Iron Workers District Council Of Southern Ohio & Vicinity Benefit Trust et al v. Hoosier Steel, Inc. et al
Filing
19
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS OF THE ACTION (DOC. 15 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 5/25/12. (mr1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
OF SOUTHERN OHIO & VICINITY
BENEFIT TRUST, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HOOSIER STEEL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:11-cv-458
Judge Timothy S. Black
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS OF THE ACTION (DOC. 15)
Plaintiffs Iron Workers District Council of Southern Ohio & Vicinity Benefit Trust,
et al. (“Plaintiffs”) move to recover attorneys’ fees and the costs of this Case from
Defendants Hoosier Steel, Inc. (“Hoosier Steel”) and Kerry E. Ledbetter (“Ledbetter”)
(hereinafter Hoosier Steel and Ledbetter are collectively referred to as “Defendants”)
pursuant to Sections 502(g)(2) and 409(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1074 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2) and 1009(a). Defendants have not
responded and the time for doing so has expired. Plaintiffs’ Motion is now ripe.
“Under § 502(g)(2) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)), the award of reasonable
attorney fees is mandatory where a fiduciary has sued successfully to enforce an
employer’s obligation to make contributions to a multi-employer plan.” Foltice v.
Guardsman Products, Inc., 98 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1996). In determining the amount
of attorney fees to be awarded, “the court is obligated to assure that fees are
‘reasonable[,]’” a determination “committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
Bemis v. Hogue, 935 F.2d 269, 1991 WL 102385, at *7 (6th Cir. Jun. 13, 1991).
Generally, “the ‘lodestar’ approach is the proper method for determining the
amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Bldg. Serv. Local 47 Cleaning Contractors
Pension Plan v. Grandview Raceway, 46 F.3d 1392, 1401 (6th Cir. 1995) (citations
omitted). However, the “calculation of fees in an ERISA case does not necessarily require
strict application of the lodestar method.” Kauffman v. Sedalia Med. Ctr., Case No.
204-CV-543, 2007 WL 490896, at * (S.D.Ohio Feb. 9, 2007).
In utilizing the lodestar approach, courts typically begin by multiplying “‘the
number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation . . . by a reasonable hourly rate.’”
Id. (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40
(1983)). The lodestar product is presumptively reasonable, though “other considerations .
. . may lead the district court to adjust the fee upward or downward[.]” Id. (citing
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1940).
Here, Plaintiffs’ attorneys represent a total number of 21.75 hours expended in
resolving this case. The performed includes compiling evidence of damages, consulting
and corresponding with Plaintiffs and their representatives, as well as drafting pleadings,
an application for entry of default, and a motion for default judgment with supporting
materials. After a review of the work performed and the hours Counsel expended in
performing such work, the Court concludes the 21.75 hours expended is reasonable.
In total, Plaintiffs’ attorneys represent a total of $4,250 in attorney fees, which
amounts to an average hourly rate of $195.40. Given the skill and experience of counsel
as evidenced by submissions to the Court and the results obtained in this case, the Court
concludes that an average hourly rate of $195.40 is more than reasonable. The Court
further concludes that the amount of costs sought, $443.10, is also reasonable.
-2-
Accordingly, having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion and the supporting materials
attached thereto, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. 15) and AWARDS
Plaintiffs $4,250.00 in reasonable attorney fees and $443.10 in litigation costs from
Defendants Hoosier Steel, Inc. and Kerry E. Ledbetter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:
5/25/12
s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District 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?