Sundance Energy Oklahoma LLC v. Dan D Drilling Corporation

Filing 234

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 208 Motion for Attorney Fees, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 6/22/15. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SUNDANCE ENERGY
OKLAHOMA, LLC, d/b/a
SEO, LLC, and SUNDANCE
ENERGY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAN D. DRILLING
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-991-R

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Doc. No. 208.
Defendant responded in opposition to the motion, arguing that Plaintiffs (“Sundance”) are
not entitled to attorney’s fees and seeking discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the
reasonableness of the requested fees. Doc. No. 211. On May 13, 2015, the Court entered
an Order in which it found that, under Oklahoma law, Sundance is entitled to attorney’s
fees. Doc. No. 224, at 1-2; see OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, § 940 (West). On Friday, June
5, the undersigned held a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the fee request.
Having considered the parties’ submissions and the testimony at the hearing, the Court
orders an award of attorney’s fees to Sundance in the amount of $504,162.70.

Under Oklahoma law, the correct method for determining a reasonable attorney
fee is to calculate the lodestar fee and then adjust the fee by considering the factors set
forth in State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979).1 Spencer
v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 171 P.3d 890, 895 (Okla. 2007). The lodestar fee is the
base fee computed as the reasonable number of hours expended by the attorney(s)
multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. Atwood v. Atwood, 25 P.3d 936, 951 n.21 (Okla.
Civ. App. 2001) (citing Burk, 598 P.2d at 660-661).
Sundance provided the chart below to explain the hourly rate charged by each
attorney or paralegal, the number of hours for which fees are sought, and the total fees
sought.
Name

Hourly Rate

Mark K.
Blongewicz
(MKB)
Robert P.
Fitz-Patrick
(RPF)
Sharon T.
Thomas
(STT)

$375

Hours
Before 1231-2014 for
Which Fees
Are Sought
(Reduced
by 30%)
546.60

$325

$300

Hours After Total Hours
1-1-2015 for for Which
Which Fees
Fees Are
Are Sought
Sought

Total Fees
Sought

275.6

822.2

$308,325.00

384.79

339.7

724.49

$235, 459.25

60.10

39.55

99.65

$29,895.00

1

See Burk, 598 P.2d at 661 (listing 1) the time and labor required; 2) the novelty and difficulty of the
questions; 3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; 4) the preclusion of other
employment by the attorney due to accepting 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
results obtained; 9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; 10) the undesirability of the
case; 11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and 12) awards made in
similar cases).
2

Molly A.
Aspan
(MAA)
Conor P.
Cleary
(CPC)
Lucinda Risi
(LR)
Zachary W.
Brewer
(ZWB)
Totals

$265

0

95.4

95.4

$25,281.00

$210

132.09

62

194.09

$40,758.90

$175

166.04

3.4

169.44

$29,652.00

$165

181.09

193.9

374.99

$61,873.35

1,470.7

1,009.55

2,480.25

$731,244.50

Doc. No. 209, at 4. At the June 5 hearing, Defendant’s expert, Mr. Condren, provided the
following chart on the reasonableness of the fee request to account for a reduction of
hours he found to be insufficiently described in the time records such that he could not
determine if the time spent on those particular tasks was reasonable.
NAME

Reasonable
Rate for
Oklahoma
City Legal
Market

Mark K.
Blongewicz
(MKB)
Robert P.
Fitz-Patrick
(RPF)
Sharon T.
Thomas
(STT)
Molly A.
Aspan
(MAA)

$282.50

Hours After
Hours After
Reduction for
Reduction
Improperly
for
or
Improperly
Inadequately
or
Described
Inadequately
Hours Before
Described
12-31-14
Hours After
01-01-15
535.74
255.40

Total
Hours

Adjusted
Fees

791.14

$223,497.05

$230.00

270.34

291.50

561.84

$129,223.20

$230.00

60.10

39.55

99.65

$22,919.50

$210.00

------

95.40

95.40

$20,034.00

3

Conor P.
$175.00
132.09
622
Cleary
(CPC)
Lucinda
$110.00
59.80
3.4
Risi
(LR)
Zachary W.
$95.00
139.16
193.95
Brewer
(ZWB)
TOTAL
Reduction for Unsuccessful Defense of Motion to Compel

1943

$33,950.004

63.20

$6,952.00

333.066

$31,640.707
$468,216.458
$12,827.50
$455,388.959

The Court finds Mr. Condren’s analysis of Sundance’s time records reliable.
Sundance’s requested fees should be reduced by the number of hours for which the time
records insufficiently describe the work conducted. See GRP of Texas, Inc. v. Eateries,
Inc., 27 P.3d 95, 99 (Okla. 2001) (“Where reasonable attorneys fees are authorized by
statute the trial court must make a determination … what a reasonable fee is for such
services. The prevailing party requesting attorney’s fees taxed as costs has the burden of
2

