Electrolux Home Prod v. Whitesell Corp

Filing 1187

ORDER re 1168 Notice of Filing, filed by Electrolux Home Products, Inc. Granting in Part the fee application submitted therein. The Court awards Electrolux $53,745.00 in attorney's fees and $763.63 in expenses. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in the amount of $54,509.13 against Plaintiff Whitesell Corporation and in favor of Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 4/17/2019. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

WHITESELL CORPORATION,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*

V.

*

CV 103-050

*

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,

*

INC., HUSQVARNA, A.B., and
HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS,
INC.,

*
*
*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

On March 7, 2019, Defendant Electrolux Home Products,

Inc.

(''Electrolux") submitted a

Fee Application

(doc. no.

1168) in accordance with the Court's Order of February 14,

2019, which granted Defendants' motion for sanctions in this
case.

The Order followed an evidentiary hearing conducted on

February 11, 2019.
The Fee Application includes: "(1) the fees and expenses
incurred in drafting and filing the Motion for Sanctions and
to Stay the

Joint Discovery Plan . . . and the attendant

briefs; (2) the fees and expenses incurred in responding to
Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Ruling on the Sanctions Motions and
Motion to Strike the Sanctions Motions . . . ; and (3) the

fees and expenses incurred in preparing for and attending the

February 11, 2019 hearing."

(Fee Application, at 1.)

The

award of fees and expenses related to all these events was
specifically sanctioned by the Court in its Order of February
14, 2019.

(Doc. No. 1159, at 15.)

An award of fees must be reasonable and fall within the

guidelines the Eleventh Circuit has promulgated.

See Norman

V. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11^^ Cir. 1988).
The

Eleventh

Circuit

has

adopted

the lodestar

determining reasonable attorney's fees.

method

for

Id. at 1299-1302.

The ''lodestar" is determined by multiplying an attorney's
reasonable hourly rate by the number of compensable hours

reasonably expended.

Bivens v. Wrap It Uo. Inc., 548 F.3d

1348, 1350 (11*^^ Cir. 2008).

In determining the reasonable

hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended, a
court should consider the twelve Johnson factors.^

548

F.3d

at 1350 n.2 (citing

Johnson

Bivens.

v. Georgia Highway

Express. Inc.. 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5'^^ Cir. 1974)).
In

^

its

The

Order

Johnson

addressing

factors

the

are:

(1)

fee

the

application

time

and

of

labor

required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3)
the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4)
the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance
of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is
fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the
client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the

results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability
of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11)
the nature and length of the professional relationship with
the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.

Electrolux's co-defendant, Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc.,
entered on even date, the Court made certain prefatory remarks
in consideration of the Johnson factors that equally apply

here.

With those remarks specifically incorporated herein by

reference, the Court will turn to the lodestar analysis.

Hours Reasonably Expended

In determining the number of hours reasonably expended,
the

Court

must

consider

whether

the

work

sought

to

be

compensated was ''useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to
secure

the

final

result

obtained

from

Pennsylvania v. Del. Vallev Citizens^

the

litigation."

Council for Clean Air^

478 U.S. 546, 561 (1986) (citations omitted).

Courts must

exclude hours that were "excessive, redundant, or otherwise

unnecessary." Henslev v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1989).
Electrolux has employed the law firm of Alston & Bird,
LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia.

Electrolux provides a line item

entry for the hours expended in the case.

Electrolux utilized

the services of three partners, two associates, and one staff

attorney on the matter.
summations

provided

by

A review of the line item entries and
Electrolux

in

the

fee

application

reveals that Electrolux predominantly reviewed and revised the
work of co-defense counsel.

Of course, Electrolux had its own

interests to protect in the litigation and thus played an

integral part in prosecuting the sanctions motion.
while

the

Court

is

not

minimizing

the

However,

contribution

of

Electrolux to the result attained, the use of 6 attorneys as

it relates to the work performed in the case is excessive.^
The

Court finds

that the

work

could

have

been

reasonably

performed by only three attorneys. Accordingly, the number of
hours will be reduced by 1/2.
The 1/2 reduction to each attorney's claimed hours is the

only reduction that the Court will make in the number of hours
expended.

