Pickney v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co L L C et al

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM RULING re 51 Supplemental Request for Attorney Fees in Accordance with 45 Judgment filed by Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co L L C. Signed by Judge Terry A Doughty on 6/1/2018. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
SCENTER PICKNEY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0211

VERSUS

JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

STRATEGIC RESTAURANTS
ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE PATRICK J. HANNA

RULING
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Supplemental Request for Attorney’s Fees [Doc.
No. 51]. The motion is fully briefed, and the Court is prepared to rule.
Plaintiff filed this suit on February 15, 2016, asserting claims for discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. '
2000e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. ' 1981; the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. ' 7703(b)(2); and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. ' 621, et seq.
In response, on June 6, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, to Stay
Proceedings, and for an Award of Reasonable Attorney=s Fees on grounds that Plaintiff was
required to submit her claim to arbitration in accordance with an arbitration agreement. [Doc. No.
11].

On February 6, 2017, Magistrate Judge Hanna issued a Report and Recommendations

suggesting that the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings be granted in
part and denied in part. [Doc. No. 21]. Magistrate Judge Hanna concluded that that the lawsuit
should be stayed and that Plaintiff should be ordered to submit her claims to arbitration, but that
Defendants were not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.
In response, on February 16, 2017, Defendants filed an Objection to the Report and

Recommendations contesting the denial of attorney’s fees and costs. [Doc. No. 22]. Plaintiff’s
counsel did not respond. Consequently, on March 9, 2017, then-presiding Judge James entered a
Memorandum Ruling and a Judgment adopting in part and declining to adopt in part Magistrate
Judge Hanna’s Report and Recommendations. [Doc. Nos. 23 & 24]. Specifically, the March 9,
2017 Judgment adopted the recommendation that the lawsuit be stayed and that Plaintiff be ordered
to submit her claims to arbitration, but declined to adopt the recommendation that Defendants not
be awarded attorney’s fees and costs. Again, Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. Thus, on
March 30, 2017, Defendants’ legal counsel filed a Motion for Bill of Costs, seeking attorney’s fees
in the amount of $13,302.00 and costs. [Doc. No. 25]. Once again, Plaintiff’s counsel did not
respond.
On May 4, 2017, Judge James entered Judgment against Plaintiff, awarding Defendants
attorney’s fees, but in the reduced amount of $10,095.00. [Doc. No. 27].
On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff’s new counsel filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment
[Doc. No. 36], contending that Plaintiff was entitled to relief from the March 9, 2017 Judgment
and the May 4, 2017 Judgment due to her prior attorney’s neglect. Defendants filed an Opposition
[Doc. No. 38] to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment.
On April 25, 2018, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief as to the March 9, 2017
Judgment which awarded Defendants attorney’s fees, but granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief
as to the May 4, 2017 Judgment which set the amount of attorney’s fees. [Doc. Nos. 44 and 45].
Defendant Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co. LLC was given a time limit in which to file a
supplemental memorandum requesting additional attorney’s fees, if it so desired, and Plaintiff was
given a time limit in which to respond to the original Motion for Bill of Costs [Doc. No. 25] and

2

to any supplemental request.
Defendants filed the instant Supplemental Request for Attorney Fees [Doc. No. 51] on May
10, 2018. Plaintiff filed her Memorandum in Opposition [Doc. No. 54] on May 31, 2018.
The Court’s May 4, 2017 Memorandum Ruling [Doc. No. 27] found a rate of $275 per
hour for David M. Whitaker and $150 per hour for Zoe Vermeulen to be reasonable rates for
attorneys of comparable experience in Lafayette, Louisiana. Plaintiff acknowledges that the
hourly rate is not at issue in this matter [Doc. No. 54, p. 4].
What is at issue is the reasonableness of the hours expended. Defendants seek the original
attorney fee amount awarded of $10,095.00 as well as additional attorney’s fees of $4,411.00
incurred in opposing Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, for a total of $14,506.00.
Plaintiff argues that counsel for Defendants have failed to exercise billing judgment.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ counsel have billed for duplicative and excessive hours, and
that, when a party chooses two attorneys to represent it in a lawsuit, the opposing party is not
required to pay for duplicative work among the attorneys.

Plaintiff asserts that the number of

billable hours is excessive in view of the lack of complexity and the lack of novelty in the issues
presented in this case. Plaintiff objects to the hours billed for unproductive tasks, such as for time
spent considering a motion to dismiss that Defendants ultimately did not file. Plaintiff complains
that several billing entries involve clerical work performed by attorneys, and that it is well settled
that clerical work performed by attorneys is not recoverable at the attorney’s rate. Plaintiff objects
to Defendants’ counsel billing the full hourly rate for travel time in the absence of documentation
that any legal work was accomplished during said travel time.
Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the inability to pay is a proper factor to be considered in

3

granting or denying taxable costs, and that the award of costs to the prevailing party may be
overcome by a showing of indigency. (See Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 112801 *12 (S.D. Tx Aug. 24, 2016) citing Hartnett v. Chase Bank of Tex. Nat’l Ass’n,
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16872 *1, (N.D. Tx. 1999)). Plaintiff attaches affidavits and supporting
documents indicating that Plaintiff and her husband are on a fixed monthly income currently
surviving on his social security disability benefits in the amount of $1482.00; that they reside in a
34-year old mobile home; that their monthly expenses for cable, utilities, automobile payments
and insurance total $1,590.00; that Plaintiff has $699.98 in her checking account and $20.93 in
savings; that her husband has a balance of $963.14 in his checking account with no savings
account; that neither party has any 401K or retirement account; that they owe approximately
$25,576.15 in back taxes to the IRS; that her husband has suffered with persistent cardiovascular
medical issues and on January 11, 2018, he had a heart transplant; that as a result of these medical
issues they have accumulated approximately $22,227.42 in medical bills to date that he and
Plaintiff are solely responsible for; and that Plaintiff’s husband also pays approximately $175.00
a month for medication related to his medical condition.
Plaintiff concludes that adding an additional $14,506.00 to her existing debts would only
add one more unsecured and unpayable debt that could not be paid in the foreseeable future.
After carefully reviewing the record, weighing the arguments of both parties, and
particularly in consideration of Plaintiff’s alleged financial difficulties, the Court reduces the
$14,506.00 in attorneys’ fees requested by Defendants by 25%, and therefore awards Defendants
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,879.00.

4

MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 1st day of June, 2018.

____________________________________
TERRY A. DOUGHTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5