PGT Industries, Inc. v. Harris & Pritchard Contracting Services LLC et al

Filing 47

ORDER: Plaintiff PGT Industries, Inc.'s Motion for Prejudgment Interest, Attorneys' Fees and Costs 46 is GRANTED. Plaintiff PGT Industries, Inc. shall recover from Defendants, Harris & Pritchard Contracting Services, LLC and David Harris, jointly and severally, the amount of $107,374.53, together with prejudgment interest in the amount of $39,929.00 through April 10, 2013, court costs in the amount of $1,495.45, and attorneys' fees in the amount of $49,052.07 , making a total of $197,851.05, for which let multiple writs of execution issue as may be requested by Plaintiff PGT Industries, Inc., that shall bear interest at the prevailing statutory interest rate in accordance with section 55.03, Florida Statutes. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff PGT Industries, Inc. and against Defendants Harris & Pritchard Contracting Services, LLC and David Harris consistent with the foregoing. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/9/2013. (LRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PGT INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-358-T-33TGW

HARRIS & PRITCHARD CONTRACTING
SERVICES, LLC and DAVID M. HARRIS,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER
This
Plaintiff

cause
PGT

comes

before

Industries,

the

Inc.’s

Court

Motion

for

pursuant

to

Prejudgment

Interest, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. # 46), filed on
April 12, 2013. PGT seeks a total judgment of $197,851.05,
inclusive

of

attorneys’

fees,

costs,

and

prejudgment

interest as provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54 and the terms of the parties’ contract. (Doc. # 2 at 69).

For

the

reasons

that

follow,

the

Court

grants

the

motion.
I.

Background
PGT originally filed this breach of contract action in

state court, and Harris & Pritchard and Harris removed the
case to this Court on February 21, 2012. (Doc. # 1).

PGT’s

three count Complaint alleges counts for breach of written

contract

in

statutory

the

amount

interest

of

and

$107,374.53

for

unjust

principal,

enrichment,

plus

against

Harris & Pritchard, as well as one count for breach of
guaranty against Harris in his individual capacity. (Doc. #
2).
On

November

27,

2012,

counsel

for

both

Harris

&

Pritchard and Harris filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel.
(Doc. # 30). On December 13, 2012, PGT filed a motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. # 30). The Court granted Harris &
Pritchard

and

Harris’

counsels’

Motion

to

Withdraw

on

December 14, 2012, and notified Harris & Pritchard that it
had

thirty

days

to

file

a

notice

of

appearance

of

new

counsel. (Doc. # 34). No such notice was filed. On January
22,

2013,

this

Court

entered

an

Order

noting

Harris

&

Pritchard’s failure to comply with the Court’s instruction
and

advising

counsel

Harris

could

result

&

Pritchard
in

its

that

Answer

failure
(Doc.

#

to
5)

obtain
being

stricken and that “thereafter, Harris & Pritchard will be
poised for the entry of default against it.” (Doc. # 36 at
5-6). The Court similarly advised Harris, as an individual,
that failure to file a response to the Motion for Summary
Judgment would result in the Court considering the Motion
for

Summary

Judgment

as

unopposed. (Id.
2

at

6).

Neither

Harris

&

Pritchard

nor

Harris

responded

to

the

Court’s

Order.
Upon receipt of appropriate Motions (Doc. ## 38, 39),
the

Court

ordered

stricken

Harris

&

Pritchard’s

Answer

(Doc. # 5) and directed the Clerk to enter default. (Doc.
## 40, 41). PGT filed a Motion for Default Judgment against
Harris & Pritchard on March 20, 2013. (Doc. # 42). On March
29,

2013,

the

Court

granted

PGT’s

Motion

for

Default

Judgment against Harris & Pritchard, and granted summary
judgment against Harris. (Doc. # 43 at 19). Furthermore,
the Court stated, “Entry of judgment will be reserved until
the

amount

of

costs,

fees,

and

prejudgment

interest

is

determined. Plaintiff PGT Industries, Inc. may file with
the Court a motion addressing prejudgment interest, fees,
and costs on or before April 12, 2013.” (Id.).
PGT timely filed the instant Motion for Prejudgment
Interest, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (Doc. # 46). Neither
Harris

&

Pritchard

nor

Harris

has

filed

a

response

in

opposition to the motion, and the time for such responses
has passed. Accordingly, the Court considers the motion as
unopposed.

