Longtime readers of the blog will know that I've got a bit of a thing for motions for fees. FeeHead is the term I like to use, although FeePle is also acceptable in close company. FeeLine and FeeLing are just hurtful.
Anyways.
I like a fee motion because they usually have the best facts. Today's case, Mirtech, Inc. v. Agrofresh, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1170-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 18, 2024) (Mem. Op.), actually has pretty boring facts, but addresses some novel legal issues with fees that even I, the resident FeeHead, hadn't seen before.
The parties had a wide-ranging dispute that included various trade secrets and alleged breaches of an earlier settlement agreement. That settlement agreement contained a provision allowing the prevailing party in any "action to enforce its rights under th[e] agreement" to have its fees reimbursed by the loser. Following a prolonged litigation, both parties moved for fees under this provision.
In assessing who was the prevailing party, Judge Andrews was faced with several claims that had been dismissed without prejudice, but which had never been reasserted in an an amended complaint. The parties disputed whether the party winning the dismissal had "prevailed" on those claims:
Even though I dismissed the Mir Parties’ claims without prejudice and with leave to amend, the Mir Parties chose not to amend the complaint. AgroFresh cites to Morton Int’l, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 460 F.3d 470, 477 (3d Cir. 2006), for the proposition that a dismissal without prejudice becomes a final order when the plaintiff “elected to stand on the complaint.” Morton concerned whether a dismissal without prejudice was a final order that would provide an appellate court with jurisdiction, as opposed to identifying a prevailing party on an issue. I think that similar logic would apply to deciding the prevailing party issue. The Mir Parties previously expressed that they “do not intend to amend the complaint” (D.I. 41), and they have not done so. Furthermore, AgroFresh argues that the statutes of limitations on the Mir Parties’ claims have expired, meaning the claims are no longer viable. The Mir Parties do not address this. This is not a situation where the dismissal “has no preclusive effect on the plaintiff’s ability to re-file” or has no “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties.”
Id. at 12 (internal citations omitted)
It's tough to tell from this section whether the same result would apply in the absence of the statute of limitations issue, but there's a bit of a clue later in the opinion where judge Andrews ruled on another claim that was dismissed without prejudice:
I dismissed the claims pertaining to the European patent application without prejudice. AgroFresh might still be able to re-file the claims, although it seems unlikely. Therefore, to the extent either party prevailed on this sub-issue, it would be the Mir Parties.
Id. at 13.
So there you go my FeePle.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
