Classic Harvest LLC v. Freshworks LLC et al
Filing
404
OPINION AND ORDER granting the Stokes Law Office LLPs Interim Application for Attorneys Fees 309 . Stokes Law is entitled to $117,861.00 in attorneys fees and costs for the period September 4, 2015, through May 31, 2016. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/30/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CLASSIC HARVEST LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:15-cv-2988-WSD
FRESHWORKS LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Stokes Law Office LLP’s (“Stokes Law”)
Interim Application for Attorney’s Fees [309] (“Motion”).
I.
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2016, Stokes Law filed its Motion seeking attorneys’ fees and
costs. On July 5, 2016, Agrifact Capital, LLC (“Agrifact”) filed its Response to
Stokes Laws’s Motion [314], in which it objects to specific portions of Stokes
Law’s fee application.
II.
DISCUSSION
The Court’s PACA Order authorized and directed Stokes Law to undertake
various tasks to preserve and collect the PACA trust assets of Crisp Holdings, LLC
d/b/a Fresh Roots. The Court’s PACA Order provides that “[Stokes Law] . . . is
authorized to withhold a reserve from PACA Trust Assets for payment of its fees
and expenses under this Order.” (PACA Order ¶ 16(c)). Stokes Law seeks
$123,402.50 in attorneys’ fees and $6,285.48 in costs.1
As a general rule, the starting point for calculating reasonable attorneys’ fees
is “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a
reasonable hourly rate” for the attorneys’ services. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.
424, 433 (1984); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984); accord ACLU of Ga.
v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 427 (11th Cir. 1999). The product of these two numbers
is commonly termed the base figure, or “lodestar.” Pennsylvania v. Delaware
Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U.S. 546, 563 (1986). After calculating the lodestar,
the court may, within its discretion, adjust the amount upwards or downwards
based on a number of factors, such as the quality of the results obtained and the
legal representation provided. Blum, 465 U.S. at 897; Duckworth v. Whisenant,
97 F.3d 1393, 1396 (11th Cir. 1996).
1
“Agrifact contends its liability, if any is ultimately found, should be reduced
by the full amount that was collected by Stokes Law and paid into the registry of
the Court.” (Resp. at 3-4). Agrifact’s objection is premature. To the extent
Agrifact, if and when it is found liable, seeks to reduce its liability by the amount
of attorneys’ fees collected, Agrifact may file a motion detailing its reasons for the
reduction.
2
The fee applicant is the party that “bears the burden of establishing
entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours and hourly rates.” Barnes, 168
F.3d at 427 (quoting Norman v. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292,
1304 (11th Cir. 1988)); accord Coastal Fuels Mktg., Inc. v. Florida Express
Shipping Co., 207 F.3d 1247, 1252 (11th Cir. 2000). That burden includes
supplying the court with specific and detailed evidence from which
the court can determine the reasonable hourly rate. Further, fee
counsel should have maintained records to show the time spent on the
different claims, and 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 . . . . A
well-prepared fee petition also would include a summary, grouping
the time entries by the nature of the activity or stage of the case.
Barnes, 168 F.3d at 427 (citations omitted).
Stokes Law’s fee request states that three attorneys, Maurleen Cobb and
Craig Stokes, and a legal assistant, Rosa Barrera, provided services for which
Stokes Law seeks fees. Cobb and Stokes bill at an hourly rate of $300, and Barrera
has an hourly rate of $125. The Court finds these rates reasonable in the Atlanta
market for legal services.
With respect to the hours worked, the Court finds several issues with Stokes
Law’s fee request. First, several entries predate the Court’s September 4, 2015,
PACA Order. Because the tasks described in these entries took place before
3
Stokes Law was authorized to be compensated from the PACA trust, the Court
deducts these entries, totaling $5,107.50, from Stokes Law’s fee request.
Next, Stokes Law seeks fees for its work in obtaining records from certain
storage facilities. (See [309.1] at 24-27, 30-32, 38, 55). On January 26, 2016, the
Court issued an Order [124] requiring Stokes Law to arrange for the shipment of
records from a storage facility to Stokes Law’s offices. The Order stated that the
“Individual Defendants shall reimburse Mr. Stokes pro rata for the total cost of
shipment . . . .” ([124] at 2-3). Because Stokes Law is not entitled to collect from
the PACA trust the fees it seeks in connection with obtaining the records, the Court
deducts $1,779.05 from the attorneys fees and $1,717.95 in costs Stokes Law
seeks.
Stokes Law also seeks fees for its work in a case against Crisp in Arkansas
(“Arkansas Case”). ([309.1] at 2, 5, 54 It states that “Stokes Law had the express
consent and approval from the PACA trust beneficiaries in this case for its actions
in the Arkansas case.” (Reply [315] at 6). The Court finds this work is not
compensable. The PACA Order did not authorize Stokes Law to work on the
Arkansas Case and thus does not authorize Stokes Law to recover its fees for such
work. Accordingly, the Court deducts $161.41 from Stokes Law’s post-PACA
Order fee requests.
4
Finally, though the Court finds that, generally, the hours billed are
reasonable, Stokes Law routinely seeks fees for clerical tasks, which are not
compensable. See Hithon v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 151 F. Supp. 3d 1252, 1261 (N.D.
Ga. 2015). For instance, there are multiple entries describing the downloading,
scanning, or saving of files or docket entries to Stokes Law’s server. (See [309.1]
at 2, 5, 7,11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51,
53). After reviewing the Stokes Law’s fee application, the Court finds a $1,347.50
reduction is required to account for clerical tasks billed.
Accordingly, after deducting the non-compensable activities described
above, Stokes Law is entitled to $115,007.04 in attorneys’ fees and $4,567.53 in
costs. Because Stokes Law has credited $1,713.57 in retainer fees and other fees to
itself, (see [309.1] at 57), Stokes law is entitled to fees in the total amount of
$117,861.00.2
2
Stokes Law also asks the Court to “make a finding any challenge to the
PACA Order made as an objection to this fee application be found potentially
appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292.” ([309]). It does not appear any challenge to
the PACA Order was made as an objection Stokes Law’s fee application, and
Stokes Law’s request is denied as moot.
5
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Stokes Law Office LLP’s Interim
Application for Attorney’s Fees [309] is GRANTED, and Stokes Law is entitled
to $117,861.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for the period September 4, 2015,
through May 31, 2016.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2017.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?