PARISE et al v. SUAREZ et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINDINGS. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/16/2019. (tf, n.m.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOHN PARISE, et al.,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
17-6936 (JBS-JS)

v.
ALEX E. SUAREZ, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND FINDINGS

Defendants.

SIMANDLE, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the unopposed motion for
attorneys’ fees and costs [Docket Item 28] filed by Plaintiffs John
Parise,

Michael

Parise,

and

Copper

Beech

Financial

Group,

LLC

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). For the reasons discussed below, the
Court will enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs jointly and against
Defendants Alex E. Suarez (“Suarez”), Family Office Partners, Inc.
(“FOP,

Inc.”),

Family

Office

Partners,

LLC

(“FOP,

LLC”),

Merchantbanquiers Club, Inc., and Private Borrowers Club II, LLC
(collectively, “Defendants”), jointly and severally, in the amount
of $15,001.90. The Court finds as follows:
1.

The Court previously granted in part and denied in part

Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. Parise v. Suarez, 2018 WL
6705678

(D.N.J.

Dec.

19,

2018).

As

relevant

attorneys’ fees and costs, the Court explained:

here

to

awarding

Plaintiffs seek costs and attorneys’ fees in relation to
this matter. The September 15, 2016 Agreement does not
appear to provide for the recovery of attorneys’ fees or
costs in the event of litigation arising from the
agreements. Under Georgia law, however, “where the
plaintiff has specifically pleaded and has made prayer
therefore and where the defendant has acted in bad faith,
has been stubbornly litigious, or has caused the plaintiff
unnecessary trouble and expense, the jury may allow them.”
Id. at *6 (quoting O.C.G.A. § 13-5-11); see also Paul v. Destito,
550 S.E.2d 739, 749 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). The Court found that
Defendant Alex E. Suarez “has taken rather elaborate steps to attempt
to delay and obstruct the normal resolution of this case,” as
detailed in Parise v. Suarez, 2018 WL 3756427 (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2018),
and “has acted in bad faith.” Parise, 2018 WL 6705678, at *6-7. The
four entity Defendants - FOP, Inc., FOP, LLC, Merchantbanquiers Club,
Inc., and Private Borrowers Club II, LLC – have similarly acted in
bad faith by directing attorney Christian J. Jensen, Esq. to file a
letter with the Honorable Joel B. Schneider, U.S.M.J., requesting an
extension for all defendant corporate entities to respond to the
Complaint, which was granted, extending the deadline as to the
corporate Defendants to December 22, 2017 [Docket Item 7], only to
never respond to the Complaint nor otherwise be heard from again.1
Parise, 2018 WL 6705678, at *1. Accordingly, the Court awarded
attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs and permitted them to, consistent with

Attorney Jensen, by letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel Mr. DeSimone
dated Jan. 3, 2018, refused to accept Plaintiffs’ request for entry
of default, claiming to not represent any defendant in the action.
[Docket Item 12-2.]
2
1

Rule 54(d)(2), FED. R. CIV. P., apply for attorneys’ fees and costs
within fourteen days of entry of the Judgment. Id. at *7.
2.

Plaintiffs timely filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and

costs [Docket Item 28], which includes an Affidavit of Services
signed by Attorney Ronald DeSimone, Esq. [Docket Item 28-2 at 2-6]
and a copy of the Retainer Agreement between Law Offices of Ronald
DeSimone and Plaintiffs. [Id. at 13-16.] Plaintiffs served this
motion upon Defendant Alex E. Suarez and the four related entity
Defendants by regular and certified mail [Docket Item 28 at 2], and
no opposition has been received.
3.

According to Mr. DeSimone’s Affidavit, between June 22,

2017 and December 31, 2018, he billed Plaintiffs for 46.97 hours of
work at an hourly rate of $300 per hour. [Id. at 3-6.] Upon careful
review

of

Plaintiffs’

submission,

which

includes

a

day-by-day,

itemized record of the work Mr. DeSimone performed on Plaintiffs’
behalf, the Court finds the billing rate to be reasonable and
consistent with the norm for such services in this region, see, e.g.,
Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Circa Direct LLC, 912 F. Supp. 2d 165, 174
(D.N.J. 2012) (finding reasonable hourly rates of $400 for senior
partners), and that Mr. DeSimone’s time spent was well-documented,
reasonable, and necessarily

incurred in prosecuting Plaintiffs’

rights in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ request
for fees in the amount of $14,091.00 to be reasonable and fair.

3

4.

Plaintiffs also seek reimbursement for certain “costs”

incurred in this litigation. [Docket Item 28-2 at 6.] Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 generally permit taxation
of the following costs:
(1)

Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2)

Fees for printed or electronically recorded
transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the
case;

(3)

Fees and disbursements
witnesses;

(4)

Fees for exemplification and the costs of
making copies of any materials where the copies
are necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(5)

Docket fees under section 1923 of this title
[28 U.S.C. § 1923]; and

(6)

Compensation of court appointed experts,
compensation of interpreters, and salaries,
fees,
expenses,
and costs of
special
interpretation services under section 1828 of
this title [28 U.S.C. § 1828].

for

printing

and

28 U.S.C. § 1920(1)-(6). The party seeking recover of costs must
“provide sufficient information”

to demonstrate the compensable

nature of the requested costs. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp. v. Electrolux,
Inc., 2013 WL 5817161, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2013). The party must
further

comply

with Local

Rule 54.1(b),

which

requires

that

a

request for costs “precisely set forth each [cost] . . . , so that
the nature of the charge can be readily understood” and substantiated
by “copies of all invoices[.]”

4

5.

Here, Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the following out-

of-pocket “costs:”
•

$400.00 for filing the Complaint on September
11, 2017;

•

$340.00 for a process server on October 23,
2017;

•

$146.20 for “[p]ostage” on May 25, 2018; and

•

$24.70 for “USPS overnight” on October 18, 2018.

[Docket Item 28-2 at 6.] As noted above, payment of a fee of the
Clerk of Court (e.g., the fee for filing a Complaint) is recognized
as a cost taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Moreover, courts in this
Circuit have held that costs for private process servers are also
taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See, e.g., Eastern Const. & Elec.,
Inc. v. Universe Tech., Inc., 2011 WL 53185, at *6 (D.N.J. Jan. 6,
2011); Montgomery Cty. v. Microvote Corp., 2004 WL 1087196, at *3-4
(E.D. Pa. May 13, 2004). Accordingly, the Court will award costs to
Plaintiff of $740.00 ($400.00 for the Complaint filing fee and
$340.00 for a process server) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and Local Rule 54.1.
6.

Plaintiffs’ remaining requests for “costs” are not among

those listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The Court will, instead, treat
them as “related nontaxable expenses” under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54 and Local Civil Rule 54.2. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’
request for reimbursement, the Court finds these expenses ($146.20
for postage and $24.70 for USPS overnight) were reasonably and
5

necessarily incurred. Accordingly, the Court also finds the request
for expenses in the amount of $170.90 to be reasonable and fair.
7.

In sum, the Court will award attorneys’ fees in the amount

of $14,091.00, costs in the amount of $740.00, and expenses in the
amount of $170.90, and enter Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
in the aggregate amount of $15,001.90.
8.

The accompanying Judgement will be entered.

April 16, 2019
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge

6