Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Gray et al
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 12/28/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 12/29/15)
___
___
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
METROPOLITAN
COMPANY
LIFE INSURANCE
Plaintiff,
v.
SHARON JONES, ct al.,
Defendants.
,FILED
lOOGED
ENTERED
RECEIVED
--
DEC 2 9 2015 fc/II. (;i"~t"'.cl..l
T
ClEf\;( U.S. DISTRICT COURT
OlSlRlCT OF MAilYtAIIo
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ay
0EI'Iny
Civil Action No. CBD-13-1956
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
On August 19,2015, the Court ruled that Plaintiff, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, was entitled to reimbursement of its attorney's fees and costs, ECF 57. The Court
directed Plaintiff to provide a supporting affidavit, which has now been submitted. See Affidavit
of John S. Bolesta in Support of Payment of Reasonable Attorney's Fees ("Plaintiffs
Affidavit"), ECF 60. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs Affidavit, and the opposition and reply
thereto. No hearing is deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs Affidavit requesting payment of fees and
expenses.
I. Determining
Reasonable
Fees
Plaintiff claims $4,470.48 in attorney's fees and costs. The Supreme Court has
established a method. commonly called the "lodestar," for determining a reasonable fcc. The
starting point in the lodestar calculation is "the number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate:' Hensley v. Eckerhart. 461 U.S. 424, 434
(1983); see Robinson v. Eguifax Info. Servs .. LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243 (4th CiT. 2009). The
Court has endorsed a list of twelve factors, first articulated by the Fifih Circuit in Johnson v,
Georgia Highway Express, Inc .. 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), which aid a court in determining a
reasonable fee. These factors are:
(I) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the
questions; (3) the skill requisite to perfonn the legal service
properly; (4) the preclusion of 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 results
obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the
attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (II) the nature and
length of the prolcssional relationship with the client; and
(12) awards in similar cases .
.!sL at 717-19. The Fourth Circuit has directed courts to consider these twelve factors when
calculating the lodestar amount. Robinson. 560 F.3d at 243-44.
A. Time and labor expended, and the experience of the attorneys
The Fourth Circuit has held that a party seeking a fee award "must produce satisfactory
specific evidence of the prevailing market rates in the relevant community for the type of work
for which she seeks an award." Robinson, 560 F.3d at 244 (citing Plyer v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273,
277 (4th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted)). However, failing to provide affidavits from independent
counsel is not fatal, for the Court may rely on its o',,",n
knowledge of the market in determining
reasonable fees for that community.
While Plaintiff has not provided information regarding the
local market rates, the 20 II Local Rules provide guidelines for determining the applicable hourly
rates in Maryland during the period of this work;
a.
b.
c.
d.
Lawyers
Lawyers
Lawyers
Lawyers
admitted
admitted
admitted
admitted
to
to
to
to
the
the
the
the
bar
bar
bar
bar
for
for
for
for
less than five (5) years; $150-190.
five (5) to eight (8) years; $165-250.
nine (9) to fourteen (14) years: $225-300.
fifieen (15) years or more: $275-400.
2
e. Paralegals and law clerks: $95-115.
Local Rules App. B, 3 (D. Md.) (July 1,2011).
In July 2014, the Local Rules were amended to
increase the guidelines regarding hourly rates to the following:
a. Lawyers admitted to the bar for less than five (5) years: $150-225.
b. Lawyers admitted to the bar for five (5) to eight (8) years: $165-300.
c. Lawyers admitted to the bar for nine (9) to fourteen (14) years: $225-350.
Paralegals and law clerk rates were elevated to a range of $95-$150. These billable rates reflect
the presumption that a more experienced attorney is deserving of greater hourly compensation
because they are expected to perform more efficiently. See Int'! Ass'n of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers v. Werner-Masuda, 390 F. Supp. 2d 479, 491 (D. Md. 2005).
Plaintiffs Affidavit requests payment for three attorneys and a paralegal, namely John S.
Bolestra, Amanda N. Pickens, Jenna Mennona and Joyce L. Wolfgang. Plaintiffs Affidavit sets
forth the specific hours and tasks performed by each timekeeper, and the attached exhibit
provides support for the representation that the request for payment does not include matters
relating to the counterclaims against Plaintiff. The Court finds that all of the services and
expenses fairly and appropriately relate to the compensable matters to which the Court has
granted relief.
Plaintiff seeks payment for Mr. Bolestra's fees at a "reduced billing rate of$282/hour."
While Plaintiff has not included affidavits from independent counsel regarding the prevailing
reasonable fees in the legal community typically served by the Court, the website for Mr.
Bolestra's firm indicates that he graduated from law school in 2005. More important, the Client
Trust Fund of the Bar of Maryland provides that Mr. Bolestra was admitted to the bar of
Maryland in December 2005. Accordingly, under Appendix B of the Local Rules, Mr.
3
Bolestra's guideline rate is governed by the range for an attorney admitted for five to eight years.
This range is $ I 65-2501hour through the end of June 2014. Thereafter, it increased to $350/hour.
For purposes of this award, the Court will direct payment for services provided through June
2014 at the rate of $250Ihour, and thereafter at the rate of $282Ihour. Mr. Bolestra billed 7.4
hours prior to July 2014, and .4lhour thereafter. Accordingly, the Court directs payment for his
services in the amount of $1 ,962.80.
