Direct Benefits, LLC, et al v. TAC Financial Inc., et al.

Filing 311

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 2/10/2022. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:13-cv-01185-SAG Document 311 Filed 02/10/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
410 962-7780
[e-mail]

February 10, 2022

LETTER OPINION
RE: Direct Benefits, LLC, et al v. TAC Financial Inc., et al.
Civil Case No. SAG-13-1185
Dear Counsel:
In November, 2021, this Court denied two petitions for attorneys’ fees that were filed in
this case, ECF 298 and 301, because they were overinclusive and were not organized or
documented in the format required by the Local Rules of this Court. Those fee petitions sought
fees and costs for several different attorneys, totaling almost $150,000. After they were denied,
Plaintiff Andrew Gellene (“Plaintiff”) filed an amended fee petition seeking only $7,280.00 in fees
for one of his attorneys, his brother, Alfred V. Gellene, Esq. ECF 309. That petition is currently
pending, though Defendant TAC Financial Inc. has filed an opposition, ECF 310.
Despite the significant reduction in the amount of fees sought, Plaintiff’s petition still lacks
the evidentiary support required to support the reduced request. See Ochse v. Henry, 88 A.3d 773,
789 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) (requiring a movant “to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, [his] right to the amount sought.” (quoting Diamond Point Plaza Ltd. P’Ship v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 929 A.2d 932, 957 (Md. 2007))). In Alfred Gellene’s declaration, he states that
he “did not maintain full billing records regarding [his] time in [t]his case,” and that he “estimated
the actual time [he]spent on the wage claim.” ECF 309-1 at ¶¶ 2 and 3. A party “seeking an award
of fees should submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed. Where the
documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.”
Americans for Prosperity v. Grewal, 2021 WL 1153194, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2021) (quoting
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)).
Here, while Plaintiff’s documentation is grossly inadequate, this Court in fact personally
observed much of the work for which Plaintiff may properly seek fees. Although Plaintiff’s wagebased claim comprised just a small fraction of the work performed prior to, and the evidence
presented during, the trial, the wage claims took center stage once this Court dismissed the
securities claims after presentation of Plaintiff’s case. The final jury instructions and closing
arguments in the courtroom all focused exclusively on the wage claims. Based on Alfred Gellene’s
work personally observed by the Court and reasonable inferences of work that would have had to
be performed to prepare for in-court sessions, this Court believes that 14.0 hours of work on the

Case 1:13-cv-01185-SAG Document 311 Filed 02/10/22 Page 2 of 2
Direct Benefits, LLC, et al v. TAC Financial Inc., et al.
Civil No. SAG-13-1185
February 10, 2022
Page 2
wage claims constitutes a reasonable total. At Alfred Gellene’s billing rate of $350 per hour, he
is entitled to a fee award of $4,900.00. Of course, whether representing a relative or not, any
attorney intending to seek attorney’s fees at the conclusion of a case must keep detailed,
contemporaneous billing records. Had Alfred Gellene’s work not happened to occur in this Court’s
physical presence, his failure to keep such records may have resulted in a complete denial of
Plaintiff’s fee request.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s amended fee petition, ECF 309, will be granted in
part and he will be awarded fees to be paid by Defendant TAC Financial Inc. in the amount of
$4,900.00. Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of Court and will be docketed
as such.

Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States District Judge