International Construction Equipment, Inc. v. Laborde Construction Industries, LLC

Filing 26

RULING : Attorneys fees in the amount of $4,800 is GRANTED in favor of the Plaintiff. The matter of costs and expenses is referred to the Clerks Office, re: 24 Affidavit filed by International Construction Equipment, Inc. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/5/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT, INC.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS

15-433-SDD-EWD

LABORDE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRIES, LLC.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Affidavit of Attorney’s Fees & Costs1 filed by
the Plaintiff, International Construction Equipment Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Defendants, Laborde
Construction Industries, LLC. (“Laborde”) have not filed an opposition to this affidavit and
have failed appear in this case. For the following reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
affidavit for attorney’s fees is sufficient and the amount requested will be granted.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
The Court in its Ruling3 awarded Plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs. Before the

Court is an Affidavit4 filed by Plaintiff’s in support of their award of attorney’s fees and
costs. Defendants have not filed any opposition to the ruling or the affidavit filed by
Plaintiffs.

1

Rec. Doc. 24.
The Court incorporates by reference the “Relevant Factual and Procedural Background” in Rec. Doc. 23,
pp. 1-4.
3
Rec. Doc. 23.
4
Rec. Doc. 24.
2

39432 
Page 1 of 6 

D. Gregory
N. Toups

II.

ATTORNEY’S FEES
Considering the Court’s ruling in favor of Plaintiff and awarded damages in the

amount of $ 62,436.16,5 Plaintiff now seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,800.00
and costs in the amount of $664.74.6
A. The Lodestar Approach
A court's discretion in fashioning a reasonable attorney's fee is broad and
reviewable only for an abuse of discretion, i.e., it will not be reversed unless there is strong
evidence that it is excessive or inadequate, or the amount chosen is clearly erroneous.7
To determine a reasonable fee, a court must provide a concise but clear explanation of
its reasons for the fee award, making subsidiary factual determinations regarding whether
the requested hourly rate is reasonable, and whether the tasks reported by counsel were
duplicative, unnecessary, or unrelated to the purposes of the lawsuit.8 The Fifth Circuit
has noted that its “concern is not that a complete litany be given, but that the findings be
complete enough to assume a review which can determine whether the court has used
proper factual criteria in exercising its discretion to fix just compensation.”9
In assessing the reasonableness of attorneys' fees, the court must first determine
the “lodestar” by multiplying the reasonable number of hours expended and the
reasonable hourly rate for each participating attorney.10 The party seeking the fee bears

5

Rec. Doc. 23, p. 7.
Rec. Doc. 24-1, p. 4.
7
Hopwood v. State of Texas, 236 F.3d 256, 277, n. 79 (5th Cir. 2000); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.424,
436–37 (1983).
8
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437–39; Associated Builders & Contractors, 919 F.2d at 379.
9
Brantley v. Surles, 804 F.2d 321, 325–26 (5th Cir.1986).
10
See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Green v. Administrators of the Tulane Educ. Fund, 919 F.2d 374, 379 (5th
Cir. 1990); Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.2d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir.1998); La. Power & Light Co. v.
Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir.1995).
6

39432 
Page 2 of 6 

the burden of proof on this issue.11
1. Reasonable Hours Expended
The Court begins by determining whether the number of hours claimed by
Plaintiff’s attorneys is reasonable.12 Local Rule 54 provides specific guidance regarding
how this burden is met, stating: “the party desiring to be awarded such fees shall submit
to the court a contemporaneous time report reflecting the date, time involved, and nature
of the services performed. The report shall be in both narrative and statistical form and
provide hours spent and justification thereof.”13 “Where the documentation of hours is
inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.”14
Here, attorney Gennusa provided a detailed performance log of the services
provided by counsel that complies with Local Rule 54. The Court finds that the log
demonstrate that Gennusa exercised proper judgment in billing for services necessary in
the ordinary course of litigation. The Court finds the log entries consistent with the
timeline and filings in this case and typical with respect to the duties necessary in such a
case. The Court did not find the entries to be duplicative, unnecessary, or overly broad.
Additionally, Genussa submitted an affidavit attesting to the veracity of the detailed time
log.15 Campbell and Brady also contend they excluded from their performance logs time
for intra-office meetings and conferences on this matter.
The Court is satisfied that the explanations provided by Plaintiff’s attorney is
11
See Riley v. City of Jackson, 99 F.3d 757, 760 (5th Cir.1996); Kellstrom, 50 F.3d at 324; In re Smith, 996
F.2d 973, 978 (5th Cir.1992).
12
Migis, 135 F.3d at 1047.
13
M.D. La. LR54(b).
14
Cooper v. Pentecost, 77 F.3d 829, 832 (5th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks omitted); see also Kellstrom, 50
F.3d at 324 (“[A] district court may reduce the number of hours awarded if the documentation is vague or
incomplete.”).
15
See Rec. Doc. 24, pp. 1-2.

