B& F System, Inc. v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 319

ORDER directing Plaintiff to supplement its attorney's fees motion according to this Order. Deadline to comply with this Order is 5/18/2012. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 4/30/2012. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
THE B & F SYSTEM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 7:07-CV-192 (HL)

v.
LLOYD
J.
LEBLANC
JR.,
MAXAM
WHOLESALE OF ATLANTA, INC., DIRECT
SOURCE IMPORTS, INC., ARTHUR JEFFREY
LEBLANC, LLOYD LEBLANC, III, PRODUCTOS
MEXICANOS DON JOSE, INC., LEBLANC’S
LLC, and EDNA G. LEBLANC,
Defendants.
ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 303) in which it asks the Court
to grant it fees and related nontaxable expenses in the amount of $485,967.50. According
to a chart attached to the motion, this amount consists of the following: (1) attorney’s fees
in the amount of $416,567; (2) nontaxable expenses in the amount of $6,013.44; and (3) a
15% upward adjustment in the amount of $63,387.06.
The calculation of a reasonable attorney’s fees award is performed by “multiplying
the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.”
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895, 104 S.Ct. 1541 (1984). “The fee applicant bears the
burden of establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours and hourly
rates.” Norman v. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988).
The applicant also has the burden to produce “satisfactory evidence that the requested
rate is in line with prevailing market rates.” Id. at 1299. “Satisfactory evidence” is more
than the affidavit of the attorney performing the work. Id.

Here, the only evidence provided by Plaintiff are affidavits from its counsel, which
do not meet its evidentiary burden. Plaintiff is ordered to supplement its attorney’s fees
motion and present proper evidence to establish reasonable hourly rates for the attorneys
and staff members who worked on the case.
Further, Plaintiff is ordered to set out the requested rate for each attorney or staff
member, the total hours claimed for each attorney or staff member, and the total
compensation claimed for each attorney or staff member. It is not the Court’s responsibility
to review 150-plus pages of billing records and determine who spent how many hours
doing what and for how much money.
Finally, Plaintiff is ordered to provide the Court with a breakdown of what constitutes
the $6,013.44 in non-taxable costs Plaintiff seeks to recover.
This request for additional information does not mean the Court has made any
decision on the attorney’s fees request. The Court simply wishes to be prepared to rule on
the motion in a timely manner, and believes it better to request the information sooner
rather than later.
Plaintiff will have until May 18, 2012 to comply with this Order.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of April, 2012.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
mbh

2