MC Bank & Trust Company v. Suard Barge Service, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER AND REASONS granting 25 Motion for Attorney Fees. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. IT IS ORDERED that there be a judgment in favor of plaintiff against Defendant Louis O'Neil Suard, Jr. in the amount of $63,806.97. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek additional fees and costs incurred in future collection efforts. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/12/2017. (cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
M C BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-14311

SUARD BARGE SERVICE, INC.,
ET AL

SECTION “R” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees,
costs, and expenses. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Defendant Suard Barge Service, Inc.’s default on

a $3,950,000 loan provided by Plaintiff M C Bank & Trust Company.2 The
loan was guaranteed by Defendant Premier Services, Inc. and by Defendant
Louis O’Neil Suard, Jr. in his individual capacity.3 On May 9, 2017, Suard
Barge Service and Premier Services each filed a notice of bankruptcy. 4 The

1
2
3
4

R. Doc. 25.
R. Doc. 1 at 2-4.
R. Doc. 23 at 2, 12-14.
R. Doc. 13; R. Doc. 14.

Court stayed this matter as to Suard Barge Service and Premier Services
only.5
On September 11, 2017, the Court granted default judgment to plaintiff
against Louis O’Neil Suard, Jr. in the amount of $3,006,077.03 in principal,
$789,468.17 in accrued interest, $3,507.30 in reimbursement for life
insurance premiums, $8,500.00 in vessel survey costs, and interest in the
sum of $535.33 per day from August 24, 2017.6 The Court’s default judgment
further stated that plaintiff is entitled to costs, expenses, and reasonable
attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined at a later date. 7
Plaintiff timely moved for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and
expenses. 8 Mr. Suard has not responded to plaintiff’s motion.

II.

DISCUSSION
Under the terms of Mr. Suard’s personal guaranty, plaintiff is entitled

to recover from him the full amount of Suard Barge Service’s indebtedness,
including “all collection costs and legal expenses related thereto permitted
by law, [and] reasonable attorneys’ fees.”9 Plaintiff requests $63,806.97 in

5
6
7
8
9

R. Doc. 15.
R. Doc. 23; R. Doc. 24.
R. Doc. 24.
R. Doc. 25.
R. Doc. 1-14 at 1.
2

attorneys’ fees and costs, representing $61,936.25 in attorneys’ fees and
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s

$1,870.72 in costs and expenses.10

itemized costs and expenses and finds them justified.
Because plaintiff’s right to attorneys’ fees arises out of a guaranty
agreement declared valid under Louisiana law, “[s]tate law controls both the
award of and the reasonableness of” attorneys’ fees. See Mathis v. Exxon
Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 461 (5th Cir. 2002). Under Louisiana law, courts may
inquire into the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and should consider: “(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.” State v. Williamson, 597 So. 2d 439, 442 (La. 1992).
These factors are derived from Rule 1.5(a) of the Louisiana Rules of
Professional Conduct. Id. at 442 n.9. Among the factors listed in Rule 1.5(a)
is “[t]he fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.” Id.
The Court need not expressly consider all the factors, however, and may
multiply the number of hours worked by an hourly rate the Court deems

10

R. Doc. 25-1 at 1.
3

reasonable. See Fourchon Docks, Inc. v. Milchem Inc., 849 F.2d 1561, 1568
(5th Cir. 1988).
The Court has reviewed line by line the itemized billing statement
submitted by plaintiff and finds the hours expended to be reasonable. The
billing statement and the record reflect that plaintiff’s counsel reviewed
extensive loan documentation involving mixed collateral and multiple
guarantors, prepared a demand letter, researched the basis for federal
jurisdiction, drafted the initial complaint, and prepared a successful motion
for default judgment. 11 The billing records further indicate that plaintiff’s
counsel expended considerable time negotiating with Mr. Suard regarding a
possible settlement, and working to collect on defendants’ debt in related
bankruptcy proceedings.
Further, the Court finds the requested hourly rates reasonable. The
record reflects that three attorneys worked on this case: Richard Aguilar,
Adam McNeil, and Mark Chaney. 12

Aguilar is a managing member of

McGlinchey Stafford’s New Orleans office, with over thirty years of
experience in commercial litigation and bankruptcy law. 13 Aguilar spent

11
12
13

R. Doc. 1; R. Doc. 1-17; R. Doc. 11.
R. Doc. 11-18; R. Doc. 25-1 at 5-6.
R. Doc. 25-1 at 5.
4

101.5 hours on this case, at a rate of $395 per hour. 14 McNeil has over
seventeen years of experience in commercial and business litigation, with
particular expertise in legal issues related to mortgaged vessels. 15 McNeil
spent 7.5 hours on this matter, at a rate of $350 per hour. 16 Chaney is a 2014
law graduate and an associate in McGlinchey Stafford’s commercial litigation
section.17 Chaney spent 84 hours on this case, at a rate of $225 per hour. 18
The Court finds that the hourly rates requested are reasonable in light
of the attorneys’ experience and expertise. Plaintiff submits survey results
from the National Law Journal’s annual survey of law firm billing rates
indicating that these hourly rates are within the range charged by similar
New Orleans law firms. 19 The Court has approved similar hourly rates for
attorneys with similar experience. See, e.g., DirectTV, LLC v. Ertem, No. 13487, 2015 WL 459398, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2015) (approving hourly rates
of $350/hour for partners and $250/hour for associates). Accordingly, the
Court finds that plaintiff is entitled $61,936.25 in attorneys’ fees and
$1,870.72 in costs and expenses.

14
15
16
17
18
19

R. Doc. 11-18; R. Doc. 25-1 at 5.
R. Doc. 25-1 at 6.
R. Doc. 11-18; R. Doc. 25-1 at 6.
R. Doc. 25-1 at 6.
R. Doc. 11-18; R. Doc. 25-1 at 6.
R. Doc. 25-2.
5

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for
attorneys’ fees and costs. IT IS ORDERED that there be a judgment in favor
of plaintiff against Defendant Louis O’Neil Suard, Jr. in the amount of
$63,806.97. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek additional fees and costs
incurred in future collection efforts.

12th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2017.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6