PNC Bank, National Association, successor to National City Bank, Successor to National City Bank of Michigan/Illinois, N.A. v. Bohannan Medical Distributors, Inc. et al

Filing 53

ORDER AND OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 11/4/2016: IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion 49 to Amend/Correct Order is Granted. Plaintiff's 50 for Attorney Fees and Court Costs is Granted in Part. An amended judgment will be entered in the amount of $247,281.78. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER AND OPINION.) (JRK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 04 November, 2016 02:20:39 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PNC BANK, N.A., successor to
National City Bank, successor to
National City Bank of
Michigan/Illinois, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOHANNAN MEDICAL
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., CHERYL
BOHANNAN, TOMMY BOHANNAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-1417

ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion [49] to Amend/Correct Order
and Motion [50] for Attorney Fees and Court Costs. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s
Motion [49] to Amend/Correct Order is Granted and Plaintiff’s [50] for Attorney Fees and Court
Costs is Granted in Part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC” or “PNC Bank”), initiated this action against
Defendants Bohannan Medical Distributors, Inc. (“BMD” or “Borrower”), and Cheryl and
Tommy Bohannan (“Guarantors”), alleging four counts of breach of contract arising out of
Defendants’ default on a commercial loan and credit card agreement. On June 15, 2016, this
Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. ECF Doc. 32.
Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in the amount of
$188,714 on the breach of contract and breach of guaranty claims because BMD defaulted on the
Note and Cheryl and Tommy Bohannan were liable as guarantors. However, the Court denied
1

summary judgment as it related to the balance of $29,733 under Credit Card Agreement, finding
that a material dispute of fact remained as to whether BMD was in default under the terms of the
Agreement.
PNC renewed its motion for summary judgment on August 12, 2016. See ECF Doc. 38.
That motion included a copy of the signed credit card agreement, resolving the only remaining
factual dispute that precluded summary judgment in the first instance. The Court granted
summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $223,958.48 on September 30, 2016.
See ECF Doc. 47. Plaintiff now moves to amend the judgment, reasoning that the amount of
interest included in the judgment was only current through the dates of Plaintiff’s affidavits and
does not include the per diems that accrued thereafter. Additionally, Plaintiff moves for an award
of attorney fees in the amount of $17,911 and costs in the amount of $671.02.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“[I]n the Seventh Circuit, courts do not submit fee requests based upon contractual feeshifting provisions to the same degree of rigorous review as Illinois state courts.” Cumulus Radio
Corp. v. Olson, No. 15-CV-1067, 2015 WL 3407438, at *2 (C.D. Ill. May 27, 2015). Rather,
“fees should be reimbursed ‘no matter how the bills are stated,’ and courts need not ‘engage in
detailed, hour-by-hour review of a prevailing party's billing records.’” Id., (citing Johnson
Controls, Inc. v. Edman Controls, Inc., 712 F.3d 1021, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013)). However, “[w]hen
calculating a fee award, a court should exclude hours that were not reasonably expended, such as
time spent on tasks that are not normally billed to a client or hours expended by counsel on tasks
that should be delegated to a non-professional assistant.” Kaylor-Trent v. John C. Bonewicz, P.C.,
916 F. Supp. 2d 878, 886 (C.D. Ill. 2013). Administrative tasks such as “organizing file folders,

2

document preparation, copying of faxing documents, scheduling matters, and mailing letters”
should not be included in fee awards. Id.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s first motion seeks to amend the prior judgment in the amount of $223,958.48
because the Court’s September 30, 2016, Order granting summary judgment did not include the
contractually agreed-upon per diem interest that accrued after the date Plaintiff’s submitted their
affidavits. Defendants’ response does not contest that Plaintiff is entitled to the additional
interest, fees, and costs. Including the interest up to September 30, 2016, Plaintiff is entitled to
$229,338.76.
Plaintiff’s second motion seeks an award of attorney fees pursuant to the contractual feeshifting provisions in the loan and credit card agreements. The motion is supported by affidavits
and billing records that indicate Plaintiff has incurred attorney’s fees in the amount of $17,911
and costs in the amount of $671.02. Although the Court need not “engage in detailed, hour-byhour review of a prevailing party's billing records,” hours that were not reasonably expended,
“such as time spent on tasks that are not normally billed to a client or hours expended by counsel
on tasks that should be delegated to a non-professional assistant,” should be excluded. KaylorTrent, 916 F. Supp. 2d at 886. Here, Plaintiff’s billing records include fees of $639 for
administrative work by a paralegal for preparing appearances, filing and mailing documents, and
corresponding with the process server. Fees for these administrative tasks are not recoverable.
See id.
Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to the additional interest on the loan and
credit card agreements, for an amended total of $229,338.76. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to

3

$17,943.02 for attorney’s fees and costs. The amended judgment will enter in the amount of
$247,281.78.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion [49] to Amend/Correct Order is Granted.
Plaintiff’s [50] for Attorney Fees and Court Costs is Granted in Part. An amended judgment will
be entered in the amount of $247,281.78.

Signed on this 4th day of November, 2016.
s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge

4