Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. et al v. Weeks Marine, Inc. et al
Filing
288
ORDER and REASONS re: 284 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. ORDERED that the Court's previous 285 Order is VACATED in part and AFFIRMED in part. FURTHER ORDERED that the 215 Motion for Attorney's Fees & Costs is DENIED with respect to Shaw's request for fees, interests, and costs associated with pursuing the instant fee petition. FURTHER ORDERED that Shaw's Motion is referred back to the Magistrate Judge as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 10/11/13. (NEF: KWR)(plh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STEPHEN WAYNE WILLIAMS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 10-2309
TRAYLOR-MASSMAN-WEEKS, LLC, ET AL.
SECTION: “C” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.'s ["Shaw's"] Motion
for Review and Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations, filed September 13,
2013 [Rec. Doc. 284] and the opposition thereto filed by defendant Eustis Enginering Company, Inc.
["Eustis"] on October 1, 2013. Rec. Doc. 287. The report and recommendations in question were filed
August 30, 2013 and address defendant Shaw's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs [Rec. Doc.
215]. On September 19, 2013, the Court ordered that Shaw's motion for attorney's fees and costs be
granted in part and denied in part, consistent with the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendations; however, it did so, noting incorrectly that no party had filed any objection to the
report and recommendations. Rec. Doc. 285. In light of Shaw's timely-filed objection to the
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the Court hereby vacates
its previous order in part [Rec. Doc. 285], and enters the following order.
Because the report and recommendations are objected to, the Court reviews them de novo.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Attorney's fees must be calculated at the "prevailing market rates in the relevant
community for similar services by attorneys of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and
reputation." Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 1547 (1984). A fee request is
reasonable if it falls within the range of reasonable fees awarded. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v.
Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 328 (5th Cir. 1995). The applicant bears the burden of producing satisfactory
evidence that the requested rate is aligned with prevailing market rates. NAACP v. City of Evergreen,
812 F.2d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1987). Satisfactory evidence of reasonable fees necessarily includes
an affidavit of the attorney performing the work and information of rates billed or paid in similar
lawsuits. Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n.11, 104 S. Ct. at1547 .
The starting point for determining reasonable attorney's fees in this case is the lodestar
calculation - the number of hours reasonably expended on the matter multiplied by a reasonable
hourly rate. Malin Int'l Ship Repair & Drydock, Inc. v. M/V SEIM SWORDFISH, 611 F. Supp. 2d
627, 633 (E.D. La. 2009) (applying lodestar method to maritime contract indemnity provisions), aff'd
sub nom. Malin Int'l Ship Repair & Drydock, Inc. v. Veolia Es Special Servs., Inc., 369 F. App'x 553
(5th Cir. 2010). That resulting figure is presumed reasonable, but a court may increase or reduce it
based on the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Hwy. Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 71719 (5th Cir. 1974). Nevertheless, the lodestar amount should be modified only in exceptional cases.
City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 2641 (1992).
Shaw objects to the magistrate's reduction of the rate applicable to attorney Nyka Scott, the
striking of fees for one paralegal, the reduction of entries deemed vague by 50%, the reduction of
block-billed entries by 30%, and denial of fees and costs incurred with the motion for attorneys' fees.
In addition, Eustis raises several independent objections to the magistrate's report and
recommendations in its opposition to Shaw's motion for review. The Court addresses each issue in
turn.
A. Nyka Scott's Rate -
2
"To determine reasonable rates, a court considers the attorneys' regular rates as well as
prevailing rates." Louisiana Power & Light, 50 F.3d at 327-28 (citing H.J., Inc. v. Flygt Corp., 925
F.2d 257, 260 (8th Cir. 1991)). The actual amount paid in fees is not dispositive. Id. at 328 (citing
Blum, 465 U.S. at 895-96). Shaw argues that the Magistrate Judge arbitrarily reduced Attorney
Scott's requested rate from the requested and actual billing rate of $198 per hour to a rate of $180
per hour. The only evidence offered to support Attorney Scott's requested rate is the National Law
Journal billing survey from 2008, published some 20 months before this case was filed, and the
affidavit of Kenneth Klemm, a partner in Attorney Scott's law firm with an obvious interest in the
outcome of this motion. Setting aside the date of publication as a limiting factor, the billing survey
in question is a poor indicator of reasonable rates in this case. It is based on self-reporting by law
firms, without any apparent verification mechanism. More importantly, the surveys do not indicate
"whether the type of work performed by the firms was similar to the work performed here in nature
or complexity, and they do not indicate whether the professionals performing them are similar to the
professionals here." Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Circa Direct LLC, 912 F. Supp. 2d 165, 169-70 (D.N.J.
