- 16 -
relied on Analysis 1 and Mr. Wharton's testimony at the damages
hearing, finding that, with a few minor exceptions, Mr. Wharton's
determinations set forth in Analysis 1 were reasonable. The
District Court made the following minor adjustments to Mr.
Wharton's determinations in Analysis 1 in order to reflect
certain additional evidence presented at the damages hearing:
(1) It increased lost revenue for the period 1984 and 1985 by
$21,593 and the total lost revenues for the period 1981 through
1985 by that same amount; (2) it increased direct costs for the
period 1984 and 1985 by $10,797 to reflect the cost of generating
that additional revenue and the total direct costs for the period
1981 through 1985 by that same amount; and (3) it increased
variable overhead by $9,000 of additional monthly rents that
would have been incurred during an unspecified period of time
during the period 1981 through 1985 to generate the total lost
revenues reflected in Analysis 1 during those years.
The District Court's Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Costs
The plaintiffs sought $240,137 in attorneys' fees, and the
District Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that request.
In June 1987, the District Court awarded the plaintiffs attor-
neys' fees and costs in the total amount of $220,360.
FIG's Appeal of the District Court's Judgment
FIG appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In June 1988, the Court of
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011