Diamond Claims & Investigation Services, Inc. - Page 16

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011