Appeals Court Refuses to Award Attorneys Fees in 'Sahara' War

An appellate court decides there is "no prevailing party" and no reason to award more than $20 million in attorney fees over the 2005 box office flop.

The seemingly never-ending legal battle between novelist Clive Cussler and Philip Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment over the 2005 box office bomb Sahara has had many chapters without any dénouement. In late December, a California appeals court attempted to write one.

At issue is who actually won the legal case. At stake was some $20 million in attorney fees.
Even before Sahara was released in 2005 to financial losses estimated at $80 million, the two sides were fighting.

A 14-week trial gained widespread attention thanks to its focus on Hollywood accounting and a famous author's allegedly unreasonable behavior. Afterwards, the outcome was less than clear-cut. Both sides claimed victory -- Crusader because a jury awarded $5 million for breaching an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and Cussler because the jury had potentially left open the possibility that he was due $8.5 million for payments for a second film under the agreement.

An appellate court's decision to take away the $5 million award, more claims filed, and further controversy between the parties only added to the confusion about who was victorious. Both Bert Fields, the attorney for Cussler, and Marvin Putnam, Crusader's main attorney, both crowed about gaining the advantage. The scorecard wasn't merely about hubris since the prevailing party was entitled to a significant attorney fee award over a hard-fought case.

In late December, the Second Appellate District for California's Appeals Court weighed in with its own assessment. The ruling notes that "after years of litigation both sides recovered nothing -- not one dime of damages and no declaratory relief."

The judges disagree with Crusader's contention that it is the prevailing party because it "won the entitlement" of $8.5 million.

"Crusader never sought to recover $8.5 million in damages from Cussler as a result of a breach of the contract," says the ruling. "Rather, it sought to prevent Cussler from recovering $8.5 million in damages. Thus, Crusader was successful on its defense against an $8.5 million claim. But the same is true with respect to Cussler's defense against Crusader's numerous breach of contract claims. In the end, neither party obtained any affirmative relief."

Thus, the appellate court ruled that the trial court was proper in determining there was no prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees.

Consider them both winners. Or deem them both to be losers. The ruling strongly suggests that the outcome was about even.

Read More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/appeals-court-refuses-award-attorneys-407427