Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc. v. Dowell et al

Filing 386

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc.'s Motion for Clarification, or, in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Related to Re asonableness of Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant's Attorneys' Fees [ECF No. 383 ] is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Clarification of the Court's February 6, 2013 Memorandum and Order and Defendants' Supplemental Jury Instructions in Light of the Court's Order [ECF No. 385 ] is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 02/07/2013. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CUSTOM HARDWARE ENGINEERING
& CONSULTING, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
vs.
JONATHAN D. DOWELL, et al.,

Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10CV000653 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Custom Hardware Engineering &
Consulting, Inc.’s (“CHE”) Motion for Clarification, or, in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to
Exclude Testimony or Evidence Related to Reasonableness of Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant’s Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 383], and Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of the
Court’s February 6, 2013 Memorandum and Order and Defendants’ Supplemental Jury
Instructions in Light of the Court’s Order [ECF No. 385].
CHE requests that the Court grant its Motion for Clarification, and a) confirm that the
jury will award damages, but the Court will award the amount of attorneys’ fees; b) preclude any
evidence as to the “reasonableness” of attorneys’ fees of CHE; and c) confirm that CHE will not
be deemed to have by inclusion in the fee invoices references to settlement matters. In their
Motion, Defendants ask for an order a) precluding the inclusion of a nominal damages jury
instruction and b) preventing Plaintiff from presenting evidence relating to its attorneys’ fees for
withdrawn or dismissed claims.

Defendants’ request for an Order precluding the inclusion of a nominal damages jury
instruction shall be denied. The Court will grant the parties’ respective motions in part, and,
accordingly, instructs the parties as follows.
The jury will be determining the issue of the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, awarding
attorneys’ fees or denying fees in their verdict. CHE shall be allowed to present evidence of
attorneys’ fees incurred in the prosecution of all claims contained in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
Complaint (SAC) that were not dismissed by the Court’s January 23, 2013 Summary Judgment
Order; specifically, CHE shall be allowed to present such evidence relating to Counts I, II, III, IV,
VI, VII, IX, and X of the SAC [ECF No. 354]. CHE shall also be allowed to present evidence of
attorneys’ fees incurred in the prosecution of all counterclaims and third party claims Defendants
filed in this matter against CHE and David York that were dismissed, either upon Defendants’
motion or by Order of the Court. Should CHE prevail at trial on remaining portion of Marcus
Smith’s breach-of-contract counterclaim (Count II) that will be presented to jury, the Court may
consider an award of attorneys’ fees relating to the prosecution of this claim upon conclusion of
the matter. CHE and Defendants shall be allowed to present evidence of the background facts of
the case that resulted in the filing and prosecution of this matter. Furthermore, CHE shall be
allowed to submit invoices for attorneys’ fees incurred during settlement discussions, but
references to settlement matters shall be redacted from any such invoices.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting,
Inc.’s Motion for Clarification, or, in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony or
Evidence Related to Reasonableness of Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant’s Attorneys’ Fees
[ECF No. 383] is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of the Court’s
February 6, 2013 Memorandum and Order and Defendants’ Supplemental Jury Instructions in
Light of the Court’s Order [ECF No. 385] is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.
Dated this

7th

day of February, 2013.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3