Universal Truck & Equipment Company, Inc. et al v. Caterpillar, Inc. et al
Filing
188
ORDER granting #153 Motion for Attorney Fees and for Entry of Final Judgment in Caterpillar's and Cat Financial's favor. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 4/22/15. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CATERPILLAR, INC.,
)
)
Defendant,
)
)
and
)
)
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES
)
CORPORATION and SOUTHWORTH-MILTON, )
INC.,
)
)
Defendants and
)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs. )
___________________________________)
UNIVERSAL TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, INC.; NEW LONDON MINING,
MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING, LLC;
NICHOLAS E. CAMBIO; VINCENT A.
CAMBIO; and NICHOLAS E. CAMBIO,
as trustee of THE NICHOLAS E.
CAMBIO, RODNEY A. MALAFRONTE AND
VINCENT A. CAMBIO TRUST,
C.A. No. 10-466 S
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Defendant Caterpillar, Inc. (“Caterpillar”) and Defendant
and
Counterclaim
Plaintiff
Caterpillar
Financial
Services
Corporation (“Cat Financial” and, collectively with Caterpillar,
“the
Caterpillar
Defendants”)
judgment in their favor.
have
moved
(ECF No. 153.)
for
entry
of
final
This Court previously
granted summary judgment in the Caterpillar Defendants’ favor.
(ECF
No.
101.)
Plaintiffs
do
not
oppose
the
Caterpillar
Defendants’ request for entry of final judgment or Caterpillar’s
entitlement
to
$68,181.89
in
attorneys’
fees
and
costs
previously awarded by this Court (ECF No. 142).
Plaintiffs object to the reasonableness and necessity of
the expenses incurred and the commercial reasonableness of the
resale
prices
equipment.
184.)
obtained
by
Cat
Financial
for
the
repossessed
(Pls.’ Response to Second Fox Aff. 1-3, ECF No.
This
objection
is
meritless.
The
expenses
incurred,
which consisted of transportation and repair costs as well as
sale commissions, are detailed in the Second Affidavit of Tom
Fox (ECF No. 167), and this Court finds that the First and
Second Fox Affidavits adequately establish the reasonableness of
these expenses.
Additionally, the First Fox Affidavit (ECF No.
153-2), which chronicles Cat Financial’s efforts to resell the
equipment,
establishes
the
disposition of the equipment.
commercial
reasonableness
of
the
See R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-9-627(b). 1
1
Accordingly, the presumption announced in Assocs. Capital
Servs. Corp. v. Riccardi, 408 A.2d 930, 934 (R.I. 1979), is
inapplicable.
2
Finally,
the
figures
contained
in
the
Second
Fox
Affidavit
appear to be accurate. 2
Cat Financial also requests its attorneys’ fees and costs.
(Defs.’ Mot. 5-6, ECF No. 153-1.)
Although Plaintiffs do not
contest that the governing documents between the parties in this
case entitle Cat Financial to an award of its attorneys’ fees
and costs, they object that the rates charged are excessive and
the submitted billing records are too heavily redacted.
Opp’n 5, ECF No. 158-1.)
rates
charged
approved
as
by
Cat
(Pls.’
Neither objection has any merit.
Financial’s
reasonable
by
counsel
this
Court
have
The
been
connection
in
already
with
Caterpillar’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs,
and Brooks Magratten, Esq. has submitted an affidavit in which
he opines that the hourly rates are “reasonable and customary.”
(Magratten
Aff.
¶
10,
ECF
No.
153-4.)
Plaintiffs
have
not
offered any evidence to the contrary, and this Court finds, once
again,
that
Financial
the
has
hourly
rates
represented
are
that
the
reasonable.
submitted
Finally,
billing
Cat
records
were redacted only to the extent necessary to protect privileged
information,
redactions
2
is
and
not
this
Court
determines
substantial.
that
Therefore,
the
Cat
amount
of
Financial
is
Apart from the reasonableness of the expenses and resale
prices, Plaintiffs do not dispute the figures contained in the
Second Fox Affidavit.
3
entitled
to
an
award
of
$235,192.97
in
attorneys’
fees
and
costs.
For these reasons, the Caterpillar Defendants’ motion is
GRANTED; final judgment in Caterpillar’s favor hereby enters in
the amount of $68,181.89; and final judgment in Cat Financial’s
favor
hereby
enters
in
the
amount
of
$235,192.97 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
$2,553,203.50,
Plaintiffs shall be
jointly and severally liable for these judgments.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: April 22, 2015
4
plus
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?