Washington v. Ashland Marine, L.L.C. et al
Filing
50
ORDER and REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Ashland's motion for reconsideration 35 is hereby GRANTED IN PART, in that it is granted with respect to the award of attorney fees associated with the filing of plaintiff's motion for partial summar y judgment, without prejudice to plaintiff's right to bring a further motion in this regard, and DENIED IN PART, in that it is denied in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court's Order and Reasons dated October 31, 2012 [3 3] is hereby VACATED IN PART, in that it is vacated with respect to the award of attorney fees ($4,801.55) associated with the filing of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and shall remain in full force and effect in all other respects. Considering this Court's order (Rec. Doc. 33) stating that costs incurred in connection with the motion, including attorneys' fees, would be assessed against the party moving for reconsideration; and considering that plaintiff h as filed a statement of costs associated with opposing Ashland's motion for reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 44), seeking reimbursement for six hours of attorney time at the rate of $350 per hour; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amount of $1,900 is hereby assessed against Ashland Services, LLC.. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 12/17/2012. (NEF: Financial) (cab)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LEE WASHINGTON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-3175
ASHLAND MARINE, L.L.C., ET AL
SECTION “N” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a “Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Maintenance Rate” (Rec. Doc. 35), filed by defendant Ashland Services,
LLC. Plaintiff has filed an opposition memorandum. (Rec. Doc. 43).
Ashland seeks relief, pursuant to FRCP 60(b), from this Court’s Order and Reasons,
signed October 31, 2012 (Rec. Doc. 33), in which the Court granted plaintiff’s “Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Maintenance Rate” (Rec. Doc. 25) in light of Ashland’s failure to
oppose the motion in accordance with Local Rule 7.5. With regard to the maintenance rate
($45.75 per day) and the arrearage ($12,003.87), Ashland has failed to show any error in the
Court’s prior order. Nor has it demonstrated any other basis for relief, as it has failed to put forth
any reason for its failure to timely oppose the plaintiffs’ motion. Moreover, the Court finds the
rate to be supported and not unreasonable.
With regard to the attorney fee portion of the ruling, however, the Court agrees that the
plaintiff’s motion did not put forth a sufficient basis for a finding of bad faith on the part of
Ashland. Therefore, the award of $4,801.55 for attorney fees will be vacated. If plaintiff has
additional evidence of bad faith, plaintiff may file an separate motion in this regard.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Ashland’s motion for reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 35) is hereby
GRANTED IN PART, in that it is granted with respect to the award of attorney fees associated
with the filing of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, without prejudice to
plaintiff’s right to bring a further motion in this regard, and DENIED IN PART, in that it is
denied in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court’s Order and Reasons dated October 31,
2012 (Rec. Doc. 33) is hereby VACATED IN PART, in that it is vacated with respect to the
award of attorney fees ($4,801.55) associated with the filing of plaintiffs’ motion for partial
summary judgment, and shall remain in full force and effect in all other respects.
Considering this Court’s order (Rec. Doc. 33) stating that costs incurred in connection
with the motion, including attorneys’ fees, would be assessed against the party moving for
reconsideration; and considering that plaintiff has filed a statement of costs associated with
opposing Ashland’s motion for reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 44), seeking reimbursement for six
hours of attorney time at the rate of $350 per hour; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
amount of $1,900 is hereby assessed against Ashland Services, LLC.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of December 2012.
______________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?