The chart Mr. Condren provided listed 62.60 in this box. Because Sundance listed 62 in this box, Doc.
No. 208, at 11, and Condren was reducing these hours, the Court keeps the amount requested by
Sundance, as it is unclear what figure Condren intended to list in this box.
3
The chart Mr. Condren provided listed 194.69 in this box. Because Sundance listed 194 in this box, and
Condren was reducing these hours, the Court keeps the amount requested by Sundance, as it is unclear
what figure Condren intended to list in this box.
4
The chart Mr. Condren provided listed $34,070.75 in this box. To account for the change in the column
to the left, the Court updated this number to $33,950.00, the product of 175 and 194.
5
The chart Mr. Condren provided listed 375 in this box, but he informed the Court during the hearing that
he did not intend to change the number listed by Sundance in its chart, which was 193.9, Doc. No. 208, at
11.
6
The chart Mr. Condren provided listed 514.16 in this box. To account for the change in the column to
the left, the Court updated this number to 333.06, the sum of 139.16 and 193.9.
7
The chart Mr. Condren provided listed $48,541.70 in this box. To account for the change in the column
to the left, the Court updated this figure to $31,640.70, the product of 333.06 and 95.
8
The chart Mr. Condren provided listed $485,541.70 in this box. To account for the change in the
adjusted fees for CPC and ZWB, the Court updated this figure to $468,216.45, the sum of all of the
adjusted fees.
9
The chart Defendant’s expert provided listed $472,714.20 in this box. To account for the change in the
adjusted fees for CPC and ZWB, the Court updated this figure to $455,388.95, the difference between
$468,216.45 and $12,827.50.
4

showing facts necessary to support the determination of the trial court.”). The Court also
agrees that Defendant should not be responsible for Sundance’s attorney’s fees incurred
with respect to its unsuccessful defense of Defendant’s motion to compel. See Order,
Doc. No. 93, at 7.
The Court does disagree, however, with the reasonable rate allocated to MKB and
RPF by Mr. Condren. The undersigned finds that, based on its own knowledge of the
prevailing rates in this community for work conducted by attorneys with similar skill and
experience, a reasonable rate for MKB is $300 per hour and a reasonable rate for RPF is
$250 per hour. Accounting for these changes, the adjusted fees for MKB are
$237,342.00,10 and the adjusted fees for RPF are $140,460.00.11 This changes the total
fees, after a reduction of $11,567.50 for the unsuccessful defense of the motion to
compel,12 to $481,730.70.
In its Supplement to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Sundance requests an
additional $29,146.50 based on work conducted in responding to Defendant’s motion for
a new trial, outlined in the chart below.

10

This is the product of $300 and 791.14.
This is the product of $250 and 561.84.
12
The chart Mr. Condren provided listed $12,827.50 for the fees incurred in defending against the motion
to compel. Because the Court increased the rate Mr. Condren applied to work done by MKB and RPF, the
undersigned conducted its own analysis of Sundance’s time records to determine how much to reduce the
fee award for this work.
11

5

Name

Hourly
Rate

March
2015
Hours

April
2015
Hours

Total Additional Fees
Sought Regarding
Dan D’s Motion for
New Trial

11.40

Total
Hours for
Which Fees
are Sought
Regarding
Dan D’s
Motion for
New Trial
16.50

Mark K.
Blongewicz
(MKB)
Robert P.
Fitz-Patrick
(RPF)
Zachary W.
Brewer
(ZWB)
Totals

$375

5.10

$325

38.80

29.00

67.80

$22,035.00

$165

.40

5.20

5.60

$924.00

44.30

45.60

89.90

$29,146.50

$6,187.50

Doc. No. 222, Ex. 1, at 3, ¶ 8. Adjusting the hourly rates to those used above, the figures
change as follows:
Name

Hourly
Rate

March
2015
Hours

April
2015
Hours

Mark K.
Blongewicz
(MKB)
Robert P.
Fitz-Patrick
(RPF)
Zachary W.
Brewer
(ZWB)
Totals

$300

5.10

$250

$95

Total Additional
Fees Sought
Regarding Dan
D’s Motion for
New Trial

11.40

Total Hours for
Which Fees Are
Sought
Regarding Dan
D’s Motion for
New Trial
16.50

38.80

29.00

67.80

$16,950.00

.40

5.20

5.60

$532.00

44.30

45.60

89.90

$22,432.00

6

$4,950.00

The undersigned finds that the Burk factors do not require an increase or decrease
in the lodestar fee. In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’
Fees, Doc. No. 208, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court orders an
award to Sundance of reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $504,162.70.13
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2015.

13

This is the sum of $481,730.70 and $22,432.00.
7