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
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?