Acadian Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC v. Quality Toxicology, LLC
Filing
150
RULING and ORDER granting 149 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $296,703.75. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 3/20/2020. (EDC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ACADIAN DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORIES, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
QUALITY TOXICOLOGY, LLC
NO: 16-00176-BAJ-EWD
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Re-Urged Motion for Award of Attorney’s
Fees (Doc. 149), seeking an order from this Court awarding attorney’s fees in the
amount of $296,703.75. The motion is unopposed.
I.
Background
This is Plaintiff’s second motion for attorneys’ fees. On December 20, 2019, the
Court issued a ruling and order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s first
motion for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 148). The Court found that Plaintiff had provided
sufficient evidence of the amount of hours expended on preparation of the case.
However, Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence concerning the hourly rates of
the attorneys and assistants seeking fees for services. Specifically, the Court found
that Plaintiff had not provided evidence of the prevailing rates of attorneys practicing
similar law in this District, which is an essential component of the Court’s analysis
of an award of attorney fees in this circuit.
Plaintiff was provided one final
opportunity to correct the deficiencies in its motion and was ordered to file the
requisite supplemental documentation no later than January 17, 2020.
(Id.).
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on that date. Because the Court previously found
that Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of the reasonable amount of hours spent
preparing the case, the analysis herein will pertain only to whether the hourly rates
are proper.
II.
Analysis
“The calculation of attorney’s fees involves a well-established process.” Migis
v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir. 1998). “First, the court calculates
a ‘lodestar’ fee by multiplying the reasonable number of hours expended on the case
by the reasonable hourly rates for the participating lawyers. The court then considers
whether the lodestar figure should be adjusted upward or downward depending on
the circumstances of the case.” Id. The factors which justify an upward or downward
adjustment of the lodestar fee are:
(1) the time and labor required for the litigation; (2) the novelty and
difficulty of the questions presented; (3) the skill required to perform the
legal services 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) time limitations imposed by the client
or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the result 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.
2
A. Reasonable Hourly Rate
As noted, the “lodestar fee” is calculated “by multiplying the reasonable
number of hours expended on the case by the reasonable hourly rates for the
participating lawyers.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). 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.” Blum
v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 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)). 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.” Tollett v. City of Kemah,
285 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted).
The party applying for attorney’s fees bears the burden of producing
satisfactory evidence that the requested rate is aligned with the prevailing market
rate. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1995). “[A]
mere conclusory statement that [a] fee [is] reasonable” is insufficient for calculating
the lodestar fee. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983). Instead, “[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
3
actually billed and paid in similar lawsuits, see Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n.11, as well
as “affidavits of other attorneys practicing [in the community in question].” 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”). In addition to the community rate,
“a court considers the attorneys’ regular rates” when determining a reasonable rate.
Kellstrom, 50 F.3d at 328.
Plaintiff seeks attorney fees for J. Wendell Clark at a billing rate of $300.00
per hour, attorney fees for Sharon Whitlow at a billing rate of $225.00 per hour,
attorney fees for Mark L. Barbre at a billing rate of $225.00 per hour, attorney fees
for associates at a billing rate of $175.00 per hour, fees for law clerks at a rate of
$35.00 per hour, and fees for paralegals at a rate of $75.00 per hour.
Plaintiff has submitted three declarations, which aver that the hourly rate
charged by attorneys engaged in commercial litigation during the past five years in
the Middle District of Louisiana has ranged from $500.00 per hour for senior partnerlevel attorneys to $230.00 per hour for attorneys with more than ten years of
experience. (Doc 149 at 3-5). The declarations contend that the rates of $300.00 per
hour for J. Wendell Clark and $225.00 per hour for Mark Barbre and Sharon Whitlow
are well within the normal range of compensation charged for such legal services.
(Id.). As evidence of the reasonableness of the rates, Plaintiff also directs the Court
to Middle District of Louisiana opinions with similar legal issues where attorneys
4
were awarded fees comparable to their years of experience. (Doc. 149-1 at 2-3 (citing
Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Smith, 2014 WL 6633096, at *1 (M.D. La. Nov. 21, 2014);
Alonso v. Westcoast Corp., 2017 WL 4176973, at *7 (M.D. La. Sept. 21, 2017)).
Based on the evidence presented and the applicable law, the Court is satisfied
with the evidence Plaintiff has provided, and determines that the billings rates
sought by each attorney, paralegal, and law clerk are reasonable, given their
respective experience and expertise, and the current prevailing rates in the Middle
District of Louisiana.
B. Whether to Adjust Plaintiff’s Lodestar Fee
Now the Court must assess whether the lodestar figure should be adjusted
upward or downward. Migis, 135 F.3d at 1047. The factors which justify an upward
or downward adjustment of the lodestar fee have previously been identified.
Here, the Court finds that these factors do not warrant any additional
adjustment from the lodestar amount. Accordingly, the Court determines that a fee
award of $296,703.75 is reasonable compensation for the attorneys’ efforts in this
case.
5
III.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Re-Urged Motion for Award of
Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 149) is GRANTED.
Specifically, Plaintiff is awarded
attorney’s fees in the amount of $296,703.75.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 20th day of March, 2020.
______________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
6
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?