St. Luke's Health System, LTD. et al v. Allied World National Assurance Company et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM DECISION re 32 MOTION for Attorney Fees.. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ST. LUKE’S HEALTH SYSTEM, LTD. AND
ST. LUKE’S REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, LTD.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:14-CV-475-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION

v.
ALLIED WORLD NATIONAL
ASSURANCE COMPANY AND DARWIN
NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
The Court has before it a motion for attorney fees and costs filed by St. Luke’s
seeking $292,482 in attorney fees under Idaho Code §§ 41-1839 and 12-120(3). In an
earlier-filed decision, the Court held that defendant Allied has a duty under its insurance
contract to reimburse St. Luke’s for its defense costs in the underlying antitrust action
brought by the Federal Trade Commission, the State of Idaho, and the private entities,
including St. Al’s. See Memorandum Decision (Dkt. No. 30). Although defendant Allied
has appealed that decision, the Court retains jurisdiction to award a specific sum for
attorney fees and costs. U.S. ex rel. Shutt v. Cmty. Home & Health Care Servs., Inc., 550
F.3d 764, 766 (9th Cir. 2008).
Defendant Allied does not object to the reasonableness of the attorney fees sought
by St. Luke’s under Idaho Code § 41-1839, but only objects to fees being awarded under
Idaho Code § 12-120(3). The Court will therefore award $292,482 in attorney fees to St.
Memorandum Decision – page 1

Luke’s under Idaho Code § 41-1839 without resolving the issue whether St. Luke’s is
also entitled to this award under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).
St. Luke’s also seeks $906 in costs. There is no objection to that amount, and the
Court will award that sum to St. Luke’s. The Court will enter a separate Amended
Judgment as required by Rule 58(a).

DATED: April 8, 2016

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Memorandum Decision – page 2