Midas International Corporation v Poulah Investors, LLC et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/16/2017. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

-_FILED
--

__

ENTERED

LOGGED--RECEIVED

IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TilE mSTRICT OF MARYLAND

JUN 1 62017
AT GREENBELT

SOlltllerll Dil'isioll

CL R K.U.S. DISTRICT COURT
6I S
BY
TRICT OF MARYLAND

DEPUTY
MIDAS INTEI{NATIONAL
CORPORATION,

*
*

PI"intiff,
C"s~ No.: G.III-IS-22.tll

*
POULAII

INVESTORS, LLC,

et :/1.,
*

D~f~nd"nts.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Midas international
against Defendants
Atanis Kadjemse.

Corporation

Poulah Im'estors.
Apolin Pougoum.

for breach of contract.

trademark

*

or "Plaintiff')

Motion ti)r Delilult Judgment

granted. in part. and denicd.

Judgment

Motion Summary

with respect to the tradcmark
motion li)r attorneys'

I Pin cites 10 doculllellts
by that sy~lcrn.

filed 011the

Collt1"S

DetCndants").
Franchisc

dismissed

fi-om

thc Court granted

against DetCndant Poulah ",ith respect to liability. and

Judgment

",ith respect to liability and damages

lile a subsequcnt

Opinion.

in part. thc Motion ",ith rcspect to damages.

Court also granted Plaintiffs
Ikfcndants

(the "individual

and other claims relating to the partics'

the action. See ECF Nos. 31 . .t5. and 4R. in an earlicr Memorandum
Plaintiffs

brought this action

See lOCI' No. I. DetCndants Djampa and Pougoum "'ere previously

Agrcemcnt.

*

and Laurent Djampa. Clovis Djeuteha.

and Martin Tegangtehouang

infringcment.

*

OPINION

("Midas"

LLC ("Poulah").

*

*

lOCI' No. 56 at 20.1 The

against the remaining

for breach of the guaranty.

infringcmcnt

Individual

but denied Summary

claim. Id Thc Court instructed

PlaintilTto

fecs and costs. See id at 13. 19-2(1. Now pending beti)I'C

electronic

filing systelll (CM/ECF)

refer to the page !lumbers gcncrtllcd

thc Court is Plaintitrs

Motion for Attorncys'

Fecs and Costs. ECF No. 58. No hcaring is

nccessary.

See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2(16). For the I(lilowing rcasons.Plaintilfs

Attorncys'

Fccs and Costs is grantcd in the amount of $31.031.30

attorncys'

fccs and $1.011.30

with post-judgmcnt

I.

in costs. prcviously

asscsscd

intcrcst to accruc at the statutory

-

including

Motionl(>r
$30.020.00

in

by thc Clerk of Court. ECF No. 60-

ratc pursuant to 28 U.S.C

~ 1961.

BACKGROUND
Thc filcts of this casc wcrc fully sct I(lrth inthc Court's

Midas. a franchisor
agrccmcnt

of automoti\'c

(thc "Franchisc

Agrecmcnt"")

ECF No. 35-1 at 3. 27-43.
Agrccmcnt
assigncd

specialty

Agrccmcnt

The Indi\'idual

Dclendants

Agrccmcnt.

ECF No. 35-1 at 44. 49-51.

othcr things. to pay monthly
wcrc tcrminated.
Midas tradcmark.

Franchise

in its linancial
Agrccmcnt

In2012 . .I&D

'1 15-16:

ECF No. 35-1

wcrc named as Rclated Partics and Guarantors

would "immcdiatcly

obtain counscl or otherwise

Whcn thc partics'
dclinquent

LLC ECF No. I

thc Franchiscc

and pcrmancntly

see itl. at 39. The Franchisc Agrccmcnt

bc cntitlcd to recovcr attorncys'

15:

to assign its rights undcr thc

ECF No. 35-1 at 34-35.

Under the Agrccment.

