Regions Bank v. Kaplan et al

Filing 815

ORDER granting 614 Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/31/2017. (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION,
REGIONS BANK, an Alabama
banking corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP

MARVIN I. KAPLAN, an individual,
et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 614
Dkt. 619

Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses (Regions Bank)
Response (Kaplan Parties)

In the Motion, Regions Bank seeks the award of reasonable attorney’s fees and
expenses for the last minute cancellation of the depositions of Robert Shaw, Brandy
Barnett and Timothy Curren, based on the Order of Magistrate Judge Pizzo determining
that Regions Bank was entitled to the award of reasonable attorney’s fees and
expenses (Dkt. 531). Judge Pizzo determined that it was unreasonable for Kaplan
Parties to cancel out-of-town depositions on less than 24 hours notice.

Regions Bank seeks the award of attorney’s fees for 80 hours of preparation
time by the attorneys who attended the cancelled depositions (44.6 hours for David
Garbett and 35.4 hours for Joseph Perkins), as well as $3,368.44 for expenses.
Kaplan Parties object to all of Perkins’ attorney time and all but 11 hours of
Garbett’s attorney time. Kaplan Parties concede that $150.00 per day for meals is
reasonable, but believe that only one travel day was reasonable. Kaplan Parties further

Case No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP
do not object to photocopy expense in the amount of $365.51, overnight delivery
expense of $11.03, and travel miles in the amount of $266.80.

I. Legal Standard for Attorney’s Fees Award
This Circuit uses the lodestar method, multiplying the reasonable hours by the
reasonable hourly rates. Norman v. Housing Authority of Citv of Montgomery. 836 F.2d
1292 (11th Cir. 1988). The reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing rate in the district for
similar services by lawyers of comparable skill, experience and reputation. See Blum v.
Stenson. 465 U.S. 886 (1984). In determining the lodestar, the Court may consider the
factors in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express. Inc.. 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.
1974). See Farlev v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.. 197 F.3d 1322,1340 (11th Cir. 1999).

The moving party bears the burden of documenting the hours and rates.
Hopkins Props.. LLC v. Geddinos. 2013 WL 4413350, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2013)(citing
Henslev v. Eckerhart. 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). Documentation of rates is satisfied “by
producing either direct evidence of rates charged under similar circumstances, or
opinion evidence of reasonable rates.” Hopkins. 2013 WL 4413350 at *3. The Court
may consider its own knowledge and experience in determining rates without the aid of
witnesses.

II. Discussion
A. Rates
As to David Garbett, the hourly rate proposed ranges from $431.25 to $550.00
As to Joseph Perkins, the hourly rate proposed ranges from $217.50 to $400.00.

2

Case No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP
Given the complexity of this case, the Court finds that $525.00 is a reasonable
rate for David Garbett, and $310.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for Joseph Perkins.
B. Hours
The Court notes that counsel for Regions Bank kept time records
contemporaneously with the worked performed. (Exh. 2, Spreadsheet). Counsel
asserts that all work performed was reasonably necessary, including local rule efforts to
secure relief without court intervention, interviewing the deponents and preparing them
for deposition, legal research and traveling to attend the deposition.
Kaplan Parties would be agreeable to Mr. Garbett’s travel time, and 2-3 hours of
preparation, and request that the Court consider these amounts of time reasonable
under the circumstances.
Kaplan Parties argue that Regions’ requested time is duplicative and
unnecessary. Kaplan Parties have objected to attendance of Mr. Perkins. Given the
complexity of this case, the Court overrules the objection.

Kaplan Parties objected to the inclusion of attorney time that goes back until
June 3, 2015, a week before the original deposition dates were noticed. Kaplan Parties
contend that 80 hours is unreasonable, in light of the fact that the depositions were for
two fact witnesses and Regions’ 30(b)(6) designee on a limited area. Kaplan Parties
argue that the witnesses were noticed for deposition on one day, 2 hours apiece.

3

Case No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP
The depositions were to have been taken on October 6, 2015. The time entries
extend from June 3, 2015 to November 10, 2015. The Court finds it is appropriate to
include the time spent preparing and filing the Motion for Sanctions. See Miller v.
Dyadic International. Inc.. 2008 WL 2116590 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2008). However,
inclusion of alj of the attorney time appears excessive. The Court is reducing the
reasonable time for Mr. Garbett to 32.3 hours, and is reducing the reasonable time for
Mr. Perkins to 24.6.
The amount awarded for attorney’s fees for Mr. Garbett is 32.3 hours x $525,
which totals $16,957.50. The amount awarded for attorney’s fees for Mr. Perkins is
24.6 x $310, which totals $7,626,00. The total attorney’s fee award is $24,583.50.

C. Expenses
Kaplan Parties request that the Court disregard all expenses of Mr. Perkins, and
argue that Mr. Garbett’s expenses are unreasonable and exorbitant.
The Court finds that the expenses for telephone conferences, overnight delivery,
meals, conference room for witness interviews, and travel miles in the amount of
$3,368.44 are reasonable and recoverable. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses (Dkt.
614) is granted in the amount of $24,583.50 for attorney’s fees, and $3,368.44 for
expenses, for a total of $27,951.94.

4

Case No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida on thi*
March, 2017.

Copies to:
All parties and counsel of record

5

ay of