REDNER'S MARKETS, INC. v. JOPPATOWNE G.P. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Filing 215

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 3/17/2015. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
REDNER’S MARKETS, INC.,

*

Plaintiff,

*

V.

*

JOPPATOWNE G.P. LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,

*

Defendant.
*
*

*

*

Civil Action No.: RDB-11-1864

*
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently pending is Plaintiff Redner’s Markets, Inc. (“Redner’s”)’s Motion for
Attorneys Fees and Costs (ECF No. 206). The parties’ submissions have been reviewed and
no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 206) is GRANTED in the amount of $37,132.73.1
BACKGROUND
The background facts of this action remain as set forth in this Court’s Memorandum
Opinion of July 11, 2013 (ECF No. 179). In that Opinion and the accompanying Order &
Judgment (ECF No. 180), this Court held that Joppatowne breached the Restrictive Use
Covenant of the Lease when it permitted Lapp’s Fresh Meats and All Fresh to operate in the
Shopping Center, and also incorporated by reference the June 13, 2013 Permanent

1 Although Plaintiff requested $41,329.78 in attorneys’ fees and costs, this Court reduced the requested amount to
$37,132.73 to align with this Court’s Local Rules.
1

Injunction (ECF No. 159).2 Additionally, this Court held that Joppatowne did not breach the
covenant in question with respect to the operation of Beiler’s BBQ, Beiler’s Baked Goods,
Dutch Delights, Dutch Pantry Fudge, King’s Cheese & Deli, Kreative Kitchen, and the two
unnamed vendor stalls in the Shopping Center.
Redner’s next moved to amend this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and also requested a new trial, pursuant to Rules 52 and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (ECF No. 185). This Court denied Redner’s Motion in nearly all respects, but
granted it to the extent that Redner’s was entitled to nominal damages of $2.00. Mem.
Order, ECF No. 188. Both Joppatowne and Redner’s subsequently appealed the various
orders and judgments of this Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.3 In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgments. Redner’s
Markets, Inc. v. Joppatowne G.P. Ltd. P’Ship, ___ F. App’x ___, 2014 WL 7172475 (4th Cir.
2014).
The subject Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs arises from Defendant’s violation
of the Permanent Injunction of June 13, 2013. On or around November 11, 2013, Redner’s
learned that Lapp’s Fresh Meats, LLC (“Lapp’s”) had re-opened under a new name in the
Shopping Center. Mem. in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Att’ys Fees and Costs, 2, ECF No. 206-1.
After Joppatowne failed to address the violation of the Permanent Injunction, Redner’s filed
a Motion for Sanctions and to Declare Defendant in Contempt of Court (“Motion for

2 This Court did not award Redner’s any amount for lost profits damages related to Lapp’s Fresh Meats and All
Fresh, but subsequently determined that Redner’s was entitled to nominal damages of $2.00. See Mem. Order, ECF
No. 188.
3 Joppatowne appealed the Order and Judgment of July 11, 2013, and Redner’s cross-appealed the Orders and
Judgment of January 24, 2013, July 11, 2013, and September 17, 2013. See Redner’s Markets, Inc. v. Joppatowne G.P.
Ltd. P’Ship, ___ F. App’x ___, 2014 WL 7172475 (4th Cir. 2014) (ECF No. 213).
2

Sanctions”) (ECF No. 193). In response, Joppatowne filed a lengthy Answer (ECF No. 197),
as well as Motions to Strike (ECF No. 194) and to Dismiss (ECF No. 196) Redner’s Motion
for Sanctions. On April 29, 2014, this Court held that Joppatowne had, indeed, violated the
Order of June 13, 2013 (ECF No. 204). This Court granted Redner’s Motion for Sanctions,
denied Joppatowne’s Motions to Strike and to Dismiss, and awarded reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs to Redner’s. Id. Accordingly, Redner’s filed the pending Motion for Attorneys’
Fees and Costs (ECF No. 206).
ANALYSIS
As the prevailing party in the Permanent Injunction violation matter, Redner’s
requests reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $41,329.78. Supplement to
Pl.’s Mot. for Att’ys Fees and Costs, 1, ECF No. 207. The calculation of a reasonable fee
award, or lodestar award, is reached by multiplying the reasonable hours expended by a
reasonable hourly rate. In assessing the reasonableness of the hours and rate claimed, the
court considers the following twelve factors:
(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of
the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform
the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs
in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like
work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of the
litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or
circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results
obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the
attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal
community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of
the professional relationship between attorney and client; and
(12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.
Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1402 n.18 (4th Cir. 1987).

