Granite Southlands Town Center, LLC v. Alberta Town Center, LLC et al

Filing 250

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion 223 is GRANTED to the extent that the Court will consider the corrections stated in the Supplemental Motion in its adjudication of the pending motion for fees 199 . Defendant Alberta Town Center LLCs Motion for Discovery 229 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/9/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00799-SJJ-KLM
GRANITE SOUTHLANDS TOWN CENTER LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERTA TOWN CENTER, LLC,
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY,
PETER M. CUDLIP, and
DONALD G. PROVOST,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’
Fees and Expenses [Docket No. 223; Filed October 19, 2011] (“Supplemental Motion”)
and on Defendant Alberta Town Center LLC’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited
Discovery and Submit Supplemental Briefing Concerning Plaintiff’s Motion and
Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses [Docket No. 229; Filed October
26, 2011] (“Motion for Discovery”).
The Court construes Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion [#223] as a Notice of Errata with
respect to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses [#199]. The Court accepts
the corrections stated herein. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion [#223] is GRANTED
to the extent that the Court will consider the corrections stated in the Supplemental Motion
in its adjudication of the pending motion for fees [#199].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Alberta Town Center LLC’s Motion for
Discovery [#229] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court recognizes
and accepts Plaintiff’s representation that “[t]here is no written fee agreement between
Granite and Fulbright.” [#238-1] at 3. However, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2), the
Court directs Plaintiff to submit any other fee agreement governing the fees paid for
services rendered by counsel to Plaintiff in relation to the Escrow Claims, including any fee
1

agreement between BlackRock Realty Advisors, Inc. and counsel, or Granite’s “Parent” and
counsel, for the Court’s review. The Motion for Discovery [#229] is GRANTED only to this
extent. Plaintiff shall submit the agreement(s), or in lieu of the agreement(s), a status
report explaining the absence of any agreement, on or before December 28, 2011. When
submitting the agreement(s) or status report, Plaintiff may file an appropriate motion
pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 if it so chooses.
Regarding the remaining requests in the Motion for Discovery [#229], the District
Judge awarded Plaintiff its “reasonable and actual attorney’s fees, expenses and costs .
. .” [#198] at 3. The Court does not interpret the term “actual” to require Plaintiff to prove
that the billed amounts were actually paid (and in any event, Plaintiff provides a listing of
invoices that were paid or remain pending). “Actual” refers to the fees that were calculated
and billed; “reasonable” is a discretionary determination, guided by the law, as to the
necessity and appropriateness of the fees that were billed, in terms of the time stated for
the task and the billing rate applied. See, e.g., Olga’s Kitchen v. Papo, 815 F.2d 79, 1987
WL 36385, at *16 (6th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted) (“the district court should not assume
that ‘reasonable’ means actual fees.”). In this District, any motion for attorneys’ fees must
be filed with one or more affidavits, and for each person for whom fees are claimed, “1. a
detailed description of the services rendered, the amount of time spent, the hourly rate, and
the total amount claimed; and 2. a summary of relevant qualifications and experience.”
D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3. The motion for fees and accompanying supplement [##199, 223]
include these required documents, and at this time, the Court sees no need for the addition
of further evidence to the record (other than any fee agreement as stated above). See also
Martinez v. Schock Transfer & Warehouse Co., Inc., 789 F.2d 848, 850, 10th Cir. 1986)
(“discovery on this issue would not be of assistance in resolving the issue [of an award of
fees].”). Thus, all remaining requests for discovery stated in the Motion for Discovery
[#229] are DENIED.
Dated: December 9, 2011

2