Mann v. Missouri Home Therapy, LLC
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs counsel shall pay defense counsel $587.50 in attorneys fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins on 11/8/2019. (TMT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LATONIA MANN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MISSOURI IN HOME SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:18-CV-01046-NCC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Affidavit of defendant counsel, Christopher Bent,
in support of his request for reasonable attorney’s fees (Doc. 51). On October 17, 2019, the
Court granted, in part and denied, in part Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure
to Appear at Deposition (Doc. 49). In that order, the Court partially granted Defendant’s request
for sanctions and indicated that Plaintiff’s counsel shall pay defense counsel for the court
reporter’s non-appearance fee, for defense counsel’s time spent waiting for Plaintiff and her
counsel to appear for Plaintiff’s deposition, and for a portion of defense counsel’s time spent on
briefing the motion for sanctions (Id.). The Court directed defense counsel to file his applicable
billing records and an associated affidavit in support of his requests for attorney’s fees (Id.).
Defense counsel timely complied with this Court’s order (Doc. 51). In his affidavit, Mr. Bent
indicates that his rate is $235.00 per hour and that he billed $2,350.00 for the time he spent
waiting for the deposition to commence and for briefing the motion for sanctions (Id. at 2). In
support of his affidavit and attorney’s fees request, Mr. Bent also submitted his associated billing
records in which he indicates that he spent six hours drafting the motion for sanctions and related
memorandum in support, three hours drafting his reply brief, and one hour waiting for Plaintiff
and counsel to appear for the deposition (Id. at 4).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the Court determined that an award of
costs and attorney’s fees in this action is appropriate. The Court previously awarded the costs in
the amount of $150.00 for the court reporter’s non-appearance fee. Turning to the Court’s award
of attorney’s fees, the Court also determined that defense counsel is entitled to an award of his
fees for the time he spent waiting for Plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the deposition and for
a portion of his time spent briefing the motion for sanctions. The Court does not take lightly the
imposition of sanctions, and accepts plaintiff counsel’s explanation that this was a mistake in
communication and not an intentional act. The information provided by defense counsel
supports an award for $235.00 for the hour he spent waiting for the deposition to commence.
Upon review of the affidavit and associated billing records, the Court finds that an award of
$352.50 representing 1.5 hours of work at defense counsel’s hourly rate is warranted for defense
counsel’s briefing of the motion for sanctions. As noted in the Court’s prior order, the
underlying dispute could have been largely addressed between counsel. However, the motion for
sanctions was meritorious as neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel appeared for Plaintiff’s
deposition and Plaintiff’s counsel has had some issues with communication by telephone. Thus,
a reasonable award of attorney’s fees as indicated is warranted. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1187 (2017) (“The complaining party . . . may recover only the
portion of his fees that he would not have paid but for the misconduct”) (internal quotations
omitted).
Accordingly,
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel shall pay defense counsel $587.50
in attorney’s fees.
Dated this 8th day of November, 2019.
/s/ Noelle C. Collins
NOELLE C. COLLINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?