Hardy et al v. Bartmess

Filing 274

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 271 Motion for Attorney Fees. Honea and Rush are allowed expert fees in the total of $575.00 and $5000 is allowed for attorneys' fees. The Hardys must file confirmation of payment by March 20, 2012. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/5/12. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION JAMES HARDY, JR.; HARDY RESOURCES LLC; JOHN HARDY; EVERGREEN PROCESSING, LLC, formerly B&H RESOURCES, LLC; MARY HARDY; HARDY ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; ELITE COIL TUBING SOLUTIONS LLC; and NORTHSTAR FARMS LLC v. PLAINTIFFS No.l:09-cv-41-DPM HELEN BARTMESS, Executrix of the Estate of George Bartmess DEFENDANT ORDER The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions on Bartmess's attorney's fees and expenses related to the lis pendens issue. The Court appreciates the papers' brevity. The expert fees for Honea and Rush, which total $575.00, are uncontested. They are reasonable and allowed. The $17,842.50 requested in attorney's fees is too much. Informed by having adjudicated the lis pendens dispute and by the billing records, and guided by all the Chrisco factors, the Court concludes that a reasonable fee is $5,000.00. Chrisco v. Sun Industries, Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 229-30, 800 S.W.2d 717, 718-19 (1990). This represents twenty hours of work at $250.00 an hour. This was a straightforward issue, one that could have been handled alone by either of Bartmess's experienced counsel. Bartmess's fee arrangement is only one factor among many in the equation. Ibid. The Court awards $5,575.00 in attorney's fees and expenses to Bartmess for the Hardys' minor breach of the parties' settlement. ARK. CODE ANN. § 16­ 22-308. The Hardys must file confirmation of payment by 20 March 2012. Motion for fees, Document No. 271, granted in part and denied in part. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 5 March 2012 -2­

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?