Stockmar v. Colorado School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Inc.

Filing 175

ORDER granting 166 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/07/15.(jhawk, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 13-cv-02906-CMA-MJW VANESSA STOCKMAR, TANYA CARLETON, Plaintiffs, v. COLORADO SCHOOL OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF VANESSA STOCKMAR’S MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEY FEES ______________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Vanessa Stockmar’s Motion for Supplemental Award of Attorney Fees. (Doc. # 166.) On August 7, 2015, this Court issued its Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ Attorney Fee Motions and Denying Defendant’s Motion to Produce (“Attorney Fee Order.”) (Doc. # 161.) In the Attorney Fee Order, the Court approved a reasonable hourly rate of $400 per hour for Elwyn Schaefer, Ms. Stockmar’s attorney. (Id. at 9.) This award covered attorney work performed until March 16, 2015, and the instant Motion requests that the Court award supplemental attorney fees for work performed by Mr. Schaefer between March 17, 2015 and August 28, 2015, and attaches detailed, contemporaneous time records substantiating these hours. (Doc. # 166-1.) On September 9, 2015, Defendant Colorado School of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CSTCM) filed an Objection to the instant Motion. (Doc. # 173.) However, the Objection contains no substantive argumentation about why the Motion should not be granted, stating only that CSTCSM “requests that the Court set an evidentiary hearing on this Motion. CSTCM has retained an expert who is available to testify regarding the unreasonableness of the attorneys’ fees requested.” (Id. at 2.) On September 16, 2015, the Court issued an Order noting that the Court does not typically hold hearings regarding attorney fees motions, and it instructed CSTCM to file any substantive argumentation and evidence in opposition to the instant Motion in writing with the Court on or before September 24, 2015. (Doc. # 174 at 8-9.) As of the date of this Order, no further evidence or documentation in opposition has been filed by CSTCM. The Court has conducted its own review of the time records, and finds that the hours expended by Mr. Schaefer were reasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiff Stockmar has met her burden of establishing entitlement to an award “by submitting meticulous, contemporaneous time records that reveal, for each lawyer for whom fees are sought, all hours for which compensation is requested and how those hours were allotted to specific tasks.” Case v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1250 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). Additionally, Mr. Schaefer requests the same hourly rate ($400 per hour) be applied to his hours as that already approved by the Court in its prior Attorney Fee Order. (See Doc. # 161.) Accordingly, the instant Motion (Doc. # 166) is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Stockmar’s counsel is entitled to 2 supplemental attorney fees in the amount of $14,480.00 (36.2 hours multiplied by $400 per hour). DATED: October 7, 2015 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge 3

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?