Loiacano v. DISA Global Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 103

ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 96 Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DAVID J. LOIACANO

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-1750

DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, ET AL.

SECTION "B"(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is DISA Global Solutions, Inc.’s (“DISA”)
“Motion to Fix Attorneys’ Fees.” Rec. Doc. 96. Plaintiff David
Loiacano (“Loiacano” or “Plaintiff”) filed a timely opposition
memorandum. Rec. Doc. 99. For the reasons outlined below,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part.
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This cases arose out of a failed drug test by Loiacano. This

Court has detailed the factual background of this case numerous
times and need not do so again for the purposes of this motion.
The present motion derives from an October 1, 2015 order of this
Court in which Plaintiff was ordered to face sanctions for causing
an unjustified delay. Rec. Doc. 68. Defendants were ordered to
submit affidavits and supporting documentation enumerating their
costs and fees related to the delay. Id.

This Court already

resolved Psychemedics Corporation’s motion to fix attorney’s fees,

1

awarding $4,284 in fees plus costs in relation to the unwarranted
extension request.1 Rec. Doc. 87 at 4-5.
With respect to DISA, this Court granted DISA’s motion for
summary judgment on November 23, 2015, dismissing all claims
against it. On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff appealed that Order and
Reasons after its motion for reconsideration was denied. That
appeal is still pending. Subsequently, almost four months after
its motion for summary judgment was granted, DISA filed its motion
for attorneys’ fees related to Plaintiff’s earlier delay.
II.

THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
DISA seeks $37,165 in attorney’s fees for the work completed

by three attorneys and one paralegal incurred “in attempts to
prevent further delay, wasting of resources, and prejudice by
responding

to

Plaintiff’s

multiple

requests

for

delay

and

continuance and the instant Motion to Fix Attorney’s Fees.” Rec.
Doc. 96-1 at 3-4. This total amount of fees sought is based upon
the

following

attorney

and

paralegal

hours

and

rates:

Holly

Williamson, partner—14.8 hours at $630 per hour; Michael Reed,
associate—40.5 hours at $347 per hour; George Robinson, partner—
20.9 hours at $435 per hour; and Heather Vice, paralegal—0.4 hours
at $150 per hour. Rec. Doc. 96-4 at 2. Those hours cover services

This Court made clear in that Order and Reasons that only one of Plaintiff’s
extension requests was unwarranted so as to justify the awarding of fees and
costs. The Court thus denied Psychemedics’s request for fees related to the
other extension requests.
1

2

rendered by DISA’s counsel beginning on August 13, 2016 in response
to Plaintiff’s first request for extension of deadlines. Id. at 3.
In opposition, Plaintiff first contends that DISA’s request
is overly broad because it seeks fees for work not related to the
single extension request deemed unwarranted by this Court. Rec.
Doc. 99 at 2. Plaintiff argues that only the time entries from
September 22, 2015 until October 1, 2015 are justified, because
they are the only ones related to the delay at issue here. Id. at
3. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the attorney fee rates sought by
DISA are excessive. Id. at 3-4. He claims that a reasonable rate
for Robinson and Williams is $350 per hour, while a reasonable
rate for Reed is $205 per hour. Plaintiff does not challenge the
paralegal rate requested by DISA.
III.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Fifth Circuit uses the lodestar method for determining a

reasonable amount of attorney’s fees. Saizan v. Delta Concrete
Products Co., Inc., 448 F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that
method, the reasonable number of hours spent on the case is
multiplied by an appropriate hourly rate in the community for such
work. Id. In considering Psychemedics’s motion to fix attorney’s
fees, this Court accepted $325 per hour as a reasonable rate for
a partner working on this type of case in this community and $205
per hour as a reasonable rate for an associate. See Rec. Doc. 87.

3

Plaintiff here is even willing to consent to $350 as a reasonable
rate for a partner doing this type of work. Rec. Doc. 99 at 3.
Accordingly, this Court finds the following rates as reasonable
under the lodestar method: $350 per hour for partner work; $205
per hour for associate work; and $150 per hour for paralegal work.
The next issue is whether the hours sought by DISA are
reasonable. They are not.

DISA seeks an award of attorneys’ fees

for work done in response to extension requests that this Court
has already deemed minimally sufficient to avoid sanctions. Rec.
Doc. 87 at 4-5. Thus, this Court will only award fees deriving
from

the

second

motion

for

an

extension,

which

Plaintiff

acknowledges as the work completed between September 22, 2015 and
October 1, 2015.2 Based on the reasonable fee rates and reasonable
hours discussed above, the Court finds that DISA is owed $5,431.00
in attorneys’ fees plus court costs. This award is consistent with
the award received by Psychemedics as well as this Court’s prior
orders.

Those reasonable hours include 5.2 hours for Michael Reed, 2.6 hours for Holly
Williamson, 9.7 hours for George Robinson, and 0.4 hours for Heather Vice. See
Rec. Doc. 96-4. Further, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the Court
should not award the requested fees for the six hours taken by Mr. Robinson to
drive to New Orleans from Lafayette and back. But for Plaintiff’s unwarranted
extension request filed at the last minute before the pre-trial conference,
Robinson would not have had to spend his time driving from Lafayette to New
Orleans and back when he could have been working on other matters. Moreover,
the Court will not second guess the amount of time Robinson claims it took him
to make those trips.
2

4

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part—granting an award of attorneys’ fees but at a lesser amount
than that requested.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of May, 2016.

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5