The number of the hours expended appears reasonable

and without objection by Plaintiff.

Moreover, in assessing

the reasonableness of the claimed hours, the Court reflects

upon its prefatory observations in its companion Order on
Husqvarna's fee application.

Thus, the

number of hours

expended will be compensated as follows:

Attorney

Hours

4.5

Grant

Wallace

22

Helmer

50

Waide

54

2

It must be said that Electrolux's presentation of

evidence and argument at the hearing was in no way redundant,
excessive, or unnecessary; rather, the Court heavily relied
upon this presentation in confirming its own findings and
fashioning an appropriate remedy.

George

14

Hunter

51

With respect to Electrolux's claim for expenses, the
Court will reduce the expenses incurred in connection with a

January 23, 2019 meeting with co-counsel in Augusta, Georgia,
and the hearing of February 11, 2019, by 1/2.

Thus, the Court

will award $763.63 in expenses to Electrolux.

Reasonable Hourly Rate

A reasonable rate is "the prevailing market rate in the

relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of

reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation."
Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299; see also Blum v. Stenson^ 465 U.S.

886, 895-96 n.22 (1984).

The "going rate" in the community is

the most critical factor in setting the fee rate.

Martin v.

Univ. of S. Ala.. 911 F.2d 604, 610 (11"^^ Cir. 1990).

The

relevant legal community is the district in which the Court
sits: the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division.

See

Knight v. Alabama, 824 F. Supp. 1022, 1027 n.l (N.D. Ala.

1993) (citing Turner v. Secretary of Air Forcer 944 F.2d 804,
808 (11th Cir. 1991)). Because the Court is itself considered

an expert on hourly rates in the community, it may consult its
own experience in forming an independent judgment.
V. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11^^ Cir. 1994).

Loranaer
Two years

ago, this Court set a reasonable billing rate in the Augusta
market as $300 per hour.

See Plumbers & Steamfitters Local

No. 150 Pension Fund v. Muns Group, Inc.. Case No. 1:15-CV-

200, Order of March 27, 2017, Doc. No. 37 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 16,

2015).

This rate did not differentiate between a partner and

an associate but the Court recognizes that years of experience
and skill level are important factors in setting a rate.
In this case, Electrolux submits varying hourly rates of

its partners and associates that do not reflect the local
market rate.

In consideration of the local market rate and

the skill and experience of the attorneys, and to set a rate
commensurate with the rates set for the attorneys representing

Husqvarna, the Electrolux attorneys will be compensated as
follows:

James Grant at $350 per

hour;

Kyle

Wallace and

Elizabeth Helmer at $335 per hour; and Amanda Waide and Jamie

George at $300.

The staff attorney, Joel Hunter, will be

compensated at the requested rate of $150 per hour.

Lodestar

Upon

the

foregoing,

the

Court

finds

the

lodestar

calculations as follows:

Applicant

# of hours

X hourly rate

= total

4.5

$350

$1575.00

Wallace

22

$335

$7370.00

Helmer

50

$335

$16,750.00

Grant

Waide

54

$300

$16,200.00

George

14

$300

$4200.00

Hunter

51

$150

$7650.00

$53,745.00

TOTAL

Conclusion

Upon the foregoing, the Court will GRANT IN PART the fee

application submitted by Electrolux on March 1, 2019 (doc. no.
1168).

More

specifically,

the

Court

awards

Electrolux

$53,745.50 in attorney's fees and $763.63 in expenses.
Clerk

is

directed

to

ENTER

JUDGMENT

in

the

amount

The
of

$54,509,13 against Plaintiff Whitesell Corporation and in
favor of Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this /^T'^ay of April,
2019.

IF JUDGE

UNITED/ STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTBERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA