fund doctrine in District of Columbia

1977As Justice Marshall stated, in discussing Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra, in his dissenting opinion in Alyeska, supra, 421 U.S. at 277 , 95 S.Ct. at 1631 , the common fund exception “could apply, the Court wrote, where there was no fund at all, . . . [Mills, supra] 396 U.S. at 392 , 90 S.Ct., at 625 , but simply a benefit of some sort conferred on the class from which contribution is sought.

1977As Justice Marshall stated, in discussing Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra, in his dissenting opinion in Alyeska, supra, 421 U.S. at 277 , 95 S.Ct. at 1631 , the common fund exception “could apply, the Court wrote, where there was no fund at all, . . . [Mills, supra] 396 U.S. at 392 , 90 S.Ct., at 625 , but simply a benefit of some sort conferred on the class from which contribution is sought.

2012The common fund doctrine “operates to spread litigation costs proportionately among all the beneficiaries so that the active beneficiary does not bear the entire burden alone and the stranger beneficiaries do not receive those benefits at no cost to themselves.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

2012Another exception — the so-called bad faith exception — “permits an award of attorneys’ fees against a party who has acted ‘in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons’ connected to the litigation.” Synanon Found., Inc. v. Bern *1278 stein, 517 A.2d 28, 36 (D.C.1986) (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 , 100 S.Ct. 2455 , 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980)).

2012Another exception — the so-called bad faith exception — “permits an award of attorneys’ fees against a party who has acted ‘in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons’ connected to the litigation.” Synanon Found., Inc. v. Bern *1278 stein, 517 A.2d 28, 36 (D.C.1986) (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 , 100 S.Ct. 2455 , 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980)).

1977After noting the general prohibition of awards of attorneys’ fees to prevailing litigants under the American rule, the trial court decided that the appel-lees were entitled to such an award under the so-called common fund or common benefit exception. 3 The common fund exception began with Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 , 26 L.Ed. 1157 (1882), in which the Supreme Court recognized the historic power of equity to permit the trustee of a fund or property, or a party preserving or recovering a fund for the benefit of others in addition to himself, to recover his costs, including his attorneys

1977After noting the general prohibition of awards of attorneys’ fees to prevailing litigants under the American rule, the trial court decided that the appel-lees were entitled to such an award under the so-called common fund or common benefit exception. 3 The common fund exception began with Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 , 26 L.Ed. 1157 (1882), in which the Supreme Court recognized the historic power of equity to permit the trustee of a fund or property, or a party preserving or recovering a fund for the benefit of others in addition to himself, to recover his costs, including his attorneys

1977As Justice Marshall stated, in discussing Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra, in his dissenting opinion in Alyeska, supra, 421 U.S. at 277 , 95 S.Ct. at 1631 , the common fund exception “could apply, the Court wrote, where there was no fund at all, . . . [Mills, supra] 396 U.S. at 392 , 90 S.Ct., at 625 , but simply a benefit of some sort conferred on the class from which contribution is sought.

1977As Justice Marshall stated, in discussing Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra, in his dissenting opinion in Alyeska, supra, 421 U.S. at 277 , 95 S.Ct. at 1631 , the common fund exception “could apply, the Court wrote, where there was no fund at all, . . . [Mills, supra] 396 U.S. at 392 , 90 S.Ct., at 625 , but simply a benefit of some sort conferred on the class from which contribution is sought.