'i

ofthc

agrccd. among

to Midas. see id at 28. and in thc cvcnt thc Agrccmcnt

royaltics

thc Franchiscc

in 1994. See ECF No. I

allowcd.l&D

to Poulah Invcstors.

at 3: 44-48.

rcquircdto

Agrccmcnt

to anothcr party. subjcct to Midas' conscnt.

thc Franchisc

ECF No. 56.

shops. cntcrcd into a li'anchisc and tradcmark

with .I&D Automotivc

Thc Franchisc

prcvious Opinion.

discontinuc"

usc of thc

furthcr providcd that if Midas wcrc

incur legal cxpcnscs

undcr thc Agrccmcnt.

Midas would

fees and costs. Id at 41.

Franchisc
obligations

Agrccmcnt

was sct to expire in Novcmbcr

to Midas. See ECF No. I

cxpired on Novembcr

'i

18: ECF

2014. Poulah was

0.35-1

at 5. Thc

7. 2014. ECF No. 35-1 at 5-6. Poulah continucd

opcrate as a Midas shop and usc thc Midas logo and trademark.

2

dcspitc thc tcrmination

ofthc

to

Agreement.
trademark

See ECF No. I
infringement

brcach of thc guaranty

~i
25:

ECF No. 35-1 at 6, 60. Midas subsequently

against all Defendants,
against thc Indi\'idual

Upon I'laintifrs
against thc rcmaining

Defendants.

Dd'cndants,

against Poulah for tradcmark

infringement

Dcfendants

guaranty.

Illr brcach ofthc

Motion fiJI' Attorncys'

breach of contract against Poulah Invcstors,

Motion I,"' Dcfault Judgmcnt
Individual

brought suit I'll'
and

See ECF No. I.

against I'oulah and Summary

the Court entcredjudgmcnt

Judgmcnt

inl(\\'{lr of Plaintiff

and breach of contract. and against thc Individual

See ECF No. 56: ECF No. 57. Plaintil'fhas

Fccs and Costs, ECF No. 58. Delendants

no\\' lilcd a

have not responded

to Plaintilrs

Motion. and the time fiJI' doing so has passed.

II.

STANDARD
"Maryland

prevailing

follo\\'s the common

la\\' 'American

party is not a\\'arded attorney's

the parties to a contract
1lI.I'lI/alilll1

OF RI'VIF:W

have an agrcement

& Il11pro\'el11elll CII.

!'.

Rlillil/a,

lees.

Rule:

IButJ Ic !ourts

that authorizes

which states that. gencrally,
make exceptions

where

Ias

rectl\'ery of attorney

lees:'

/leal'/7

No. 09-CV -00990-A W. 2011 WI. 220091. at

Md. Jan. 21. 2011). a{t'd, 456 F. App'x 311 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing NII!'a Research.
hllck

l,ea.l'il1g ('0 .. Lf' .. 405 Md. 435 (Md. 2008).

54(d) and 28 U.s.c.

~ 1920, the prevailing

a

Additionally,

I

here

* 1 (D.

/1It'. \'. I'm.lke

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 1'.

party is cntitled to costs Irom the non-prcvailing

party.
The starting point i'lr detcrmining
"the number of hours reasonably

expended,

the proper amount of a fee a\\'ard is the "lodestar:'
multiplied

by a reasonable

hourly rate:'

461 U.S. 424. 433 (1983): see a/so RIII11 Creek Clla/ Sa/e.l'. /I1C. \'. Caperlol1,

/11'11.1/1'.1',

31 F.3d 169, 174

(4th Cir. 1994). The jX1I1ysceking an award ofattorney"s

Ices "bcars the burden of establishing

entitlement

hours expendcd

to an award and documenting

the appropriate

,
.J

or

and hourly rates:'

1ll!l1.Iley. 461 U.S. at 437. The eOUrl shall adjust the number of hours to delete duplicath'c

unrelatcd

hours. and thc number of hours must be rcasonable

"billingjudgment."

