Here is the Petition for Rehearing En Banc, in Bywaters v. United States, No. 2011-1032 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2012), an opinion we detailed here. In that case, a split panel of the Federal Circuit held that the property owner’s request for attorneys fees under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act was reasonable, but halved it because the amount of compensation sought and awarded was not that large. Here’s how the brief summarizes the issues:
In a 2-1 opinion, the panel majority construed the URA for the first time and set new standard for trial courts to follow when calculating reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to the URA, 42 U.S.C. § 4654(c), the fee-shifting statute that applies to reimbursement of attorneys’ fees for both Little Tucker Act and Big Tucker Act cases. Slip op. at 8-9. The panel majority, over a strong dissent by Judge Plager, (1) adopted an improper proportionality standard requiring the reduction of fees when calculating the lodestar, and (2) set unworkable standards for seeking reimbursement for out-of-town counsel’s fees, despite controlling law requiring that fee awards be sufficient to attract competent counsel.
Br. at 2.
Petition for Rehearing/En Banc, Bywaters v. United States, No. 2011-1032 (Apr. 16, 2012)