A recent Law 360 story by Matthew Santoni, “Pa. Judge Slices Investor’s Requested Attorney Fees”, reports that a Pennsylvania federal judge upheld an arbitrator's $258,000 judgment against an invention-marketing company, but declined to award the nearly $50,000 in additional attorney fees requested by the prevailing Texas-based inventor because his lawyers hadn't submitted billing records for the amount, which was nearly two-thirds of the fees they claimed in total.

U.S. District Judge Marilyn J. Horan reaffirmed an earlier order denying Davison Design & Development's bid to duck an arbitrator's award in favor of inventor Mario Scorza, but the day after a brief but contentious video hearing, the judge said Scorza's lawyers hadn't shown evidence supporting their request for fees and costs beyond the $17,837.83 they had billed through June.

"In the two months since this court scheduled this matter for hearing, Mr. Scorza's counsel provided no additional billing or time records beyond his conclusory reference to additional requested fees during his testimony at the January 2, 2024 hearing," Judge Horan wrote in her opinion.  "Such is not sufficient for Mr. Scorza to meet his burden for any additional fee award beyond $17,837.83."  Judge Horan entered a final judgment against Davison that included the original $258,000 award and arbitrator's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and the $17,837.83 she said was supported by the record.

Pittsburgh-based Davison had filed a lawsuit against Scorza in April, seeking to overturn the arbitration decision in his favor over the company's allegedly bungled refinement and patenting of his idea for a travel scale.  Davison said the arbitrator had improperly awarded Scorza attorney fees under the American Inventor's Protection Act and the Texas Regulation of Invention Development Services Act, even though Scorza had only sought those fees under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

But Scorza had countered that the Texas law had been acknowledged as applicable in his contracts with Davison, and in a November opinion denying Davison's request to toss out the attorney fees portion of the award, Judge Horan agreed.

"Davison's arguments, regarding vacatur of attorney fees, center on essentially a distinction without a difference.  Whether the arbitrator cited the UPTCPL or other statute, Davison had notice that Mr. Scorza was seeking attorneys' fees under his claims," she wrote in November. "Mr. Scorza's claims always contained an attorneys' fees component.  This was not a surprise to the litigants, and Davison has not argued that it would have disputed the attorneys' fees award differently through any defense under the AIPA and/or TIDSA.  Therefore, Davison has no basis to vacate or modify the award of attorneys' fees to Mr. Scorza."

Judge Horan held a video hearing to address Scorza's motion to confirm the arbitration award and to tack on additional attorney fees he had incurred while opposing Davison's bid to trim the award.  But the hearing started off on a contentious note, with Davison attorney Justin T. Barron noting that Scorza's attorneys had filed their exhibits for the hearing at 11 p.m. on New Year's Day, just 10 hours before the hearing.

Stacey Barnes of Kearney McWilliams & Davis, representing Scorza, noted that most of the exhibits had already been part of the record in the lawsuit and arbitration, and Judge Horan steered the discussion to an affidavit Barnes had signed regarding the alleged reasonableness of the fee request.

When arguing for his fee request — which he said had grown to an estimated $49,619.73 through the fight over fees in the underlying arbitration — Barnes was reined in repeatedly by the judge and by Barron's objections when he assailed Davison for allegedly delaying and litigating disputes in the hope that they would become too expensive for jilted inventors to fight.  "There is a playbook that has been run on Mr. Scorza," Barnes said. "They have concocted a procedural obstacle course for aspiring inventors."

Barron raised several objections to the relevance of such attacks, especially when Barnes claimed part of the reason for Davison's fighting the award was the hope that Scorza, who is in his 80s, might die before it was resolved. Judge Horan also admonished Barnes to focus on the reasoning for the post-arbitration fees.  "I'm inclined to grant fees, the question is, how much?" she said. "Let's get to the meat of it."

Barnes was sworn in to testify to his rates and his co-counsel's rates, and Barron questioned him on why his co-counsel had not filed their CVs as part of the record.  He also asked why Scorza's attorneys had not filed copies of their invoices with the court after June, even though they were asking for nearly $32,000 more since then.  That lack of additional information was what Judge Horan cited when she trimmed the requested fee award.

"The court will award only those fees which were necessary and reasonable and supported by the record evidence in this case," she wrote in her opinion.  Scorza's attorneys told Law360 they were disappointed by the reduced fee award and would discuss future steps with their client, but were pleased that the underlying arbitration award was upheld.