HICA Education Loan Corporation v. Battles

Filing 11

ORDER denying without prejudice Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 02/19/13.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

HICA EDUCATION LOAN CORP.,

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

Plaintiff,
v.
ODIE L. BATTLES a/k/a ODIE LEE
BATTLES a/k/a ODIE LEE
BATTLES, JR.,

Defendant.

No. 12-2034

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff

HICA

Education

Loan

Corporation’s (“HICA”) May 22, 2012 Motion for Attorney’s Fees
(See Mot. for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs,

and Costs.
ECF

No.

10)

(the

“Motion.”)

Defendant

Odie

L.

Battles

(“Battles”) has not responded and the time for doing so has
passed.

HICA seeks attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the

prosecution

of

a

default

judgment

against

Battles.

For

the

following reasons, HICA’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
On

January

17,

2012,

HICA

filed

a

complaint

against

Battles, seeking enforcement of student loan obligations under
the

United

States

Health

Education

Assistance

Loan

Program

(“HEAL”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 292 et seq.

(Complaint ¶ 3, ECF No. 1.)

On March 9, 2012, the Clerk of Court entered default against
Battles.
motion

(ECF No. 7.)

for

default

On May 8, 2012, the Court granted HICA’s

judgment.

(ECF

No.

9.)

HICA

requests

$1,450.00 in attorney’s fees and costs, including fees incurred
in transmitting collection letters and prosecuting the cause to
default judgment.

(See Decl. of John O. Belcher ¶ 2, ECF No.

10-1); (see also Decl. of F. Scott Flow ¶ 4, ECF No. 10-2.)
On November 8, 1983, the parties executed a Promissory Note
(the “Promissory Note”), in which Battles agreed to pay “all
reasonable attorney’s fees, and other costs and charges that are
permitted

by

Federal

regulations

and

are

necessary

collection of any amount not paid when due.”
1, ECF No. 1-1.)

for

the

(Promissory Note

The Code of Federal Regulations provides, in

relevant part, that the “lender or holder may [] require that
the borrower pay the holder of the note for reasonable costs
incurred

by

installment

the
not

holder
paid

or

when

its
due.

attorney’s fees [and] court costs.”

agent

in

These

collecting

costs

may

any

include

42 C.F.R. § 60.15.

Under Local Rule 54.1(b)(2), a motion for attorney’s fees
must be supported by “an affidavit of another attorney in the
community, who is not otherwise involved with the case, setting
out the prevailing rate charged in the community for similar
services.”

W.D.

Tenn.

Civ.

R.
2

54.1(b)(2)

(emphasis

added).

Local Rules are “not developed by accident.”
Realty

Co.

of

Memphis,

Inc.,

No.

Greer v. Home

2:07-cv-02639-SHM-egb,

2010

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142817, at *6 (W.D. Tenn. July 12, 2010).

They

help parties “save time and expense” by providing the Court with
the information it needs to arrive at a decision.

Id.

An

affidavit from an attorney who is not otherwise involved helps a
court decide whether a request for fees and costs is reasonable.
HICA has failed to provide an affidavit of an attorney “not
otherwise

involved

with

the

case.”

(See

Decl.

of

John

O.

Belcher) (“I am the attorney of record for [] HICA.”); (see also
Decl. of F. Scott Flow ¶ 3) (“I represent HICA . . . through an
agreement with Sallie Mae, Inc., which is the servicing agent
for HICA.”)

A party’s “failure to follow the Local Rules is

sufficient grounds for denying its motion.”

Parris v. Regions

Bank, No. 09-2462, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92167, at *4 n.1 (W.D.
Tenn.

Aug.

17,

2011)

(citation

omitted).

Because

HICA

has

failed to follow Local Rule 54.1, its Motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
So ordered this 19th day of February, 2013.

s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.______
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3