Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al

Filing 1279

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1249 , and the 1242 MOTION for Attorney Fees is denied without prejudice as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/19/2015.(lag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOYCE MARIE MOORE, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 65-15556

TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
ET AL.

SECTION "B"(1)

ORDER
This

matter

is

before

the

Court

for

resolution

of

plaintiffs’ Objections (Rec. Doc. No. 1252) to the Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation that plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’
fees

be

denied,

without

prejudice. (Rec.

Doc.

No.

1249).

Defendant, Tangipahoa Parish School Board has filed a memorandum
in opposition to the objections.1
On March 17, 2015 plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for
attorneys’ fees.2 The attorneys signing on behalf of the movers
were Nelson D. Taylor, and Cassandra Butler.3 Mr. Taylor and Ms.
Butler contend they have submitted invoices for payment for the
itemized time for participation in matters regarding this case
pursuant to a prior agreement between the parties and a court
order

regarding

attorneys’

fees;

however,

counsel

for

the

defendants have refused to honor the agreement and order.4 They
have in part represented

the

prevailing

party

plaintiffs

in

1

Rec. Doc. No. 1261.
Rec. Doc. No. 1242.
3
Rec. Doc. No. 1242 at 3-4.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 1242 at 2.
2

1

these

proceedings,

School

Board

sanctions;

to

and

and
pay

(2)

request
their

an

past

applying

order:
due

the

(1)

invoices

maximum

requiring
and

hourly

the

imposing
rate

and

multiplier to all future billings.5
On August 17, 2014, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Motion for
Attorney Fees (Rec. Doc. No. 1194), which the Court denied, to
the

extent

the

motion

sought

reconsideration

of

prior

fee

awards. With regard to future attorney fee motions, this Court
instructed:
Subject to future court approved proposals, IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiffs may submit
periodic billing invoices on a quarterly basis to the
Defendants for the payment of reasonable legal fees
and costs incurred in the representation of Plaintiffs
whenever
they
prevail
on
issues,
directly
or
indirectly. The invoices must contain sufficient
descriptions of legal services rendered and costs
incurred on prevailing issues, billable in quarterhour segments, at an hourly rate of $250.00 applicable
for attorneys with ten (10) years of legal experience,
$35.00 - $40.00 for paralegals, and $25.00 - 30.00 for
law clerks. Depending on the complexity of issues and
other legal standards, multipliers on fee payments or
awards may also be considered.
In the event of any unresolved dispute on a billing
issue,
Plaintiffs
may
seek
judicial
relief
in
accordance with Local Rules of Court relative to the
filing of contested motions.6
The Magistrate Judge correctly noted that “the September
25,
5
6

2014

order

(Rec.

doc.

1216)

controls

the

issue

of

Rec. Doc. No. 1242 at 3.
Rec. Doc. No. 1216 at 1-2 (emphasis added).
2

plaintiffs’

fees

going

forward.”7

The

Magistrate

Judge

recommended denial of the instant motion for four reasons: (1)
the motion failed to report regarding meet-and-confer attempts
to resolve disputes over invoices; (2) the motion did not fully
comply

with

the

requirements

of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Court, including L.R. 54.2; and
(3) plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by either pointing to a
ruling or order, indicating that they are prevailing parties,
thereby

entitling

them

to

fees.8

Upon

review

of

plaintiffs’

motion, the Court concludes that it is not in compliance with
the process delineated in Rec. Doc. No. 1216.
IT

IS

ORDERED

that

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
(Rec. Doc. No. 1242) is DENIED, without prejudice to the right
of Plaintiffs to file the same, in compliance with this Court’s
Oder, Rec. Doc. No. 1216. We further note that it appears movants
are entitled to fees as prevailing parties on matters asserted.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19th day of June, 2015.

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8

Rec. Doc. No. 1249 at 3.
Rec. Doc. No. 1249 at 3-4.
3