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
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?