Frazier v. Radio Shack Corporation

Filing 70

RULING & ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pltf, David W. Frazier, shall pay to the dft, RadioShack Corporation, $1,155.00 in attorney's fees in relation to the preparation, filing, and oral argument concerning RadioShack Corporations Memora ndum in Opposition to his 53 Motion to Quash, in accordance with the Court's Order dated 3/12/2012 R. Doc. 68 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pltf shall pay the attorneys fees award to RadioShack in two (2) installments, with $577.50 being paid by 5/4/2012, and the remaining $577.50 being paid by 6/4/2012.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 4/4/2012. (CMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DAVID W. FRAZIER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION

NO. 10-855-BAJ-CN
RULING & ORDER

This matter is before the Court concerning the Report Regarding Award of Attorney’s
Fees (R. Doc. 69) filed by defendant, RadioShack Corporation, in accordance with the
Court’s Order of March 12, 2012. (R. Doc. 68). Plaintiff, David W. Frazier (“Frazier”), has
not filed a timely opposition to such report.
Once a district court has determined that a party is entitled to an award of attorney’s
fees, as in this case, it must find the number of hours reasonably expended on the case1
and the reasonable hourly rate for the attorney’s services. Wegner v. Standard Ins. Co.,
129 F.3d 814, 822 (5th Cir. 1997). The court then multiplies those two figures together to
determine the “lodestar” amount of attorney’s fees. Id. The lodestar amount is presumed
to be the reasonable fee, but it may be adjusted upward or downward after consideration
of the factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714,
717-719 (5th Cir. 1974).2

1

Counsel is “charged with proving that they exercised billing judgment.” Winget v. Corporate Green,
LLC, 2011 WL 2173840, *4 (M.D.La. 2011), quoting Walker v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development,
99 F.3d 761, 770 (5th Cir. 1996). Attorneys exercise billing judgment by not charging for time that is
unproductive, excessive, or duplicative when seeking a fee award. Id.
2

Those factors include the following: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of
the questions presented; (3) the skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other
employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed
or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount of money
involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the
undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12)
awards in similar cases. Id.

In the Report, RadioShack indicates that it incurred $1,155.00 in attorney’s fees in
obtaining the Court’s March 12, 2012 Order relating to Frazier’s “Objection to Notice for
Records Deposition Motion to Quash” (R. Doc. 47). The report is supported by the affidavit
of RadioShack’s counsel, Margaret F. Swetman, which contains excerpts from the invoices
submitted to RadioShack for the work counsel performed in connection with obtaining the
March 12, 2012 Order. Specifically, those excerpts indicate that RadioShack’s counsel
spent a total of seven (7) hours at a billing rate of $165 per hour performing such work.
The Court finds that both the hourly billing rate and the amount of hours expended
opposing the motion to quash in question are reasonable and that the amount of attorney’s
fees requested by RadioShack should be awarded. In particular, the undersigned finds that
$165 per hour is a reasonable hourly billing rate for an attorney with over seven (7) years
of experience in the legal practice in the Baton Rouge market, as is the case with Ms.
Swetman.3 Finally, considering RadioShack’s opposition to Frazier’s motion is fifteen (15)
pages long and required more than mere boilerplate legal research, but instead
necessitated more significant research, analysis, and writing, as well as oral argument
during a telephone conference with the undersigned, the expenditure of seven (7) hours
in connection with Frazier’s motion to quash was not unreasonable.

3

See, Cherry v. Shaw Coastal , Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 08-228-JVP-CN (M.D.La. 2008)(holding
that an hourly rate of $175 for an associate with approximately eight (8) years experience was reasonable in
the Middle District of Louisiana legal market); Thompson v. Connick, 2008 WL 5265197 (5th Cir.
2008)(upholding a district court’s award of attorneys’ fees in the range of $90-202/hour for mid-level
associates in the Eastern District of Louisiana); Stogner v. Sturdivant, 2011 WL 6140670 (M.D.La. 2011)(citing
various cases and finding that a $200 hourly rate was appropriate for the partner and trial attorney working
on the case and a $155 hourly rate was reasonable for an associate assigned to the case); Winget v.
Corporate Green, LLC, 2011 WL 2173840 (M.D.La. 2011)(holding that a rate of $250.00 per hour was
reasonable compensation for an attorney with approximately seven years experience handling relatively
complex litigation in the Middle District of Louisiana).

Accordingly;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff, David W. Frazier, shall pay to the defendant,
RadioShack Corporation, $1,155.00 in attorney’s fees in relation to the preparation, filing,
and oral argument concerning RadioShack Corporation’s Memorandum in Opposition to
his Motion to Quash (R. Doc. 53), in accordance with the Court’s Order dated March 12,
2012 (R. Doc. 68).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay the attorney’s fees award to
RadioShack in two (2) installments, with $577.50 being paid by May 4, 2012, and the
remaining $577.50 being paid by June 4, 2012.
Signed in chambers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 4, 2012.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE NOLAND