Plaintiff seeks payment for Ms. Pickens' fees at a "reduced billing rate of $250Ihour."
While the firm website reflects Ms. Pickens graduated from law school in 20 11, it does not
indicate when she was admitted to the bar. In her application for membership to the bar of this
Court, she represented under oath that she was admitted to the New York bar in 2012. Under
Appendix B, Ms. Pickens' guideline rate is governed by the range for an attorney admitted for
less than five years. This range is $150-190 for the period of her service. For purposes of this
award, the Court will direct payment at the rate of $190Ihour. Ms. Pickens billed 2.4 hours.
Accordingly, the Court directs payment for her services in the amount of $456.00.
Plaintiff seeks payment for Ms. Mennona's fees at a "reduced billing rate of$250Ihour."
The firn1 website reflects Ms. Mennona is a 2014 graduate of law school. The Client Trust Fund
of the Bar of Maryland provides that Ms. Mennona was admitted to the Maryland bar in
December 2014. Under Appendix B, Ms. Mennona's guideline rate is governed by the range for
an attorney admitted for less than five years. This range is $150-225 for the period of her
service. For purposes of this award, the Court will direct payment at the rate of $225/hour. Ms.
Mennona billed 2.5 hours. Accordingly, the Court directs payment for her services in the
amount of $562.50.
4
Plaintiff seeks payment for Ms. Wolfgang's services at a "billing rate of$16I/hour."
Ms.
Wolfgang is a Paralegal. Under Appendix B, Ms. Wolfgang's guideline rate is governed by the
range of$9S-llS
for the period of her service. For purposes of this award, the Court will direct
payment at the rate of $1 IS/hour. Ms. Wolfgang billed one hour. Accordingly, the Court directs
payment for her services in the amount of $11S.00.
The sum of the fees for legal services provided is $3,096.30. The Court has similarly
considered the costs incurred and find them to be reasonable and related to the compensable
matters to which the Court has granted relief. The costs are $1,119.48. Therefore, the total
award for fees and costs incurred is $4,2IS.78.
B. Novelty, difficulty and other concerns
The services provided by Plaintiff s counsel did not relate to legal matters that were
particularly novel or complex. Nonetheless, the services were reasonable and necessary.
Defendant Thomas suggests the Court should limit the recovery to Plaintiffs lead counsel and
the cost to the filing fees. Such an approach has no support in the law, and is contrary to notion
of fairness on this record.
The propriety of awarding fees and costs to the party initiating an interpleader action is
left to the discretion of the court. The court is to be guided by notions offairness and equity.
Jefferson Pilot Financial Ins. Co. v. Bucklev, No. 3:04cv783, 200S WL 221076, at *2 (E.D. Va.
Jan. 13, 200S).
"Courts have declined to award attorneys' fees and costs where the amount of
fees and costs claimed would significantly deplete the total fund at issue." Reliastar Life Ins. Co.
of New York v. Lemone, No. 7:0ScvOOS4S, 2006 WL 733968, at *3 (W.O. Va. Mar. 16,2006).
Here, making an award of less than $4,SOO.00 regarding a fund of more than $SO,OOO.OO
does not
S
amount to a significant depletion. Equally, a plaintiff who has "no dog in the fight" should not
be required to "absorb attorneys' fees in avoiding the possibility of multiple litigation." Aetna
Life Ins. Co. v. Outlaw, 411 F. Supp. 824, 826 (D. Md. 1976).
Plaintiff has carefully limited its request to the matters regarding the drafting of the
Complaint, the review of client documents, the review of Local Rules regarding redactions, the
filing of the Complaint, issues regarding service, and a motion to deposit funds. In some
respects, the Court has reduced Plaintiffs billable rate request even though it finds no fault with
the amount sought, merely that the rates are higher than the Local Rules prescribe.
Plaintiffs counsel correctly notes that a good portion of the services were provided by
less experienced counsel. If the Court were to adopt the approach suggested by Mr. Thomas, it
would be incentivizing future counsel to assign less difficult work to its most experienced
counsel who would submit reimburscment requests at a more costly hourly rate. Neither the total
time spent, the fees charged nor expenses incurred by. Plaintiff in this interpleader action is
unreasonable.
In summary, the Court adopts the following sentiments as expressed in a very similar
case in this Court:
Having dismissed [defendant's] counterclaims against MetLife,
MetLife is a disinterested stakeholder. Met Life filed this
interpleader action seeking a judicial determination as to whom to
pay the Policy. Met Life does not contest its obligation to pay, and
has already deposited the funds in the Court's registry. MetLife has
no interest in whether [one defendant or another] is determined to
be the recipient of the Proceeds of the Policy. Thus MetLife is a
mere stakeholder and will be awarded its reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs in the amount of [] to be paid from the interpleader
fund in the Court's registry.
6
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Davis, No. JFM-IO-2785, 2011 WL 2148714, at *7 (D. Md. 2011).
No finer words can be spoken here.
Accordingly, the Court hereby Orders the award of $4,215.78 from the interpleader funds
to be provided to Plaintiff. The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this opinion.
lsi
December 28, 2015
Charles B. Day
United States Magistrate Judge
CBDlbab
7
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?