Amerifactors Financial Group LLC v. Windstream Supply LLC

Filing 128

ORDER: The Court has concluded that Windstream is entitled to some attorney's fees and costs. The $2,612.41 in costs requested are fine, even though they cover more than Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) costs. They're reasonable, and the contract's loss category is expansive. The full $93,680.00 in fees requested may or may not be recoverable. A supplement is needed and Windstream may file it under seal to protect the privilege and work product. Supplement due by 17 June 2015. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/10/2015. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PLAINTIFF AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC v. No. 4:12-cv-202-DPM WINDSTREAM SUPPLY, LLC DEFENDANT/ THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF v. HAL-TEC CONSTRUCTION, INC. THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT ORDER Even though it will result in asymmetry in the judgment, the Court has concluded that Windstream is entitled to some attorney's fees and costs. HalTee's general indemnity obligation, NQ 60-1 at if 30(a), is broad enough to cover these matters based on Hal-Tee's default and the parties' definition of losses. They include "all losses, liabilities, damages, and claims, and all related costs and expenses (including reasonable legal fees and disbursements and costs of investigation, litigation, settlement, judgment, interest, and penalties)." NQ 60-1 at p. 1 (Definitions); see also U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Love, 260 Ark. 374, 376, 538 S.W.2d 558, 559 (1976). The $2,612.41 in costs requested are fine, even though they cover more than Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) costs. They're reasonable, and the contract's loss category is expansive. The full $93,680.00 in fees requested may or may not be recoverable. The contract embraces reasonable legal fees. NQ 60-1 at p. 1 (Definitions). Without details about tasks, hourly rates, and time, the Court can't evaluate the reasonableness of Windstream' s request. See generally, Chrisco v. Sun Industries, Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 229, 800 S.W.2d 717, 718-19 (1990). While the Court wants, as it said at the recent hearing, to get judgment entered, it would be unfair to reject Windstream' s fee request summarily for lack of supporting information. A supplement is needed. Windstream may file it under seal to protect the privilege and work product. Supplement due by 17 June 2015. So Ordered. D .P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge -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?