Tweet
U.S. JUDGE DENIES NEW TRIAL IN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MUSEUM DISPUTE
http://hetq.am/eng/news/23697/us-judge-denies-new-trial-in-armenian-genocide-museum-dispute.html
11:04, February 22, 2013
Museum trustees ordered to pay Cafesjian $1.4 million in fees and costs
More than a decade after efforts began to build a museum memorializing
the mass slaughter of Armenians during World War I, litigation over
the failure of those efforts has consumed everyone involved.
Yesterday, a Washington federal judge denied a motion for a new trial
in the dispute and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants $1.4
million in fees and costs.
Minnesota philanthropist and businessman Gerard Cafesjian tangled for
years with museum trustees over who was to blame for the project's
failure and what should happen to buildings Cafesjian donated to
house the museum. Following a bench trial, U.S. District Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly found that the buildings should return to Cafesjian.
Yesterday, she denied the trustees' motion for another trial.
Over the trustees' objections, she also ordered them to pay Cafesjian
$1.4 million in fees and costs, a figure based on recommendations
from U.S. District Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Cafesjian's legal team
was led by Jones Day attorneys.
Cafesjian's lead attorney, John Williams of Cozen O'Connor - who until
recently was with Jones Day - said today that the rulings moved his
client one step closer to making the museum a reality. "It's been a
struggle, but we're getting closer and closer to having clean title
in order to go ahead," he said.
Lead counsel for the museum trustees, Eric Abraham of Hill Wallack
in Princeton, N.J., could not immediately be reached for comment today.
The trustees moved for a new trial after learning new information
about one of Cafesjian's co-defendants, John Waters Jr. They claimed
that according to a lawsuit that Waters filed against Cafesjian in
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Cafesjian had agreed
to pay Waters $400,000 to $800,000 for any work he did to help secure
a positive outcome in the D.C. litigation. Waters didn't disclose that
information in the Washington proceedings, and the trustees argued
that it undermined his credibility in a way that warranted a new trial.
But Kollar-Kotelly disagreed, writing that there was no concrete
evidence that Waters' allegations were true - his Minnesota lawsuit
was still in the early stages - and, even if they were, she said any
revelations wouldn't have changed the outcome. The judge wrote that
from the beginning, she knew that almost everyone involved in the
litigation, including Waters, was biased because they had a financial
stake or their reputation was on the line.
"If true, the fact that Cafesjian promised Waters $400,000 to $800,000
in the event Cafesjian was successful in the litigation is consistent
with the bias the Court (and the parties) knew Waters possessed when
he took the stand," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
The plaintiffs appealed Kollar-Kotelly's initial decision entering
judgment for Cafesjian, but that appeal was put on hold while she
weighed the motion for a new trial. Yesterday's decision likely means
that the appeal is active again.
On the issue of fees, Kollar-Kotelley rejected the trustees' argument
that they shouldn't have to reimburse Cafesjian and Waters, as former
museum board members, for fees incurred through the litigation. The
judge had previously found that Cafesjian and Waters didn't breach
their fiduciary duties to the museum, meaning they were covered by
museum by-laws requiring indemnification for legal costs.
Kay sifted through the defendants' request for $2.8 million in
legal fees and costs - less than the nearly $4 million they claimed
their attorneys logged on the case - and issued a report last April
recommending they receive $1.4 million.
In yesterday's opinion, Kollar-Kotelly found that Kay came up with a
reasonable formula for calculating fees that took into account any
possible excessive billing. Under Kay's guidelines, the plaintiffs
were on the hook for half of attorneys' "blended" billing entries,
meaning general entries for work done as part of litigation, such as
writing briefs or participating in the trial.
The Blog of Legal Times; February 21, 2013
Posted by Zoe Tillman
http://hetq.am/eng/news/23697/us-judge-denies-new-trial-in-armenian-genocide-museum-dispute.html
11:04, February 22, 2013
Museum trustees ordered to pay Cafesjian $1.4 million in fees and costs
More than a decade after efforts began to build a museum memorializing
the mass slaughter of Armenians during World War I, litigation over
the failure of those efforts has consumed everyone involved.
Yesterday, a Washington federal judge denied a motion for a new trial
in the dispute and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants $1.4
million in fees and costs.
Minnesota philanthropist and businessman Gerard Cafesjian tangled for
years with museum trustees over who was to blame for the project's
failure and what should happen to buildings Cafesjian donated to
house the museum. Following a bench trial, U.S. District Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly found that the buildings should return to Cafesjian.
Yesterday, she denied the trustees' motion for another trial.
Over the trustees' objections, she also ordered them to pay Cafesjian
$1.4 million in fees and costs, a figure based on recommendations
from U.S. District Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Cafesjian's legal team
was led by Jones Day attorneys.
Cafesjian's lead attorney, John Williams of Cozen O'Connor - who until
recently was with Jones Day - said today that the rulings moved his
client one step closer to making the museum a reality. "It's been a
struggle, but we're getting closer and closer to having clean title
in order to go ahead," he said.
Lead counsel for the museum trustees, Eric Abraham of Hill Wallack
in Princeton, N.J., could not immediately be reached for comment today.
The trustees moved for a new trial after learning new information
about one of Cafesjian's co-defendants, John Waters Jr. They claimed
that according to a lawsuit that Waters filed against Cafesjian in
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Cafesjian had agreed
to pay Waters $400,000 to $800,000 for any work he did to help secure
a positive outcome in the D.C. litigation. Waters didn't disclose that
information in the Washington proceedings, and the trustees argued
that it undermined his credibility in a way that warranted a new trial.
But Kollar-Kotelly disagreed, writing that there was no concrete
evidence that Waters' allegations were true - his Minnesota lawsuit
was still in the early stages - and, even if they were, she said any
revelations wouldn't have changed the outcome. The judge wrote that
from the beginning, she knew that almost everyone involved in the
litigation, including Waters, was biased because they had a financial
stake or their reputation was on the line.
"If true, the fact that Cafesjian promised Waters $400,000 to $800,000
in the event Cafesjian was successful in the litigation is consistent
with the bias the Court (and the parties) knew Waters possessed when
he took the stand," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
The plaintiffs appealed Kollar-Kotelly's initial decision entering
judgment for Cafesjian, but that appeal was put on hold while she
weighed the motion for a new trial. Yesterday's decision likely means
that the appeal is active again.
On the issue of fees, Kollar-Kotelley rejected the trustees' argument
that they shouldn't have to reimburse Cafesjian and Waters, as former
museum board members, for fees incurred through the litigation. The
judge had previously found that Cafesjian and Waters didn't breach
their fiduciary duties to the museum, meaning they were covered by
museum by-laws requiring indemnification for legal costs.
Kay sifted through the defendants' request for $2.8 million in
legal fees and costs - less than the nearly $4 million they claimed
their attorneys logged on the case - and issued a report last April
recommending they receive $1.4 million.
In yesterday's opinion, Kollar-Kotelly found that Kay came up with a
reasonable formula for calculating fees that took into account any
possible excessive billing. Under Kay's guidelines, the plaintiffs
were on the hook for half of attorneys' "blended" billing entries,
meaning general entries for work done as part of litigation, such as
writing briefs or participating in the trial.
The Blog of Legal Times; February 21, 2013
Posted by Zoe Tillman