A recent ABA Journal story, “Citing Brief Error, 6th Circuit OKs $6,800 in Legal Fees; Counsel Sought $180K in Coffeemaker Suit,” reports that plaintiff Pamella Montgomery still gets the $250 settlement she was promised after a more than two-year legal battle with Kraft Foods Global Inc. and Starbucks Corp. over her purchase of a single-serve coffee maker.
But the Michigan woman’s lawyer is receiving $6,800 in attorney fees and costs rather than the $180,000 he had sought under a federal trial court ruling that was OK’d by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Citing a briefing error in the appeal of the Grand Rapids case, the three-judge panel said counsel for Montgomery had waived the right to argue for a bigger award. Although Montgomery’s counsel did point out that the trial court award represented only about 3 percent of the attorney fees and costs requested, calling the amount a “nonaward,” counsel didn’t present arguments for an increase, explains the 6th Circuit’s written opinion:
“By positing only that the modest size of the award (as compared to the request) amounts to a ‘non-award,’ she presents the court with a gripe, unaccompanied by legal reasoning in support of judicial relief. We therefore agree with defendants that Montgomery forfeited this issue by inadequately briefing it.”
As far as the merits of the breach-of-warranty case were concerned, Montgomery argued that “Featuring Starbucks Coffee” language on the box of Kraft’s single-cup coffee machine implied continued availability of compatible Starbucks pods. However, as Kraft was aware was likely to occur, the Starbucks T-Discs were discontinued soon after she bought the Tassimo machine, her lawsuit said.
Nonetheless, the machine made Starbucks coffee as promised, while it was available, and other coffee merchants offered compatible pods for use with the machine. Hence, the trial judge did not err by dismissing her breach-of-warranty claims for this and other reasons and refusing to certify a claimed class of similarly situated consumers, the 6th Circuit wrote.