Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hill

Filing 132

ORDER Approving Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company's fee request. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 1/10/2020. (jtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:15-CV-166-DMB-JMV

CANDACE L. WILLIAMSON and
SAMMY J. ELLIS, as co-executors of the
Estate of Purvis William Hill, Jr.

DEFENDANTS

CONSOLIDATED WITH
CANDACE L. WILLIAMSON and
SAMMY J. ELLIS, as co-executors of the
Estate of Purvis William Hill, Jr.
V.

PLAINTIFFS

NO. 4:15-CV-184-DMB-JMV

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY and JOHN
DOES 1–3

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On April 4, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued an order directing
Candace Williamson to pay to Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Mass Mutual”)
attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,000. Doc. #74. On December 26, 2019, this Court, on Mass
Mutual’s motion, found Williamson in civil contempt due to her failure to pay the $3,000, and
directed Mass Life to submit documentation showing the losses it sustained in seeking to enforce
the April 4 order. Doc. #130. Mass Mutual submitted the required documentation on January 2,
2020. Doc. #131. Mass Mutual’s submission shows that it incurred $17,613.50 in attorney’s fees,
representing 59.2 hours of work, in its attempt to enforce Judge Virden’s order. Doc. #131-1 at 9.

Despite being provided an opportunity to do so, Williamson did not respond to Mass Life’s
submission.
Sanctions for civil contempt must be coercive or compensatory. In re White-Robinson,
777 F.3d 792, 795 (5th Cir. 2015). To be compensatory, attorney’s fees must reasonably
compensate the party in its efforts to seek enforcement of the violated order. See In re Skyport
Glob. Commc’ns, Inc., 661 F. App’x 835, 842 (5th Cir. 2016) (affirming contempt sanction where
it “reasonably compensate[d]” party).
The calculation of attorney’s fees involves a well-established process. First, the
court calculates a lodestar fee by multiplying the reasonable number of hours
expended on the case by the reasonable hourly rates for the participating lawyers.
The court then considers whether the lodestar figure should be adjusted upward or
downward depending on the circumstances of the case. In making a lodestar
adjustment the court should look to twelve factors, known as the Johnson factors,
after Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974). The
factors are: (1) the time and labor required for the litigation; (2) the novelty and
difficulty of the questions presented; (3) the skill required to perform the legal
services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to
acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or
contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the
amount involved and the result obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability
of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of
the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.
Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir. 1998) (cleaned up).
Mass Mutual’s fee request involves four separate hourly rates: (1) a $400 hourly rate for
Thomas Woodall, an attorney with more than thirty years of experience; (2) a $385 hourly rate for
Kristen Cross, an attorney with twenty years of experience; (3) a $285 hourly rate for Alyse
Windsor, an attorney with four years of experience; and (4) a $150 hourly rate for Deana
Breckenridge, a paralegal. The Court concludes that these rates, while on the high end, are
reasonable, given the experience of the legal professionals involved. See Olivia Y. v. Barbour, No.
3:04-cv-251, 2016 WL 11609575, at *2 (S.D. Miss. May 6, 2016) (finding reasonable $300 hourly
2

rate for attorney with 29 years of experience and $350 hourly rate for attorney with over 30 years
of experience) (collecting Mississippi cases); Wiemer v. Rubin, No. 1:16-cv-99, 2019 WL
2461814, at *2 (S.D. Miss. June 12, 2019) (approving $130 hourly rate for paralegal).
Furthermore, while 59.2 hours of work may seem excessive for enforcement of a $3,000 fee award,
Williamson’s contumacious bad faith conduct, which stretched over the course of years,1 made
such efforts necessary. Finally, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Court declines to
make a lodestar adjustment.
Accordingly, Mass Mutual’s fee request is APPROVED.

Candace Williamson is

ORDERED to pay to Mass Mutual $17,613.50 in fees. Williamson must make such payment no
later than 12:00 p.m. on January 17, 2020, and must submit to the Court proof of such payment,
as well as payment of the previously ordered $3,000 sanction, no later than 2:00 p.m. the same
day. Should Williamson fail to pay either sanction by the deadline in this order, a judgment in the
outstanding amount will issue, and Williamson will be suspended from practicing in this judicial
district and subject to potential civil confinement.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of January, 2020.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

See Doc. #130.

3