AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiffs won a partial summary judgment against the Defendant for violating the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), leading to a settlement agreement for approximately $5200 plus attorney fees. The agreement stipulated that the Defendant would pay the named Plaintiffs' attorney fees, the amount of which was to be agreed upon by the parties' counsel within ten days or, failing agreement, decided by the court. The parties could not agree on the attorney fees amount, prompting Plaintiffs to file a motion for the award of attorney fees, requesting an hourly rate of $195 plus tax, totaling $35,759.10, and an additional request for a multiplier of 1.5 (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued for the application of a multiplier in awarding attorney fees on top of the base amount calculated using an hourly rate, asserting that the district court erred in law by refusing to consider the use of a multiplier (para 4).
• Defendant: Contended that the use of a multiplier under these circumstances is without precedent and contrary to federal law, arguing against the application of a multiplier for attorney fees in fee-shifting cases outside of class actions and common fund cases (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred as a matter of law by refusing to consider the use of a multiplier in awarding attorney fees under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA).
• Whether the Plaintiffs waived their right to request a multiplier by not asking for it prior to the execution of the settlement agreement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded for reconsideration of Plaintiffs’ request for a multiplier in the award of attorney fees (para 1).

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J. (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, J., RODERICK T. KENNEDY, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in concluding it could not consider the use of a multiplier in awarding attorney fees under the UPA. The UPA does not limit attorney fees, and New Mexico courts have historically considered various factors, including whether the fee is fixed or contingent, to determine the reasonableness of attorney fees. The lodestar method, used by the district court, serves as a starting point for calculating reasonable fees, which may be enhanced by a multiplier to ensure plaintiffs can enforce their rights under the UPA. The Court of Appeals held that the district court has discretion to apply a multiplier to the lodestar value, rejecting the Defendant's arguments against the use of a multiplier and finding no waiver by the Plaintiffs regarding their right to request a multiplier. The Court also noted that appellate attorney fees are appropriate in UPA cases, directing the district court to award reasonable attorney fees and costs of the appeal to Plaintiffs on remand (paras 5-16).