Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., f/k/a ... - Maryland Courts

it undertook significant measures to identify other customers who had received warranties
with shorter terms than promised and to provide those customers with revised warranties.
While those efforts might well someday form the basis of an argument against an award of
punitive damages, they also support the Circuit Court’s decision to award attorney’s fees to
Mr. Frazier for the efforts of his counsel throughout the litigation.
As the Circuit Court reasoned, under the circumstances of this case, Crystal Ford’s
concessions illustrate that Mr. Frazier lost a battle – in that the Circuit Court granted Crystal
Ford’s motions for summary judgment and to deny class certification – but ultimately won
the war, as it is undisputed that his litigation resulted in the revision of warranty contracts by
Crystal Ford to match its representations and the expectations of its customers. 25
We agree
with the Court of Special Appeals that the Circuit Court acted within its discretion when it
considered Crystal Ford’s correction of extended warranties purchased by other customers
as within “the results obtained” by the efforts of Mr. Frazier’s attorney. This seems
25 Crystal Ford directs us to several federal cases in which the court considered
whether an attorney’s fee award to a prevailing plaintiff should be reduced because the
plaintiff did not succeed in all respects. See Nigh v. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., 478
F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 2006); DeJesus v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 918 F.2d 232, 235 (1st
Cir. 1990); Roger E. Herst Revocable Trust v. Blinds to Go (U.S.) Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 147032 (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2011). None of these cases persuades us that the Circuit
Court should have disregarded the prevailing “practical results” conceded by Crystal Ford.
22