Papanicolas v. Project Execution and Control Consulting, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 5/31/2017. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MICHELLE PAPANICOLAS SIPE,
PROJECT EXECUTION AND
CONTROL CONSULTING, LLC
D/B/A PEAC CONSULTING, LLC, et
Civil Action No.: CBD-12-1579
On March 9, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part Plaintiff Michelle
Papanicolas Sipe’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for attorneys’ fees, awarding Plaintiff’s counsel
$313,792.00 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and $7,759.75 in costs (“the Order”). ECF No. 249.
Upon review of the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and
remanded the order to the Court, finding error with the calculation of the attorneys’ fees. ECF
No. 255. The Court now makes the necessary adjustments to Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in
accordance with the ruling of the Fourth Circuit.
Plaintiff filed a complaint (ECF No. 4) and an amended complaint (ECF No. 32) against
Defendants Barrington Cromuel and his company Project Execution and Control Consulting,
LLC (together “Defendants”), alleging unlawful sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge.
ECF No. 32, p. 14-15. Defendants removed the case to this Court from Prince George’s County
Circuit Court. Id. at 14. On November 2, 2015, on the eve of trial before this Court, the parties
entered into a dismissal of all claims, except for the right of any party to file a petition for
attorneys’ fees and costs. See ECF Nos. 221, 223.
Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, seeking $357,092 in attorneys’ fees
and $7,759.75 in costs. ECF No. 228. This Court issued the Order, granting in part and denying
in part Plaintiff’s motion, awarding her $313,792 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and $7,759.75 in
costs. ECF No. 249. In determining the reasonable costs, the Court relied on Appendix B of the
Local Rules for the District of Maryland and applied the rates Appendix B deemed acceptable.
Id. p. 10. By applying those rates, however, the Court awarded Plaintiff fees higher than those
charged by her attorneys, specifically for time kept by Michael Brody, Jamera Cherry, Jessica
Richardson, and William Fuller. ECF 255, p. 3. Defendants appealed. ECF No. 251.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the appeal and in an unreported opinion reversed and
remanded the Order. ECF No. 255 p.4. The Fourth Circuit determined that the Court
overcompensated Plaintiff by awarding her $150 per hour, as listed in Appendix B, for the hours
worked between July 2014 through 2015 by the individuals listed above. Id. at 3. This rate,
however, was $20 per hour in excess to the $130 per hour Plaintiff’s attorneys charged for the
work done by those individuals. Id. As a result, the Fourth Circuit remanded with direction “to
recalculate the fees generated by Brody, Cherry, Richardson, and Fuller.” Id. at 4. The Fourth
Circuit rejected Defendants other arguments made in support of reducing the Order. Id.
The chart below recalculates the rates charged for the hours worked by Mr. Brody, Ms.
Cherry, Ms. Richardson, and Mr. Fuller, and reduces their awarded hourly rate by $20 per hour,
from $150 per hour to $130 per hour, pursuant to the Fourth Circuit’s instruction.
Initials on Billing
Hourly Rate and
Jan-June 2014: $115 x
($115 x .3) +
($130 x 55.65)
July-Dec 2014: $150 x
Jan-June 2014: $115 x
($115 x 18.3) +
($130 x 58.7)
July 2014-2015: $150 x
2015: $150 x 3.8 hours
($130 x 3.8)
2015: $150 x 47.3 hours
($130 x 52.8)
Based on the above recalculations, the Court reduces Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’
fees by $3,419.00, the difference between the previous total of $27,781.50, based on the $150
per hour billing rate, and the new recalculated total of $24,362.50, based on the $130 per hour
billing rate. Thus, Plaintiff’s total award of $313,792.00 in attorneys’ fees is reduced to
$310,373.00, along with $7,759.75 in costs.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $310,373.00 in reasonable
attorneys’ fees and $7,759.75 in costs.
May 31, 2017
Charles B. Day
United States Magistrate Judge
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?