International Ship Repair & Marine Services Inc. v. Caribe Sun Shipping, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff International Ship Repair & Marine Services, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees 26 by awarding Plaintiff $13,676.50 in attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/2/2013. (LRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
IN ADMIRALTY
INTERNATIONAL SHIP REPAIR &
MARINE SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.

8:12-cv-1651-T-33TGW

CARIBE SUN SHIPPING, INC., In personam,
ATLANTIC CARIBBEAN LINE, INC., In personam,
The M/V CARIBE SUN, her boats, engines, tackle,
apparel, furniture, equipment, appurtenances,
and all other necessaries thereunto appertaining
and belonging to the vessel, In rem,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This

cause

is

before

the

Court

on

Plaintiff

International Ship Repair & Marine Services, Inc.'s (ISR)
Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. # 26), which was filed on
December 4, 2012.

For the reasons that follow, the Court

grants the motion.
I.

Background and Procedural History
On July 24, 2012, ISR filed a Verified Complaint In

Rem based on the failure of Defendant Atlantic Caribbean
Line, Inc. (ACL) to pay for ship repairs and services that
ISR provided to The M/V Caribe Sun (the "Vessel") pursuant

to an agreement between ISR and ACL. (Doc. # 1). ISR's
Verified

Complaint

In

Rem

alleged

that

an

amount

of

$807,440.26 is due and owing for those repairs and services
performed by ISR to the Vessel at the direction of ACL.
(Doc. # 1, ¶ 10).
The arrest of the Vessel, her boats, engines, tackle,
apparel, furniture, equipment, appurtenances, and all other
necessaries

thereunto

appertaining

and

belonging

to

the

vessel, occurred on July 27, 2012. (Doc. ## 8, 10). No
verified statement of right or interest in the Vessel was
filed within fourteen days of the August 15, 2012 public
notice of this action and the arrest of the Vessel. See
Supplemental Rule C(6).

(Doc. ## 10, 13). Despite being

served with the summons and Verified Complaint In Rem on
August

13,

2012,

(Doc.

#

15),

ACL

failed

to

plead

or

otherwise defend.
On

September

11,

2012,

the

Clerk

entered

defaults

against the Vessel and against ACL. (Doc. ## 17, 18). On
November 20, 2012, the Court granted ISR's motion for a
default judgment against the Vessel and against ACL. (Doc.
# 20). On November 21, 2012, the Court entered a default
judgment against the Vessel and against ACL and in favor of
ISR in the amount of $807,440.26. (Doc. # 21).
2

II.

Analysis
A.

The Timekeepers

ISR

retained

the

Quarles

&

Brady

LLP

law

firm

to

represent it in this matter. ISR states that Quarles billed
ISR

at

reduced

rates

for

this

matter,

rather

than

at

Quarles' current hourly rates, because ISR is a long-term
client of a Quarles partner. (Doc. # 26-1, ¶¶ 2, 4-6). ISR
seeks legal fees for the fees ISR incurred from the Quarles
firm from July 16, 2012, through November 27, 2012, as
follows:
Attorney

Hours

Parrish,
Paul
Edson,
Kelli
Saxe,
Lindsay
Total

42.5

(Id.

at

27.8

Reduced
Rate
$325

Firm
Rates
$505-515

Value at Reduced
Rate
$9,035.00

14.2

$325

$355-360

$4,615.00

.5

$235

$235

$117.50

¶¶

4-6).

$13,767.50
ISR

incurred

fees

in

the

amount

of

$13,767.50 for work completed by Quarles at the reduced
hourly rates. (Id. at ¶ 6). At Quarles' firm rates, which
ISR claims are the standard hourly rates charged for the
attorneys who worked on this matter, the total value of
this work would have been $19,298.19. (Id.).

3

At this juncture, ISR seeks an award of attorneys'
fees in the amount of $13,767.50 for the attorneys' fees it
has incurred through November 27, 2012. (Doc. # 26 at 1).
The

Court

notes

that

the

amount

of

attorneys’

fees

is

uncontested.
B.

Legal Standard

The parties' agreement provides: "In the event it is
necessary for INTERNATIONAL to engage the services of an
attorney

to

collect

sums

owed

for

any

work,

labor,

materials or service supplied by INTERNATIONAL, the vessel,
its owner, and other parties responsible for the payment of
INTERNATIONAL's

charges

agree

to

pay

all

costs

of

collection, including a reasonable attorney fee." (Doc. #
1-3 at ¶ 7).
under

This attorney's fee provision is enforceable

Florida

law.

See,

e.g.,

Estate

of

Hampton

v.

Fairchild-Florida Constr. Co., 341 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla.
1976).
The

factors

to

be

considered

when

determining

what

hours and rates are reasonable for a particular case are:
1.