3

II.

Analysis
Upon review of the Motion for Prejudgment Interest,

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and of the affidavits filed in
support thereof, the Court determines that the prejudgment
interest, fees, and costs requested are reasonable under
the circumstances of this case.

The Court has conducted

its lodestar analysis under Norman v. Housing Authority of
City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988).
PGT’s

filed

invoices

indicate

that

a

total

of

$107,374.53 is due and owing to PGT. (Doc. # 2 at 10).
Additionally, “[p]ursuant to Section 2.3 of the Contract,
Plaintiff is entitled to collect prejudgment interest at
the rate of 1.5% per month (18% annually) on all unpaid
invoices. To wit, Defendants owe prejudgment interest” in
the amount of $39,929.00. (Doc. #46 at ¶ 6) (citing Doc. #
2 at 7).
Furthermore,
PGT,

as

attorneys’

the

Section

prevailing

fees.

(Doc.

1.6

of

party,
#

2

at

the
to
6).

Contract
collect
PGT

entitles

reasonable

alleges

that

“Plaintiff’s attorneys have agreed to represent Plaintiff
on a contingency basis. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s contingency
fee

agreement,

Plaintiff’s

attorneys

are

entitled

to

recover 33.3% of the judgment, which amount (based upon
4

principal

and

prejudgment

interest)

equals

$49,052.07.”

(Id. at ¶ 7).
PGT is a prevailing party. See 2002 Irrevocable Trust
for Richard C. Hvizdak v. Huntington Nat. Bank, No. 1214726, 2013 WL 1223474, at *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 26, 2013)
(acknowledging that a party granted summary judgment is the
prevailing party); Raetano v. Msawel, No. 8:12-cv-1625-T30TBM, 2013 WL 1465290, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2013)
(“Plaintiff is a prevailing party in this case because he
has received a final default judgment.”). “Moreover, the
Court has broad equity powers to supervise collection of
attorneys’

fees

pursuant

to

contingency

fee

contracts.”

Zegers v. Countrywide Mortg. Ventures, LLC, 569 F. Supp. 2d
1259,

1268

(M.D.

Fla.

2008).

obtained,

the

Court

finds

reasonable

and

appropriate.

Considering

that
The

the

the

fee

affidavits

result

charged
of

Hunter

is
G.

Norton, Esq. and Steven D. Hutton, Esq. further support the
Court’s finding. (Doc. # 45).
The Court also approves as consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
1920 and Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
the $1,495.45 in costs sought by PGT.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
5

(1)

Plaintiff

PGT

Industries,

Inc.’s

Motion

for

Prejudgment Interest, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc.
# 46) is GRANTED.
(2)

Plaintiff

PGT

Industries,

Inc.

shall

recover

from

Defendants, Harris & Pritchard Contracting Services,
LLC

and

amount

David
of

Harris,

jointly

$107,374.53,

and

together

severally,

with

the

prejudgment

interest in the amount of $39,929.00 through April 10,
2013,

court

costs

in

the

amount

of

$1,495.45,

and

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $49,052.07, making a
total of $197,851.05, for which let multiple writs of
execution issue as may be requested by Plaintiff PGT
Industries,

Inc.,

that

shall

bear

interest

at

the

prevailing statutory interest rate in accordance with
section 55.03, Florida Statutes.
(3)

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff PGT Industries, Inc. and against Defendants
Harris & Pritchard Contracting Services, LLC and David
Harris consistent with the foregoing.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this

9th day of May, 2013.

6

Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record

7