see Docket No. 147). At this juncture, the entry of judgment has become final; defendants did not move to vacate the same, nor filed a notice of appeal. Notwithstanding, punitive damages are indeed recoverable only where compensatory or nominal damages have been awarded.Kerr-Selgas, 69 F. 3d at 1214-1215. It is thus evident that but-for the lack of a post-verdict motion and/or timely appeal by defendants, the punitive damages award should not have stood.
The Court is, hence, faced with a request to award attorney's fees based, not on compensatory nor nominal damages, but rather, on an improper (yet final) punitive damages judgment. Any such award would certainly constitute a windfall on top of another windfall. While the Court cannot at this time vacate the punitive damages judgment (and will enforce it), it will not exercise its discretion (assuming there is any) to award fees. In the Court's opinion the punitive damages judgment is more than adequate in this instance to cover attorney's fees.