New Paradigm Promotional Marketing, Inc v. ACF Global Imports LLC et al

Filing 75

ORDER for Supplemental Briefing re 56 Bill of Costs - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NEW PARADIGM PROMOTIONAL
MARKETING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-11320
DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

ACF GLOBAL IMPORTS, LLC,
ALL CUSTOM FOCUS GLOBAL
IMPORTS, LLC, DHAMEJA R.
KUMAR, and PETER NORMAND,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF COSTS [56]
Plaintiff New Paradigm Promotional Marketing, Inc. filed the instant breach of contract
action in the Wayne County Circuit Court on November 15, 2013, against Defendants ACF
Global Imports, LLC (ACF), All Custom Focus Global Imports, LLC, Dhameja R. Kumar, and
Peter Normand. (See docket no. 1-1.) Defendants removed the case to this Court on March 31,
2014. (Docket no. 1.) In a November 9, 2015 Opinion and Order, the Court granted in part a
Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff and ordered Defendants to pay the reasonable expenses and
attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff in bringing the Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37. (Docket no. 55.) On December 9, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a Bill of Costs.
(Docket no. 56.) Defendants did not object to the amount of attorney’s fees requested by
Plaintiff, and the time for doing so has passed.1

1

In February and May of 2016, default judgments were entered against Defendants ACF, All Custom Focus Global
Imports, LLC, and Dhameja R. Kumar; Peter Normand is the only remaining Defendant.

Rule 37(a)(5)(A) authorizes the Court to order the payment of “the reasonable expenses
incurred [by the moving party] in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A). To calculate a reasonable attorney’s fees award, courts use the “lodestar method,”
which requires the court to multiply a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours
worked. Ellison v. Balinski, 625 F.3d 953, 960 (6th Cir. 2010). The Court “has broad discretion
to determine what constitutes a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney.” Hett v. Bryant Lafayette
and Assocs., No. 10-cv-12479, 2011 WL 740460, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 24, 2011) (Borman, J.)
(quoting Wayne v. Vill. of Sebring, 36 F.3d 517, 533 (6th Cir. 1994). But “[a]ccording to the law
of this circuit, [the court] is required to adjust attorney fee rates to the local market rates for
attorneys.” Swans v. City of Lansing, 65 F.Supp.2d 625, 647 (W.D. Mich. 1998) (citing Hadix v.
Johnson, 65 F.3d 532, 536 (6th Cir. 1995)). In addition, the court considers the following factors
when calculating the reasonableness of attorney’s fees: “(1) the professional standing and
experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and
the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature
and length of the professional relationship with the client.” Miller v. Alldata Corp., 14 Fed.
Appx. 457, 468 (6th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff has provided no basis for determining the skill and experience of its attorneys.
See Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 54.1.2 (requiring that a motion for attorneys’ fees
“be supported by an affidavit of counsel setting out in detail the number of hours spent on each
aspect of the case, the rate customarily charged by counsel for such work, the prevailing rate
charged in the community for similar services, and any other factors which the Court should
consider in making the award”). Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to file supplemental
briefing that addresses this matter.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff must file, within fourteen (14) days, a
supplemental brief in support of its Bill of Costs as discussed herein. Plaintiff’s supplemental
brief is limited to ten (10) pages.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date
of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: June 13, 2016

s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon counsel of record on this date.
Dated: June 13 2016

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

3