United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Croell Redi-Mix, Inc. v. High Plains Concrete, LLC et al

Filing 28

ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 4/10/15. (SB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR
THE USE OF CROELL REDI-MIX, INC.,
an Iowa Corporation,

CIV. 12-5074-JLV
ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
HIGH PLAINS CONCRETE, LLC, a
Wyoming Limited Liability Company;
BOBBY G. RYAN,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Croell Redi-Mix, Inc., filed a motion for default judgment pursuant
to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket 18). The court
entered default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) in favor of plaintiff
Croell Redi-Mix, Inc., and against defendants High Plains Concrete, LLC, and
Bobby G. Ryan. (Docket 27). The court finds it is not necessary to conduct a
hearing pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) because plaintiff’s affidavit appropriately
supports plaintiff’s right to recover a money judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant High Plains Concrete, LLC,
to supply and deliver readi-mix concrete for a paving project at the Ellsworth Air
Force Base in South Dakota. (Docket 8 ¶¶ 9, 11 and 12). Plaintiff fully
performed under its contract. Id. ¶ 13. The sum remaining due and owing to
plaintiff is the principal sum of $84,160.76. Id. ¶ 17. Under a confidential
business credit application, High Plains Concrete, LLC, and Bobby G. Ryan, as a

personal guarantor, agreed that in the event of default under the contract and
the need for plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings for the collection of any unpaid
sum, that plaintiff would be entitled to “interest, attorneys’ fees and cost of suit.”
(Docket 8-3).
Under South Dakota law, prejudgment interest is allowed “from the day
that the loss or damage occurred . . . .” SDCL § 21-1-13.1. That section
further provides: “[p]rejudgment interest on damages arising from a contract
shall be at the contract rate, if so provided in the contract; otherwise, if
prejudgment interest is awarded, it shall be at the Category B rate of interest
specified in § 54-3-16.” The confidential business credit application did not
specify a prejudgment interest rate on damages. (Docket 8-3). South Dakota
law directs prejudgment interest be calculated pursuant to SDCL § 54-3-16.
SDCL § 21-1-13.1. “Category B rate of interest is ten percent per year . . . .”
SDCL § 54-3-16.
Plaintiff submitted its calculations of prejudgment interest at 10 percent
per year on the principal sum requested. (Docket 19 ¶ 3). Those calculations
accurately apply the South Dakota prejudgment rate though April 30, 2014. Id.
Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest for an additional thirty days, to May
30, 2014, which the court finds to be reasonable and proper under the
circumstances, as follows:
Date
11/08/11
11/15/11

Amount
$ 7,698.61
$14,480.53

Daily
Rate
$2.11
$3.97
2

Days
934
927

Prejudgment
Interest
$ 1,970.74
$ 3,680.19

11/18/11
$5,940.74
11/22/11
$16,072.68
11/29/11
$10,111.92
12/02/11
$4,544.80
12/02/11
$1,090.96
12/06/11
$1,172.60
12/07/11
$820.82
12/07/11
$1,203.80
12/08/11
$938.08
12/12/11
$961.74
12/20/11
$1,172.60
01/06/12
$1,068.60
01/09/12
$2,345.20
01/10/12
$1,172.60
01/10/12
$4,690.40
01/12/12
$6,566.56
01/12/12
$854.10
01/12/12
$852.42
Total Prejudgment Interest

$1.62
$4.40
$2.77
$1.25
$0.30
$0.32
$0.22
$0.33
$0.25
$0.26
$0.32
$0.29
$0.64
$0.32
$1.28
$1.80
$0.23
$0.23

924
920
913
910
910
906
905
905
904
900
892
875
872
871
871
869
869
869

$ 1,496.88
$ 4,048.00
$ 2,529.01
$ 1,137.50
$ 273.00
$ 289.92
$ 199.01
$ 298.65
$ 226.00
$ 234.00
$ 285.44
$ 253.75
$ 558.08
$ 278.72
$ 1,114.88
$ 1,564.20
$ 199.87
$ 199.87
$20,837.71

Plaintiff submited an affidavit of attorney Thomas E. Brady for which it
seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against the defendants. (Docket 19).
Mr. Brady submitted detailed billing statements reflecting his law firm’s work on
behalf of plaintiff. (Docket 19-1).
The court must decide the reasonable hourly rate which should be applied
to any fee award. Hensely v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (“It remains
for the district court to determine what fee is ‘reasonable.’ ”). This starting point
is useful because “[t]his calculation provides an objective basis on which to make
an initial estimate of the value of a lawyer’s services.” Id.
Plaintiff’s submission properly requests different hourly rates to reflect the
various levels of legal experience of the attorneys and paralegals involved in this
litigation. (Docket 19-1). The court finds plaintiff has “produce[d] satisfactory
3

evidence . . . that [counsels’] requested rates are in line with those prevailing in
the community for similar services . . . of reasonably comparable skill,
experience, and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 n.11 (1984).
The court finds the hourly rates for each attorney as set forth in the billing
statements are appropriate for their professional services and for use in this
analysis.
The next step is to multiply that reasonable hourly rate by “the number of
hours reasonably expended on the litigation . . . .” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.
“The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence supporting the
hours worked and rates claimed.” Id. If “the documentation of hours is
inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Id. The
billing statements submitted by plaintiff’s attorneys reflect date certain and
detailed descriptions of all services provided.
In conducting a review of the detailed billing statements, the court
completed a thorough evaluation of the entries and the activities described. The
court finds the hours expended by the law firm are reasonable and appropriate
for a case of this nature. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the following attorney’s
fees, sales tax and costs:
Attorneys’ Fees
6% SD sales tax
Costs
Total

$ 8,067.00
$ 484.02
$ 787.42
$ 9,338.44

Accordingly, it is hereby

4

ORDERED that plaintiff Croell Redi-Mix, Inc., is entitled to a money
judgment against defendants High Plains Concrete, LLC, and Bobby G. Ryan,
jointly and severally, for the following amounts:
Compensatory Damages

$ 84,160.75

Prejudgment Interest

$ 20,837.71

Attorneys’ Fees & Costs

$ 9,338.44

Total Money Judgment

$114,336.90

Dated April 10, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
CHIEF JUDGE

5