TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY et al v. R.E. PIERSON CONTRACTING CO., INC.
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/19/2012. (tf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND OF
PHILADELPHIA AND VICINTIY, ET
AL.,
HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil No. 11-5051 (JBS/AMD)
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v.
R.E. PIERSON CONTRACTING CO.,
INC.,
Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on a motion for award of
attorney fees and costs filed pursuant to Section 502(g)(2)(D) of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §
1132(g)(2)(D) [Docket Item 10], brought by Plaintiff Teamsters
Pension Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity and Plaintiff Welfare
Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity (collectively “Plaintiffs”) in
connection with a default judgment entered against Defendant. For
the reasons explained below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs'
motion for award of attorney fees and costs in the amounts of
$2,100 and $429.50, respectively.
1.
Plaintiffs, Teamsters Pension Fund of Philadelphia and
Vicinity ("Pension Fund"), are multi-employer benefit funds
within the meaning Sections 3(3) and 3(7) of ERISA.
Att’y Fees ¶ 3.)
(Mot. for
Plaintiffs collect contributions from various
employers towards retirement funds for union members.
Defendant
R.E. Pierson Contracting Co., Inc., is an employer who was
required to contribute to the Pension Fund and failed to make
payments for certain fringe benefits.
2.
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging
violations of Section 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1145. [Docket
Item 1.] Defendant was served in a timely matter, but did not
respond. [Docket Item 4.] Plaintiffs filed a request for default,
which the Clerk of the Court entered. [Docket Item 5.]
3.
Plaintiffs then moved for default judgment. [Docket Item
6.] This Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment to recover the fringe benefits, but denied the motion
without prejudice as to attorney fees and costs because counsel
needed to submit an affidavit supporting the request.
4.
On August 6, 2012 Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney
fees and costs.
5.
[Docket Item 10.]
This motion is unopposed.
Plaintiffs seek attorney fees in the amount of $2,100.00
and costs in the amount of $429.50.
(Mot. for Att’y Fees ¶ 13.)
6. § 1132(g)(2)(D) provides “the court shall award the plan .
. . reasonable attorney's fees and costs” for actions brought to
enforce § 1145 of ERISA.
The underlying action was brought
pursuant to § 1145 to recover unpaid fringe benefits and triggers
the mandatory fee scheme presented in § 1132(g)(2)(D).
2
Under
this provision, the “award of . . . reasonable attorney's fees is
mandatory for the district court, not discretionary.” Trustees of
Amalgamated Ins. Fund v. Sheldon Hall Clothing, Inc., 862 F.2d
1020, 1023 (3d Cir.1988) citing Penn Elastic Co. v. United Retail
& Wholesale Emp., 792 F.2d 45, 47 (3d Cir. 1986).
7. The Court must now determine whether the requested attorney
fees are reasonable.
A reasonable attorney fee is calculated by
multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of
hours expended on the litigation. United Auto. Workers Local 259
Soc. Sec. Dep’t. v. Metro Auto Ctr., 501 F.3d 283, 290 (3d Cir.
2007). A request for fees must be accompanied by "fairly definite
information as to hours devoted to various general activities,
e.g., partial discovery, settlement negotiations, and the hours
spent by various classes of attorneys." Id. at 291 (quoting Evans
v. Port Auth., 273 F.3d 346, 361 (3d Cir. 2001)).
8.
Applications for attorneys fees and expenses in this Court
are governed by Local Civil Rules 54.1 and 54.2(a), requiring
itemization of services rendered, dates of services, time spent
and billing rates of persons rendering services.
The affidavit
provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel permits the Court to conclude
that the requested attorney fees and costs in the instant matter
were reasonable. See United Auto. Workers, 501 F.3d at 291. The
affidavit certifies that counsel’s fee is $2,100.00, which
3
represents 8.4 hours of work at a rate of $250.00 per hour. The
activities conducted by counsel include review of file (1.0
hours), preparation and filing of complaint (1.1 hours), review
of court documents; correspondence with process server (0.6
hours), prepare and file affidavit of service (0.8 hours), review
of correspondence with client (0.1 hours), preparation of request
for default (1.5 hours), review of correspondence with client
(0.1 hours), preparation of motion for default judgment (1.4
hours) and review, prepare, and file application for default
judgment (1.8 hours).
(Aff. in Supp. of Pl.[‘s] Mot. for Att’y
Fees ¶ 9.) The affidavit submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel
complies with Local Civil Rules 54.1 and 54.2.
9.
The reasonable hourly rate is to be calculated according
to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community. Blum v.
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984).
Moreover, the prevailing
market rate in southern New Jersey has been found to be $250. See
L.J. ex rel. V.J. v. Audubon Bd. of Educ., 373 Fed. Appx. 294,
298 (3d Cir. 2010).
Therefore, since Plaintiff’s counsel charged
an hourly rate of $250 and completed tasks related to the
litigation in a reasonable amount of time, the Court finds that
this is a reasonable fee.
10.
In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel certified that
additional costs incurred amounted to $429.50.
4
This amount
includes a court filing fee ($350.00) and process server’s fee
($79.50).
(Aff. in Supp. of Pl.[‘s] Mot. for Att’y Fees ¶ 10.)
The Court finds that the total cost is reasonable and must be
awarded to Plaintiffs.
11.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs'
motion for award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of
$2,529.50. This amount includes $2,100 attorney's fees, and
$429.50 in litigation costs. The accompanying Order for judgment
will be entered.
November 19, 2012
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
Jerome B. Simandle
Chief U.S. District Judge
5
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?