RI/III

and rcprescnt

Ciwk Coal Sall!.I'. 31 F.3d at 175 (citing IIm.lley.

In this jurisdiction.
Loc. R. 109 and Appendix

a motion rcquesting

an award of allorneys'

or

the product of
461 U.S. at437).

Ices and costs must I(lilow

B (D. Md . .July I. 2016). Loc. R. 109(2)(b) provides that:

Any motion requcsting
thc award of allorneys'
Ices must be
supported by a memorandum
selling forth the nature of thc case.
the claims as to which the parly prevailed. the claims as to which
the party did not prevail. a detailed description
of the work
performed broken down by hours or fractions thereof expended on
each task. the allorney's
customary fee f())" such like work. thc
customary
fce for like work prevailing
in thc allorncy's
community. a listing of any cxpenditures for which reimbursemcnt
is sought. I and I any additional lilelorS ...
Loc. R. I 09(2)(b).

Appendix

upon length of time admilled
III.

B provides Guidelines

Regarding

Iiourly Ratcs

!())"

lawycrs. bascd

to thc bar. SI!I! Loe. R. app. 13(3)2

ANALYSIS
Section

expenses.

10.4 of the parties'

stating in rele,'ant

Franchise

Agrcement

provides

lor allorneys'

Ices and relatcd

part that:

In the cvent Midas is rcquired to employ legal counsel or to incur
other cxpense to enf(wce any obligation of Franchiscc hcreunder.
or to delend against any claim. dcmand. action. or proceeding by
rcason of Franchiscc's
li,ilure to pcrform any obligation imposed
upon Franchisee by this agrecment. and provided that legal action .
. . establishes Franchisee's delilllit hcreundcr. then Midas shall be
cntitlcd to rccovcr Irom Franchisee the amount of rcasonable
allorncys' l"ees of such counsel and all other expenscs incurrcd ...
ECF No. 35-1 at 4 J. This Court previously
Midas now submits its Memorandum

entered judgmcnt

and documcntation

in favor of Midas. SI!I! ECF 1'\0.56.

in supporl of its rcqucst I(lr allorncys'

Lawvers lJdmittcd to the bar for less than five (5) ..
years: SI50-225. Law\'ers admitted to the bar for livc (5) to ci!.!.ht
.
~
(8) years: S 165-300. L<l"'yers admitted to the bar for nine (9) 10 fourteen (14) years: $225-350. Ll\vyers admitted to
the bar for fifteen (15) to nineteen (19) years: $275-425. Lawyers admitted to the bar for twenty (20) years or more:
5300-475. Paralegals and la\l' clerks: 595-150. Loc. R. app. B (D, Md. July I. 2(16).

2

4

fees. Midas attaches the Declarations of Harold R. Bruno. III of Robinson. Waters. & O'!)orisio.

-

P.e. ("RWO"). and Stuart A. Schwaller of Lerch. Earlv
.

& Ikewcr. Chtd. ("LEB"). thc two lirms

that represented Midas in this action. Midas seeks $25.939.00 in attorneys' fees Itlr the work of
RWO and $4081.00 It))'the \\'ork ofLEB.totaling

$30.020.00. ECF No. 58 at 8.

Mr. Bruno. of RWO. attests that he has been licensed to practice law since 1985. and
thereltlre rcquests an hourly ratc of$325 and $250. ECl' No. 58.1 ';'12.8. Bruno further rcquests
hourly rates between $185-$340 per hour for other attorneys at his linn. which Bruno attests are
within the reasonable hourly rates set Itmh at Appendix B of the Local Rules./d.

'I'i 8_9

3

RWO

attaches Account Statements. breaking down the hours expended on this matter by date.
individual. description of work. time. and hourly rate. ECF No. 58.2 at 1-6. RWO has also noted
the litigation phase during which each task was condueted. Ill. RWO further provides a statement
of costs and expenses. /d. at 5. Mr. Bruno attests that the linn subtraeted $1914.00 for fees
incurred on matters unrelated to the judgment entered. ECF No. 58.1 ~ 6. Therefore. the total
requested amount Itlr the work ofRWO is $25.939.00./d.

