NEDSCHROEF DETROIT CORPORATION et al v. BEMAS ENTERPRISES LLC et al
Filing
47
OPINION and ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff's 46 Motion for Damages. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NEDSCHROEF DETROIT
CORPORATION,
NEDSCHROEF HERENTALS
N.V., and KONINKLIJKE
NEDSCHROEF HOLDING
B.V.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Case No. 14-10095
Honorable Linda V. Parker
BEMAS ENTERPRISES LLC,
MARC A. RIGOLE, and
BERNARD E. LEPAGE,
Defendants.
__________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DAMAGES
On May 22, 2015, this Court issued an opinion and order granting a
summary judgment motion filed by Plaintiffs. In that decision, the Court
concluded that Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction and damages
representing (a) the wages Plaintiff Nedschroef Detroit Corporation (hereafter
“Nedschroef”) paid Defendants Marc A. Rigole and Bernard E. LePage while they
were operating a competing business, Bemas Enterprises LLC (“Bemas”), and (b)
Bemas’ net profits. The Court also concluded that Plaintiffs are entitled to
attorney’s fees, costs, and treble damages pursuant to Plaintiffs’ statutory
conversion claim, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2919a.
When Plaintiffs filed their summary judgment motion, Bemas’ net profits for
2014 had not yet been established due to Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs
with certain documentation. Therefore, the Court ordered Defendants to provide
that documentation to Plaintiffs within twenty-one days of its decision and
instructed that Plaintiffs could then file a motion seeking damages for the
additional profits. (See ECF No. 43 at Pg ID 903-04, n.4) The Court further
advised Plaintiffs to submit, at that time, proof of their reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs incurred in this action. (Id. at Pg ID 903 n.3.) Defendants had fourteen
days to file any response to Plaintiffs’ motion. (Id. at Pg ID 904.)
On June 26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Damages in which they set
forth Bemas’ profits for 2014. (ECF No. 46.) Defendants have not filed a
response to the motion. In their motion, Plaintiffs also indicate that they have
expended $171,287.50 in attorney’s fees and $47,209.00 in costs in pursuit of this
action. (Id. at Pg ID 915.) In support of these amounts, Plaintiffs submit an
affidavit from their counsel which sets forth the billable rates of the attorneys who
worked on this matter ($195 and $290) and the total fees and costs expended and
billed to Plaintiffs. (Id., Ex. 2.) Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have advised
2
the Court of the number of hours expended by counsel in this action. The Court
also has not received a description of the work performed.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to the total economic
damages sought in their motion, $1,211,045.00. After trebling, this amount totals
$3,633,135.00. Plaintiffs also are entitled to an award that includes their costs of
$47,209.18. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to provide sufficient information from
which the Court can determine whether the attorney’s fees sought are reasonable.
Michigan’s conversion statute only allows for an award of “reasonable
attorneys’ fees.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2919a(1). Generally, “the starting
point [for determining the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees] has been a
‘lodestar’ calculation-- the product of the number of hours reasonably spent on the
case by an attorney times a reasonable hourly rate.” Moore v. Freeman, 355 F.3d
557, 565 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Adcock-Ladd v. Sec’y of Treasury, 227 F.3d 343,
349 (6th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiffs’ failure to provide a summary of the hours their
counsel expended on this matter, including a brief description of that work,
prevents this Court from engaging in that calculation.
Accordingly, the Court is GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Damages. The Court will enter a judgment consistent
with this decision. If Plaintiffs wish to submit additional materials in support of
3
their requested attorney’s fee award, they may do so and the Court will enter an
amended judgment if it determines that Plaintiffs are entitled to such an award.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 7, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 7, 2015, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
Case Manager
4
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?