The

time

difficulty

and
of

labor
the

required,

question

the

involved,

novelty
and

the

requisite to perform the legal service properly.

4

and
skill

2.

The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the
acceptance of the particular employment will preclude
other employment by the lawyer.

3.

The

fee

customarily

charged

in

the

locality

for

similar legal services.
4.

The amount involved and the results obtained.

5.

The

time

limitations

imposed

by

the

client

or

the

circumstances.
6.

The nature and length of the professional relationship
with the client.

7.

The experience, reputation and ability of the lawyer
or lawyers performing the services.

8.

Whether the fee is contingent.

See Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145,
1150 (Fla. 1985); R. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-1.5(b).
C.

Reasonableness of Amount of Attorneys' Fees and

Hourly Rates
The Court has analyzed each of the eight factors to be
considered when determining whether the hours and rates are
reasonable.
1.

The time and labor required, the novelty and
difficulty of the question involved, and the

5

skill requisite to perform the legal service
properly.
The time and labor expended by Quarles are set forth
in Quarles' detailed time records. (Doc. # 26-1, Ex. A).
ISR's attorney's fees expert, Mr. Andreu, has attested to
the reasonableness of the expenditure of the time and labor
set forth in Quarles' detailed time records. (Doc. # 26-2
at ¶ 6).

Mr. Andreu states that the amount of attorneys’

fees requested by ISR of $13,767.50 is a reasonable amount
for the work performed by counsel for ISR. (Doc. # 26-2 at
¶ 6).
2.

If

apparent

to

the

client,

that

the

acceptance of the particular employment will
preclude other employment by the lawyer.
This factor is inapplicable to this case.
3.

The fee customarily charged in the locality
for similar legal services.

According to ISR, the lead attorneys involved in this
case were billed to ISR at a reduced rate based upon a
Quarles partner's long-term relationship with ISR.

(Doc.

## 26-1 at ¶¶ 2, 4-6). Specifically, ISR maintains that Ms.
Edson and Mr. Parrish were billed at $325 instead of their
standard firm rates during the course of this matter, which
6

were $355 to $360 for Ms. Edson and $505 to $515 for Mr.
Parrish. (Doc.

# 26-1 at ¶¶ 4-5).

These discounts were

given to ISR based on Mr. Parrish's more than twenty-year
relationship with ISR. (Doc. # 26 at 5; Doc. # 26-1 at ¶
2). ISR states that the fees charged to ISR in this case
are

less

than

prevailing

market

rates

for

the

services

rendered in this litigation. (Doc. # 26-2, ¶ 6).
4.

The

amount

involved

and

the

results

this

case

exceeded

obtained.
The

amount

in

controversy

in

$800,000, and ISR obtained a default judgment for all of
its damages.
5.

(Doc. ## 1, 21).
The time limitation proposed by the client
or the circumstances.

Obtaining

a

quick

resolution

was

important

in

this

case, as the Vessel is sitting idle and unused, and its
value is diminishing while it is under arrest. (Doc. # 26
at 4). This matter was filed on July 24, 2012, and default
judgments were obtained by November 21, 2012. (Doc. ## 1,
21).

7

6.

The

nature

in

length

of

the

professional

relationship with the client.
Mr. Parrish has represented ISR in various matters for
approximately twenty years, and Ms. Edson has represented
ISR in several matters for approximately five years. (Doc.
#

26

at

5).

As

noted

above,

ISR

states

that

this

relationship resulted in ISR's lead counsel being billed at
a

discounted

rate

below

the

prevailing

market

rate

for

their services. (Doc. # 26-1 at ¶ 2, 4-6; Doc. # 26-2 at ¶
6).
7.

The

experienced

reputation

and

ability

of

lawyer or lawyers performing the services.
Kelli Edson is an attorney with over fourteen years of
litigation experience. (Doc. # 26-1, Ex. B). Mr. Parrish
has handled many admiralty cases and is an attorney with
twenty
Parrish

eight

years

maintains

of
an

litigation
AV

rating

experience.
with

(Id.).

Mr.

Martindale-Hubble.

(Id.).
8.

Whether the fee is contingent.

This factor is inapplicable to this case.
III. Conclusion
The Court finds no reason to alter rates agreed to by
ISR or to second guess hours worked when the issue is not
8

disputed.

Therefore,

upon

due

consideration,

the

Court

determines that the requested attorneys’ fees of $13,676.50
are appropriate.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff International Ship Repair &
Marine Services, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. #
26) by awarding Plaintiff $13,676.50 in attorneys' fees.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
2nd day of January, 2013.

Copies:

All Parties and Counsel of Record

9