3

A. Attorneys’ Fees
This Court will consider the first, second, and seventh lodestar factors together.
When Redner’s discovered the violation at issue, Redner’s counsel first contacted
Joppatowne’s counsel to settle the matter without this Court’s involvement. See Motion for
Sanctions Ex. E, ECF No. 193-7. Only after Joppatowne failed to remedy the violation did
Redner’s file the Motion for Sanctions. In response to Redner’s Motion, Joppatowne filed a
lengthy Answer and voluminous Motions to Strike and to Dismiss. Although the violation of
this Court’s June 13, 2013 Order was clear and hardly a complex issue, the Defendant’s
actions substantially increased the time and labor spent by Plaintiff’s counsel. Redner’s
attorneys worked diligently and quickly to remedy the violation and ensure the removal of
Lapp’s Fresh Meats from the Shopping Center. These factors support the reasonableness of
Redner’s attorneys’ combined 107.1 hours expended, in light of the relevant lodestar factors.
Turning next to the quality of representation, results obtained, and undesirability of
the case, this Court notes that Redner’s counsel fared well in litigating this matter. Although
initial negotiations between the parties failed, Redner’s counsel successfully litigated the
violation issue before this Court and obtained its requested sanctions for Joppatowne’s
conduct. All four attorneys are experienced and effective attorneys, and they argued
zealously on behalf of Plaintiff. Although the violation itself was not complex or particularly
undesirable, success on this issue required persistent and reasonable advocacy, both between
the parties and before this Court. The violation issue was only the latest in a long history of
litigation between the parties, and Redner’s attorneys ably exhibited the requisite skill set.

4

The fourth factor – the attorneys’ opportunity costs – ask this Court to consider
whether Redner’s attorneys’ dedication to the violation dispute came at the expense of other
prospective or existing matters. Plaintiff’s Memorandum fails to address whether this matter
forced its attorneys to forego any opportunities. Absent any evidence on this subject, this
factor neither supports nor weakens Plaintiff’s Motion.
As to the requested rates and counsel’s expectations for payment, Joppatowne
contends that this Court should reduce the requested rates to rates comfortably within the
guidelines set by Appendix B to this Court’s Local Rules.4 In response, Redner’s cites to the
affidavit of its expert witness, Attorney Paul Mark Sandler, in which Mr. Sandler testified
that Redner’s requested rates are reasonable within the community. Sandler Aff. ¶ 9, ECF
No. 206-5. Admittedly, the guidelines of the Local Rules are intended solely to provide
guidance, and thus are not mandatory. Yet, this Court finds no reason to permit Redner’s
requested upper adjustments. Redner’s attorneys advocated ably on behalf of their client, but
the violation of a permanent injunction did not present particularly thorny or complex legal
issues. The requested rates are thus adjusted to levels within the guideline ranges.5
With respect to the nature and length of the professional relationship between
Redner’s and its attorneys, this permanent injunction violation is merely the latest issue in a
long history of litigation between Redner’s and Joppatowne. The attorneys now requesting

4 John Miravich, an attorney with twenty-five years of experience, requested a rate of $490.50 per hour. The
guideline range for an attorney of his experience is $300-$475. Samuel Cortes, an attorney with eleven years of
experience, requested a rate of $369.00. The guideline range for an attorney of his experience is $225-$350. J.
Benjamin Nevius, an attorney with ten years of experience, requested a rate of $319.50. The guideline range for an
attorney of his experience is also $225-$350. Finally, Jason Hobbes, an attorney with six years of experience,
requested a rate of $265.50. The guideline range for an attorney of his experience is $165-$300.
5 John Miravich will thus receive $400 per hour, Samuel Cortes will receive $300 per hour, J. Benjamin Nevius will
receive $300 per hour, and Jason Hobbes will receive $250 per hour.
5

reimbursement are the same attorneys that represented Redner’s at the initiation of the
subject litigation in 2011. The relationship between Plaintiff and its counsel is thus
longstanding and fruitful, given the history of this action.
After weighing all of the relevant factors, this Court finds that Redner’s requested
amount is generally reasonable as adjusted. Accordingly, this Court will award $32,935.00 in
attorneys’ fees.
B. Costs and Expenses
Redner’s requests reimbursement for two expenditures related to the violation at
issue. First, Redner’s incurred $1,177.73 when it hired a private investigator, Sean Gordon,
to examine and document Joppatowne’s violation of this Court’s June 13, 2013 Order.
Second, in preparation for the pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Redner’s
counsel obtained Paul Mark Sandler, a local attorney, to testify to the reasonableness of its
requested rates and time spent litigating the violation. Redner’s paid Mr. Sandler a total of
$2,420.00 for his services. This Court holds that both requested reimbursements are
reasonable, and will accordingly be incorporated into the final sum.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff Redner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs (ECF No. 206) is GRANTED, and this Court awards attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$32,935.00 and $3,597.73 in costs and expenses, for a total of $37,132.73.
A separate order follows.
Dated: March 17, 2015

/s/
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge
6