2012). The cases cited by the Magistrate Judge at least account for years of experience. Creecy v.
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 548 F. Supp. 2d 279, 285 (E.D. La. 2008); Burne v. Dunes of Destin
Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc., CIV.A. 10-0956, 2010 WL 5300844 (E.D. La. Dec. 17, 2010). Moreover,
the issues in this case are neither complex nor novel. In light of the foregoing, the Magistrate's
proposed $18 per hour reduction is appropriate.
B. Striking of Paralegal Fees The Magistrate Judge recommended striking the paralegal fees in their entirety for Lori
Hunter, based upon Shaw's failure to support Ms. Hunter's qualifications to perform paralegal
3
services, a failure which Shaw has not addressed in the current pleadings. Even so, a lack of
documentation need not be a total bar to recovery of fees for paralegal time. See Wagner v. Boh
Bros. Const. Co., LLC., 11-2030, 2012 WL 3637392 (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 2012) (awarding paralegal
fees, even though party "ha[d] not submitted any evidence to support the $100 per hour rate charged
by the paralegals who worked on this case"). For Ms. Hunter, whose qualifications are in question,
the magistrate judge should simply select the lowest rate of paralegal compensation deemed
reasonable in this jurisdiction.
Reduction of Vague Entries The district court has broad discretion to exclude or reduce entries that are vague. Walker
v. City of Mesquite, Texas, 313 F.3d 246, 252 (5th Cir. 2002). In this case, the magistrate judge made
an appropriate recommendation to reduce the amount billed for vague activities by half in this case.
The identity of a email recipient is relevant to a vagueness determination, insofar as an attorney
might reasonably be expected to spend less time emailing a secretary than a partner about the exact
same pleading.
C. Reduction for Block Billing The Court embraces the Magistrate Judge's definition of block billing. When an entry refers
to the action taken on multiple items of correspondence with uncertain connection to the case, it will
tend to frustrate attempts to review the fee request for reasonableness. Further, Shaw fails to
appreciate that only half of Attorney Scott's September 1, 2010 entry was selected for reduction as
block billing. It is clear that the magistrate judge honored the times indicated by Attorney Scott in
parentheses as appropriate single billing, whenever the time given accounted for a single activity.
D. Determination of Costs and Interest from Defending Williams's Claim
4
The "Work Agreement" between Eustis and Shaw clearly contemplates the awarding of costs
and interest from the defense against lawsuits under its indemnity provision. See Rec. Doc. 40-2,
p. 2. The matter of amount will be referred to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate determination
in the first instance.
E. Fees, Interests, and Costs of Pursuing Fee Petition The Magistrate Judge ordered Shaw to supplement its fee petition with evidence
substantiating the expense of pursing this fee petition. Contrary to Shaw's argument, this request was
not premature, and Shaw's failure to timely comply with it rightly controls its ability to recover fees
and cost.
F. Objections Raised in Eustis's Opposition Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 provides a 14-day time limit for objecting to the magistrate's report and
recommendation. Eustis's opposition and objections were only filed on October 1, 2013, the 32nd
day after the report and recommendation were served on counsel via the CM/ECF system. By failing
to file objections within the prescribed limitations period, Eustis waived any objections to the report
and recommendations. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Court's previous order granting in part and denying in part Shaw
Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees & Costs [Rec. Doc. 285], is
VACATED in part and AFFIRMED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Shaw's Motion for Attorney's Fees & Costs [Rec. Doc.
215] is DENIED with respect to the Shaw's request for fees, interests, and costs associated with
5
pursuing the instant fee petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Shaw’s Motion is referred back to the magistrate judge
for the calculation of reasonable fees for the paralegal work of Lori Hunter and appropriate
determination of the costs and interest associated with defending William's claim.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of October 2013.
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?