MCLAUGHLIN v. PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, LLP. et al

Filing 114

ORDER granting 107 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Attorneys' fees are awarded, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, in the amount of $15,050.50. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 8/6/13. See Order filed with this ECF docket entry for details. (dcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TIMOTHY MCLAUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG,
LLP, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 10-1406
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
This case was reassigned to the undersigned on July 30, 2013. See ECF entry of same
date. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 107).
Although this case has been appealed on the merits, the Court currently may resolve the
attorneys’ fees issue. See In re Advanced Electronics, Inc., 2008 WL 2600725, *4 (3d Cir.
Jun. 30, 2008) (“[a] district court, during the pendency of an appeal[,] is not divested of
jurisdiction to determine an application for attorney’s fees”) (quoting binding Third Circuit
authority).
Having carefully considered Defendants’ arguments in opposition to an award of
attorneys’ fees, the Court finds them unpersuasive. Simply put, Defendants knew, or should
have known, that the Invoices in question were responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests,
and the Invoices should have been produced sooner than they were. As a result of this omission,
the parties and the Court were dragged through a second round of briefing and analysis on
summary judgment (where, in fact, the Court’s analyses specifically addressed the Invoices in
granting summary judgment in Defendants’ favor). For these reasons, and for all of the reasons

previously stated in Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster’s well-reasoned decisions, Defendants will be
ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.
Furthermore, the Court finds Defendants’ objections to the purported “sua sponte”
nature of Judge Lancaster’s decision presently unfounded. Defendants were given notice of
Judge Lancaster’s ruling; they had an opportunity to respond; and they did in fact respond on the
merits in their Brief in Opposition (Doc. 111) to attorneys’ fees. The Court has heard
Defendants’ arguments, found them unpersuasive, and Defendants’ sua sponte argument
is unavailing.
Also unconvincing are Defendants’ arguments regarding the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s
fee requests, see Opp’n Br. at 8, at least with respect to the Strassburger law firm.
The Strassburger firm has supplied detailed billing records, see Doc. 107-1 (attaching same);
the Court finds reasonable the hourly rates assessed therein; and the Court finds no reason to
second-guess the nature or quantity of the legal services provided. Thus, the attorneys’ fees
reflected in the Strassburger billing statements, totaling $13,475.50, will be awarded.
The Court agrees with Defendants’ unreasonableness challenge, however, to the extent
that it relates to the hours billed by the Specter law firm. See generally Doc. 107-2. That firm’s
lawyer, Mr. Manogue, has not sufficiently supported his contention that $650/hour is
commensurate with the “market [rate] for class action attorneys with similar experience and
credentials.” Compare id. at ¶ 4 (summarily asserting same) with, e.g., Gaffney v. City of
Allentown, 1998 WL 32758, *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 1998) (“[t]he party requesting fees bears the
burden of substantiating . . . the reasonableness of [the] requested hourly rate”)
(citation omitted); cf. also Ridley v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2007 WL 328852, *7 (3d Cir.
Feb. 5, 2007) (only if and once attorney makes “a prima facie case of reasonableness” regarding

2

community market rate does court lack discretion to make downward adjustment). The Specter
firm has not made a prima facie showing of reasonableness,1 and the Court will downwardly
adjust Mr. Manogue’s rate to $350/hour, an amount already found reasonable in connection with
Mr. Kunselman, of the Strassburger firm. See discussion supra. Thus, the amount of attorneys’
fees awarded regarding the Specter firm is 4.5 hours at $350/hour, or $1,575.00. See Doc. 107-2
(identifying number of hours billed by Specter firm and explaining services provided).
Consistent with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 107)
is GRANTED, and attorneys’ fees are awarded, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants,
in the amount of $15,050.50 (i.e., $13,475.50 plus $1,575.00).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 6, 2013

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

By way of comparison, the lawyer in Ridley “submitted affidavits from two experienced civil
. . . practitioners [in the same specialty],” who opined that the rate in question was fair and
reasonable for someone of the lawyer’s experience. Id. at *7. Here, counsel’s conclusory and
self-serving statements will not suffice. See Becker v. ARCO Chem. Co., 15 F. Supp.2d 621,
629-30 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 22, 1998) (holding same).
1

3