Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn., Inc.

Filing 174

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 165 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $127,512.00.. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 7/24/2013. (NWH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
AJIT BHOGAITA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:11-cv-1637-Orl-31DAB

ALTAMONTE HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM
ASSN., INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 165), filed by
Plaintiff Ajit Bhogaita; and Defendant’s Response thereto (Doc. 171).
Plaintiff seeks $192,785.50 in attorneys’ fees for the work of three attorneys divided as
follows: $91,798.00 for the work of Matthew W. Dietz (221.20 hours billed at $415.00 per hour);
$6,640.00 for the work of Rachel Goldstein (33.20 hours billed at $200.00 per hour); and
$94,347.50 for the work of Aaron C. Bates (290.30 hours billed at $325.00 per hour).
The starting point in determining reasonable attorney’s fees is the lodestar, which is the
number of hours reasonably expended on the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Norman
v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).
Reasonable fees’ under § 1988 are calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the
relevant community. Gaines v. Dougherty Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 775 F.2d 1565, 1571 (11th Cir.
1985) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, ----, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1547, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984)
(footnote omitted)). Additional factors include: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and

difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the
preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary
fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the
circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation,
and ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the
professional relationship with the client; (12) awards in similar cases. Gaines, 775 F.2d at 1572
Reasonable Hourly Rate
Plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate
hours and hourly rates.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303 (citation omitted). “A reasonable hourly rate is
the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of
reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation.” Id. at 1299. Plaintiff “bears the burden
of producing satisfactory evidence that the requested rate is in line with prevailing market rates.”
Id. However, the Court is an expert on this matter and may “consider its own knowledge and
experience concerning reasonable and proper fees” and “form an independent judgment ... without
the aid of witnesses.” Id. at 1303.
In a recent FHA case cited by Plaintiff, this Court determined that a reasonable rate for Mr.
Dietz was $350.00 per hour and that a reasonable rate for Mr. Bates was $250.00 per hour. Herrin
v. Lamachys Vill. at Indigo Lakes, Inc., 6:09-CV-1562-ORL-35, 2011 WL 7333928 (M.D. Fla.
Dec. 8, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, 6:09-CV-1562-ORL-36, 2012 WL 512952
(M.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2012). Based on this prior precedent and the Court’s own knowledge and
expertise, reasonable hourly rates in this case are as follows: $350 for Mr. Dietz, $250 for Mr.
Bates, and $175 for Ms. Goldstein in light of her limited experience.

-2-

Hours Reasonably Expended
Defendant objects to more than 50 hours of entries which it claims are duplicative.
Excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary hours are generally excluded from fee awards.
Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301. However, “[t]here is nothing inherently unreasonable about a client
having multiple attorneys.” Id. at 1302. A reduction of hours on those grounds “is warranted only
if the attorneys are unreasonably doing the same work. An award for time spent by two or more
attorneys is proper as long as it reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and the
customary practice of multiple-lawyer litigation.” Johnson v. University College of Univ. of Ala. in
Birmingham, 706 F.2d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994, 104 S.Ct. 489, 78
L.Ed.2d 684 (1983). Duplicative time spent in attorney conferences and reviewing case filing and
documents is not generally unreasonable. See Rynd v. Nat'l Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8:09-CV-1556-T27TGW, 2012 WL 939387 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, 8:09CV-1556-T-27TGW, 2012 WL 939247 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2012); Review Publications, Inc. v.
Navarro, 89-1187-CIV-KEHOE, 1991 WL 252962 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 1991); National Ass’n of
Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319, 1337 (D.C.Cir.1982). Although
Defendant’s conclusory objections will be rejected, 50 hours of duplicative time entries is
excessive. See Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301 (“[g]eneralized statements that the time spent was
reasonable or unreasonable ... are not particularly helpful and not entitled to much weight” and
“[a]s the district court must be reasonably precise in excluding hours thought to be unreasonable
or unnecessary, so should be the objections and proof from fee opponent”). Thus, the Court, in its
discretion, will reduce the amount of hours expended by Bates by 25, and Goldstein by 7—half
the amount requested by Defendant.

-3-

Next, Defendant claims that 18.70 hours expended by Plaintiff’s counsel is vague or
redacted. Although counsel is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time
was expended, “the general subject matter of the time expenditures ought to be set out with
sufficient particularity so that the district court can assess the time claimed for each activity.”
Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303. Specifically, Defendant objects to 9 hours of “trial preparation”
submitted by Mr. Dietz and Mr. Bates. While such a description may be insufficient in some
cases, see Rynd, 2012 WL 939387 at *10 (196.1 hours in trial preparation time submitted for a
trial that lasted only three days on a “simple bad faith issue.”), it is not patently unreasonable here.
Defendant’s remaining objections are directed to entries for email or telephone
communication between counsel and Plaintiff, in which the specific subject matter of the
communication has been redacted. In total, 14.5 hours of entries for Mr. Bates include these minor
redactions. Simply redacting from time entries the subject matter of attorney client communication
is not unreasonable. Defendant’s conclusory objections in this regard will be rejected.
Defendant’s objections are sustained, however, with respect to counsel’s travel time, (22.6
hours by Mr. Bates) and for preparation of the motion for injunctive relief (16.5 hours for Mr.
Bates). 22.6 hours will be deducted from Mr. Bates entries for travel time, and 4 hours will be
deducted from time spent preparing an unsuccessful motion for injunctive relief that was similar to
a previous motion filed by counsel in another case. (See Doc. 171-4).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to fees for 221.20 hours for Mr. Dietz,
238.70 for Mr. Bates, and 26.20 for Ms. Goldstein, for a final lodestar amount of $141,680.00.

-4-

Lodestar Reduction
The final step is to determine whether a further reduction is warranted based on the results
obtained. See Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302. If Plaintiff was successful, the Court should “compensate
for all hours reasonably expended.” Id. (citation omitted). However, the lodestar must be reduced
to reflect partial or limited success. Id. Although Plaintiff succeeded in this case and received
more than a nominal award, a significant portion of the case involved a claim for injunctive relief
which was ultimately denied. For that reason, the lodestar will be reduced by 10%, or $14,168.00.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 165) is
GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of
$127,512.00.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 24, 2013.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-5-