Castleberry v. Daimler Chrysler Truck Financial et al

Filing 94

ORDER Requiring Supplemental Exhibit re: 92 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Daimler Chrysler Truck Financial, signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (MWil)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DOMINIC CASTLEBERRY, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11460 Plaintiff, DISTRICT JUDGE ROBERT H. CLELAND v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN DAIMLER CHRYSLER TRUCK FINANCIAL “aka” CHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICAS, LLC, Defendant. ______________________________/ ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT On April 2, 2013, Defendant Daimler Chrysler Truck Financial “aka” Chrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC (“Defendant”) filed a motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to the terms of Plaintiff Dominic Castleberry’s August, 2007 finance agreement and Fed R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). Docket #92. Defendant submitted an affidavit and exhibits showing invoices for “legal services rendered in pursuing and defending [same] litigation” for $108, 845.77 in attorney fees and $420.77 in costs.” Id., Exhibit 1 ¶7. However, the invoices do not demarcate between work performed defending Plaintiff’s claims (brought under Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b), 1681s-2, and Michigan Collection Practices Act (“MCPA”), M.C.L. § 445.251 et seq.) and Defendant’s counterclaim for breach of contract. Within seven days, Defendant will provide this Court with a breakdown of fees and costs showing the portions attributable to (1) defense of the original claims, and (2) pursuit of the counterclaim for breach of contract. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: September 16, 2013 s/R. Steven Whalen R. STEVEN WHALEN, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on September 16, 2013, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. s/Michael Williams Case Manager for the Honorable R. Steven Whalen

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?