J.M Smith Corporation v. Ciolino Pharmacy Wholesale Distributors, LLC et al

Filing 488

ORDER granting 430 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Reference: 10-1483, 10-1786)(jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
J. M. SMITH CORPORATION

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 10-1483
c/w 10-1786
Ref: Both

CIOLINO PHARMACY WHOLESALE
DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
(Rec. Doc. 430) filed by Plaintiff JM Smith Corporation. Defendant
Ciolino Pharmacy Wholesale Distributors, LLC, opposes the motion.
The motion is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
I. BACKGROUND
This matter commenced in 2010 as an open account claim by J.M.
Smith Corporation ("Smith") against Ciolino Pharmacy Wholesale
Distributors, LLC (referred to, along with its other related
business

entities,

collectively

as

"Ciolino").

Smith

sought

payment of $654,336.51 for pharmaceutical products purchased by and
delivered to Ciolino on open account.

In response, Ciolino filed

breach of contract and various other counterclaims against Smith.
The sole basis of this Court's jurisdiction over all the claims was
diversity jurisdiction.
This matter was tried to a jury beginning on November 11,
2013, and lasting a total of four days.

At the conclusion of the

trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding Smith $654,336.51 on
1

its open account claim and denying all of Ciolino's counterclaims.
The Court subsequently entered a judgment.
After trial, Smith filed the instant Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs (Rec. Doc. 430).

In the motion Smith sought

reimbursement of $793,604.75 in attorneys' fees and $234,621.25 in
costs incurred in connection with this litigation.
On July 31, 2014, the Court issued an order finding that the
Louisiana open account statute, La. R.S. 9:2781, entitled Smith to
reimbursement of attorneys' fees for time spent pursuing its open
account claim, but not for time spent defending against Ciolino's
counterclaims.

The Court also found that the Application for

Credit1 and the Continuing Guaranty2 executed by Ciolino further
entitled Smith to recover the costs it incurred in prosecution of
its

open

account

claim.

Since

the

Court

was

unable

to

differentiate between what attorneys' fees and costs Smith incurred
in pursuing its open account claim, as opposed to defending against
Ciolino's counterclaims, the Court ordered additional briefing so
that it could determine the amount of recovery.
On August 7, 2014, Smith submitted supplemental briefing on
the instant motion, tailoring its requests to include attorneys'
fees and costs in relation to its open account claim only.

Smith

now seeks reimbursement of $288,059.00 in attorneys' fees and

1

Rec. Doc. 430-2, at pg. 126.

2

Id., at pg. 125.
2

$71,665.70 in costs incurred in prosecution of its open account
claim.
II. ANALYSIS
a.) Attorneys' Fees
Having already found that an award of attorneys' fees is
warranted, the Court must now determine a reasonable attorneys'
fees award.

The Fifth Circuit has held that when state law

provides the rule of decision for the substantive issues in a case,
state law controls both the award of and the reasonableness of
attorneys'

fees.3

Since

Smith

brought

suit

pursuant

to

the

Louisiana open account statute, the Court will apply Louisiana law
in considering the reasonableness of attorney's fees.

The amount

of reasonable attorneys' fees to be awarded under the Louisiana
open account statute is "left to the sound discretion of the trial
judge, and that amount should not be disturbed on appeal absent a
showing of abuse of that discretion."4
In State v. Williamson, the Louisiana Supreme Court outlined
ten

factors

for

the

courts

to

take

into

consideration

when

determining the reasonableness of an attorneys' fees award.5 These
factors include:

3

See Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 461 (5th Cir.
2002).
4

Law Offices of Fred L. Herman, APLC v. Helmer, 128 So. 3d
310, 313 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (citing Metropolitan Reporters,
Inc. v. Avery, 665 So.2d 547 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1995)).
5

State v. Williamson, 597 So.2d 439, 442 (La. 1992).
3

(1) the ultimate result obtained; (2) the responsibility
incurred; (3) the importance of the litigation; (4)
amount of money involved; (5) extent and character of the
work performed; (6) legal knowledge, attainment, and
skill of the attorneys; (7) number of appearances made;
(8) intricacies of the facts involved; (9) diligence and
skill of counsel; and (10) the court's own knowledge.6
The Williamson factors are permissive and consideration of all of
them is not mandatory.7
Here, the result ultimately obtained by Smith's counsel was a
favorable disposition of the case after a jury trial.
of

money

involved

substantial.

in

the

instant

matter,

The amount

$654,336.51,

was

Accordingly, it was extremely important for Smith to

recover such a substantial sum of money that was owed to it.
Throughout the litigation, Smith was represented by three
partners

of

local

law

firms,

who

were

assisted

by

various

associates and paralegals. It involved great responsibility by the
attorneys to prepare and carry Smith's open account claim through
trial.

The extent of work performed by Smith's attorneys was also

substantial, in light of the four years that have elapsed from the
date of the initial complaint and the many appearances necessitated
during that time.

Through these appearances, as well as extensive

motion practice, the Court saw firsthand the work expended in this
matter.
6

Id.

7

GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp. ex rel. Lasalle National
Bank v. Chateau Deville Apartments Partnership, No. 02-1845, 2003
WL 21674467, at *2 n. 1 (E.D. La. 2003) (Vance, J.) (citing
Fourchon Docks, Inc. v. Milchem Inc., 849 F.2d 1561, 1568 (5th
Cir. 1988)).
4

After considering the Williamson factors, the Court finds
$260,000.00 to be a reasonable amount of attorneys' fees for the
work performed by Smith's counsel to prosecute its open account
claim.
b.) Costs
Having already found that an award of costs is appropriate,
the Court must now determine the amount of costs to be awarded.

In

compliance with the Court's previous order, Smith submitted the
costs it incurred in prosecution of its open account claim, along
with

the

supporting

assertions
Accordingly,

of

documentation.

Smith's
the

Court

The

Court

counsel,

as

officers

finds

that

Smith

of
is

accepts
the

the

Court.

entitled

to

reimbursement of $71,600.00 for costs incurred in prosecution of
its open account claim.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs

(Rec.

Doc.

430)

is

GRANTED

in

that

Smith

is

awarded

$260,000.00 in attorneys' fees and $71,600.00 in costs related to
the prosecution of its open account claim.
August 22, 2014

JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5