Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. et al v. Weeks Marine, Inc. et al

Filing 298

ORDER AND REASONS granting 294 Motion to Review and Objection to Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 215 Motion for Attorney Fees as set forth in 288 . FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment be entered in this matte r awarding Shaw the sum total of $47,915.75, with $42,951.20 accounting for the Magistrate Judges original fee determination, $4,572.55 representing her determination of costs and interest, and $392.00 representing the fees associated with Lori Hunter. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 5/8/2014. (kac)

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 the Motion for Review and Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations, filed by defendant Eustis Engineering Company, Inc. (“Eustis”). Rec. Doc. 294.
Defendant Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Inc. (“Shaw”) opposes. Rec. Doc. 295. Having
considered the record, the law, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Rec. Doc. 293)
and the memoranda of the parties, IT IS ORDERED that the Eustis’s Motion for Review and
Objections are GRANTED.
Eustis’s only objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations is that the
Magistrate Judge erroneously awarded attorneys fees to Shaw associated with its prosecution of an
indemnity claim against Eustis. Rec. Doc. 294. The Magistrate Judge previously recommended that
attorney fees premised on the same theory of recovery be denied. Rec. Doc. 283 at 11-12. Shaw did
not object to that determination specifically. Rec. Doc. 284. Thus, when the Court re-referred Shaw’s
attorney fee petition back to the Magistrate Judge, reconsideration of Shaw’s entitlement to costs
incurred to establish the indemnity relationship was not expressly contemplated. Rec. Doc. 288 at 6.
The Court agrees.
Although it was within the Magistrate Judge’s power to do so, the Court did not intend for

Magistrate Judge to reconsider the portion of its first Report and Recommendations denying Shaw
attorney’s fees based on its pursuit of a cross-claim against Eustis. The Magistrate Judge correctly
determined that attorney’s fees incurred in an attempt to establish an indemnity relationship are not
typically recoverable under that indemnity relationship. Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Barge W-701, 654
F.2d 1164, 1178-79 (5th Cir. 1981); Williams v. California Co., 289 F. Supp. 376 (E.D. La.1968).
Accordingly, the additional $4,842.00 in attorney’s fees allotted to Shaw for pursuit of its indemnity
claim will not be awarded in this case. The Court adopts the second Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge in all other respects. Rec. Doc. 293.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Eustis’s Motion for Review and Objections to Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendations is GRANTED. Rec. Doc. 294.
IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that Shaw’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees & Costs is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Order and the Court’s Order dated
October 11, 2013. Rec. Doc. 288.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment be entered in this matter
awarding Shaw the sum total of $47,915.75, with $42,951.20 accounting for the Magistrate Judge’s
original fee determination, $4,572.55 representing her determination of costs and interest, and
$392.00 representing the fees associated with Lori Hunter. Rec. Docs. 283, 293.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of May 2014.

HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2