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)

Download PDF
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?