~ 7. The Courtllnds

this amount to be

reasonable. See Firsl Baokers Corp, ". The WaleI' Wilch Fire Co. loc .. No. CIV.A. RDB.09.975.
2010 WL 3239361. at * I (D. Md. Aug. 16. 2010) ("When the applicant for a fee has carried Iits J
burden of showing that the claimed rate and number of hours are reasonable. the resulting
product is presumed to be the reasonable fee to which co unsci is entitled.") (citing l'eol1.lY/l'lIoia
". /)e/lIIl'are

Va//el' ('il i::eos' CO/loci/ .jiJr ('/eao Air. 478 U.S. 546. 565 (1986».
.

.' Mr. Bruno attests to the reasonableness of these rates without attaching additional affidavits or sUPP0l1 \'crifying
the years of practice for the other R WO attorneys. Nonetheless. the Court notes Ihal publicly-available information
appears to corroborate the respective years of practice and requested rates for each orthe R\VO attorneys named in
this mailer.

5

Mr. Schwager. of LEH. testifies that he has been licensed to practice law since 1992. and
rcquests a rcasonable hourly rate of$385.00.~ ECF No. 58-3

'i~ 6. Schwager
2.

also attaches

Profcssional Services Invoices breaking down the hours expended by description of services.
hours. and rate. ECF No. 58-4 at J-9. This provides suflicient documentation. See." e.g. {.ouers
\'. L{/(~r. o. CIV. JKS-IO-2292. 2011 WL 6258469. at *2 (I). Md. Dec. 14.2011) (noting that
N

counsel "sufliciently documented the time billed" where counsel had provided a table of
expenditures). Schwager further attests that costs ineluded a $400.00 filing ICe. and private
process servicc of $685.00. \\hich was reduced proportionally by the attempted or actual service
on Defendants Djampa and Pougoum. ECF No. 58-3 ~ 12. Thus. LEB requests a total of
$4081.00 in fees and $1.0 I 1.30 in costs. The Court likewise finds these amounts reasonable
considering the tasks undertaken in this matter. See. e.g .. {{al1m'er /I1S. CO.
CO/ll{Jl/llies.

{I1C
..

No. GJII-13-4 72. 20 15 WL 4496448. at *4 (D. Md. July

1'.

Persaud

n. 2(15)

(finding

request for fees reasonable when hourly rates comported with J\ppendix B and court had
independently reviewed the number of hours worked)s
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiffs Motion for J\ttorneys' Fees and Costs is granted
against Defendants Poulah Investors. LLC. Clovis Djeutcha. J\tanis Kadjemse. and Marlin
Tegangtchouang.jointly

and severally. in the amount 01'$30.020.00 in attorneys' Ices and

Mr. Stuart A. Scll\'",H!.cr was the onl\' attornev from LEB that worked 011 this case. 5;ee ECF No '8-4 at 1-9
for Att~rne\'s' Fees. piaintilTiJ;dicated
that a motion to dismis's th~ relllainin!!, trad~l1lark claim's
would be tiled. but no sucl; liIing was ever madc. ECF No. 58 at 3. Additionally. the Court
previously indicated
that PlaintifTappcars to have abandoned its claim of unfair competition. ECF No. 56 at 17 n.1O. Thus. the remaining
counts in this C<lSt: \\ ill be dismissed as abandoned.
I

~ In its Motion

has

6

$1.011.30 in costs. which were previously taxed in favor of Plaintiffby the Clerk of Court. I'ostjudgment interest will accrue at the statutory rate set f'l1rthat 28 U.S.c.
shall issue.

Date: June

* 1961. A separate Order

It:f-

{&. 2017

GEORGE J. HAZEL

United States District Judge

7