US Bank National Association et al v. Gunn

Filing 154

MEMORANDUM ORDER that within 30 days from the date of this Order, Defendant shall remit payment in the sum of $2,682.00 directly to Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, the law firm that represents Plaintiffs (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/8/2013. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as
Trustee for the Holders of the EQCC Home
Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates,
Series 1998-3 and SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

Civ. No. 11-1155-RGA

LAMARGUNN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this

~~day of April, 2013,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
On December 10, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt
against Defendant La Mar Gunn for violation of an injunction as to asserted violation 5,
and otherwise denied the remainder of the Motion. (D. I. 138). The Court directed
Plaintiffs to submit a letter explaining the sanction they believed appropriate in light of
the Court's ruling. Defendant was allowed three weeks to respond to Plaintiffs' letter.
Plaintiffs filed their letter (D.I. 142) on December 19,2012. On December 21,2012,
Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider the December 10, 2012 Order (D.I. 143), but
filed no response to Plaintiffs' December 19, 2012 letter. The Court will separately
deny the Motion to Reconsider.
"Sanctions for civil contempt serve two purposes: 'to coerce the defendant into
compliance with the court's order and to compensate for losses sustained by the
disobedience."' McDonald's Corp. v. Victory Investments, 727 F.2d 82, 87 (3d Cir.

1984 ). The court is "guided by the principle that sanctions imposed after a finding of
civil contempt to remedy past noncompliance with a decree are not to vindicate the
court's authority but to make reparation to the injured party and restore the parties to
the position they would have held had the injunction been obeyed." Robin Woods, Inc.
v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396, 400 (3d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

Having reviewed Plaintiffs' submission seeking compensatory sanctions in the
form of reasonable attorneys' fees, the Court concludes that, under the circumstances,
the imposition of sanctions is appropriate. Plaintiffs seek sanctions in the amount of
$5,364.00 in securing the adjudication of contempt. 1
Plaintiffs, however, were only successful on one of the ten claimed grounds of
contempt. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983), instructs that District Courts
may need "to adjust the fee upward or downward" based on considerations such as "the
degree of success obtained." Hence, the Court may reduce the attorneys' fees
accordingly but it is not required that the fee be reduced under a proportionality rule.
See, e.g., Smith v. Borough of Dunmore, 633 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 2011 ); United Auto
Workers v. Metro Auto Ctr., 501 F.3d 283, 295 (3d Cir. 2007).

Having considered the degree of success obtained, the Court reduces the
requested amount by fifty percent to $2,682.00. The Court determines that the fifty
percent reduction of Plaintiffs' actual, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in the
prosecution of the contempt motion suffices to restore Plaintiffs to the position they
would have held had the injunction been obeyed. The Court makes this estimate based
on its experience that there are economies of scale to bringing multiple claims at the

1

Piaintiffs did not include all costs and expenses, including travel expenses,
incurred.

2

I
I

•

same time, and thus believes that bringing the one successful claim would likely have
required about fifty percent of the effort of bringing the ten claims ..
Thus, IT IS ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order,
Defendant shall remit payment in the sum of $2,682.00 directly to Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC, the law firm that represents Plaintiffs.

UNITED STA

3