39432 
Page 3 of 6 

sufficient to establish entitlement to the fees sought.
2. Reasonable Hourly Rates
The Court must also determine if the hourly rate of $150/hour for Gennusa is
reasonable given counsel’s ability, competence, experience, and skill. An attorney's
reasonable hourly rate should be “in line with those prevailing in the community for similar
services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.”16 The
Fifth Circuit has emphasized that “the relevant market for purposes of determining the
prevailing rate to be paid in a fee award is the community in which the district court sits.”17
The party seeking attorney's fees has the burden of producing satisfactory
evidence that the requested rate is aligned with the prevailing market rate.18 “[A] mere
conclusory statement that [a] fee [is] reasonable” is insufficient for calculating the lodestar
fee.19 Rather, “[t]o inform and assist the court in [determining the reasonable rate],” the
fee applicant should produce an affidavit of the attorney performing the work, information
of rates actually billed and paid in similar lawsuits,20 as well as “affidavits of other
attorneys practicing [in the community in question].”21 In addition to the community rate,
“a court considers the attorneys' regular rates” when determining a reasonable rate.22

16

Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n. 11 (1984); see also Leroy v. City of Houston, 906 F.2d 1068,
1078–79 (5th Cir.1990) (“In evaluating an attorneys' fees award, we are guided by the overriding principles
that a reasonable attorney's fee is one that is adequate to attract competent counsel, but that does not
produce windfalls to attorneys ....” (quotation marks and alterations omitted)).
17
Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted).
18
Kellstrom, 50 F.3d at 324.
19
See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 440.
20
See Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n. 11.
21
Tollett, 285 F.3d at 368. See, e.g., Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 458 (5th Cir.1993) (party seeking fees
submitted “affidavits from other attorneys in the community showing the prevailing market rates in the
community”).
22
Kellstrom, 50 F.3d at 328.

39432 
Page 4 of 6 

Under the case law considered by the Court,23 which includes cases in the Middle
and Eastern District Courts of Louisiana,24 the Court finds that the requested rate of $150
per hour for Gennusa is appropriate.
3. The Johnson Factors
The Court must next consider whether the lodestar calculation should be adjusted
upward or downward, depending on the circumstances of the case and the factors set
forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.25 The twelve factors are: (1) the time
and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions, (3) the skill requisite 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

23

Overman v. City of East Baton Rouge, Civ. A. No. 13-614, 2015 WL 7459988, *4 (M.D. La. Nov. 24,
2015)(court awarded $225 an hour in an employment discrimination case to an attorney with more than 30
years of experience); Advocacy Center v. Cain, Civ. A. No. 3:12-00508, 2014 WL 1246840 at *6 (M.D. La.
Mar. 24, 2014)(approving $350 and $275 per hour rates based on experience and expertise of attorney);
Alexander v. Ace American Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 14-370, 2014 WL 4163756 at *2 (E.D.La. Aug. 19, 2014)
(sanctioning $250/hour for attorney with ten years of experience and $200/hour for attorney with four years’
experience); Cox. v. Precision Surveillance Org., Civ. A. No. 13–6600, 2014 WL 1785350 at *2 (E.D.La.
May 5, 2014) (sanctioning $275.00/hour for attorney with ten years’ experience); Barrack v. Pailet, Meunier
& LeBlanc, L.L.P., Civ. A. No.12-2776, 2013 WL 6198861 (E.D.La. Nov. 27, 2013) (approving $250/hour
for attorney with 24 years’ experience); Cole v. Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, 2013 WL 5557416 at *4
(E.D.La. Oct. 8, 2013) (reducing hourly rates from $300/hour to $275/hour for attorney with 34 years’
experience and from $300/hour to $250/hour for attorney with 29 years’ experience); Foley v. SAFG
Retirement Servs., Inc., Civ. A. No. 10-2827, 2012 WL 956499 at * 2 (E.D .La. Mar. 20, 2012) (reducing
hourly rates from $450/hour to $350/hour for attorney with 30 years’ experience and from $300/hour to
$275/hour for attorney with eight years of experience); Constr. Courht, Inc. v. Jenkins, Civ. A. No. 11-1201,
2001 WL 3882271 at *4 (E.D.La. July 29, 2011) (approving $350/hour for partners with 30 and 36 years of
experience); Entergy La., L.L.C. v. The Wackenhut Corp., Civ. A. No. 09–7367, 2010 WL 4812921 (E.D.La.
Nov. 17, 2010) (awarding $175.00/hour to attorney with 16 years of experience); Wilson v. Tulane Univ.,
2010 WL 3943543 (E.D.La. Oct. 4, 2010) (awarding $250.00/hour and $160.00 hour to attorneys with 25
and four years of experience respectively).
24
The prevailing market fee is generally determined by affidavits filed by attorneys practicing in the area.
Ball v. LeBlanc, 2015 WL 4454779 at *3 (M.D. La. July 20, 2015), quoting Tollett, 285 F.3d at 368. However,
markets of comparable sizes can be informative in determining the prevailing market rate of another district.
See e .g., Strogner v. Sturdivant, No. 10–125–JJB–CN, 2011 WL 6140670, at *2 n. 4 (M.D.La. Dec. 9,2011)
(finding that the rate in New Orleans could help determine the rate in Baton Rouge because after Hurricane
Katrina, the size of New Orleans and Baton Rouge became more comparable); Advocacy Center v. Cain,
2014 WL 1246840, at *7 n. 6 (same).
25
488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974). See Green, 284 F.3d at 661; Cobb v. Miller, 818 F.2d 1227, 1232 (5th
Cir.1987).

39432 
Page 5 of 6 

contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount
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.26
Regarding the Johnson factors, the Court finds that these factors do not warrant
any additional adjustment from the lodestar amount. Indeed, many of these factors were
subsumed in the original lodestar estimate. Accordingly, the Court determines that a fee
award of $4,800.00 is reasonable compensation for the attorney’s efforts in this case.
B. Costs
In accordance with Local Rule 54(a), the Court will refer the matter of costs and
expenses to the Clerk of Court’s Office.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,800 is

GRANTED in favor of the Plaintiff. The matter of costs and expenses is referred to the
Clerk’s Office.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on June 5, 2017.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

26

Johnson, 488 F.2d 714, 717–19.

39432 
Page 6 of 6