Great American Insurance Company v. Nelson, Inc. et al

Filing 132

ORDER Denying 92 Integrated Construction, LLC's Motion to Assess Attorney's Fees Against Defendant Nelson, Inc. Signed by Judge Thomas L. Parker on 11/19/18. (jgb)

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

GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
AND
INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
AND
GEODESY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,
LLC,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
NELSON, INC., WILLIE NELSON SR.,
and HATTIE NELSON,
Defendants.

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

No. 2:16-cv-02283-TLP-cgc

ORDER DENYING INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION, LLC’S MOTION TO ASSESS
ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST DEFENDANT NELSON, INC.

Intervenor-Plaintiff Integrated Construction, LLC (“Integrated”) moves for its
attorney’s fees and costs associated with the filing of its Intervention, its brief in support of
Great American Insurance Company’s (“GAIC”) Enforcement Motion, and to oppose Nelson,
Inc.’s (“Nelson”) bankruptcy filings. For the reasons below, Integrated’s Motion (ECF No.
92) is DENIED.

BACKGROUND
Nelson filed a joint stipulation agreement with GAIC agreeing to deposit funds into a
trust account to compensate various parties that worked on the Stone Dike Project. (ECF No.
46 at PageID 516.) As to Integrated, Nelson agreed to pay a sum of $400,000. (Id. at PageID
518.)
Because Nelson delayed paying Integrated for almost a year, Integrated intervened in
this lawsuit and filed a brief in support of GAIC’s Motion to Enforce Judgment. (ECF Nos.
46, 52, 65 and 92.) Integrated now moves for attorney’s fees and costs for work performed on
those filings and its opposition to Nelson’s bankruptcy filings. (ECF No. 92 at PageID 1126.)
In response, Nelson offers two reasons why this Court should deny Integrated’s
motion. (ECF No. 93 at PageID 1177.) First, Nelson asserts that Integrated is collaterally
estopped from claiming fees in this matter. (Id.) Second, Nelson argues that Integrated’s
motion is untimely. (Id. at PageID 1180.) Even though Nelson’s arguments are not
persuasive, this Court still finds that Integrated’s request for fees is not well founded and
should be denied.
ANALYSIS
A party moving to recover attorney’s fees must do so by a drafting a motion for the
court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(A). Additionally, the Local Rules require that a party moving
for attorney’s fees provide a memorandum in support, set out “in detail the number of hours
spent on each aspect of the case,” and an affidavit of another attorney in the community
attesting to the prevailing rate charged for similar services in the community. LR 54.1(b). As
an exercise of its inherent authority, a court can award attorney’s fees when the opposing
“party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Chambers v.

2

NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45–46 (1991); see also First Bank v. Marietta v. Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501, 514 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding that Chambers “permit[s]
the district court to resort to its inherent authority to sanction bad-faith conduct”). As a
threshold matter, Integrated attempted to provide the Court with the requisite documents
needed to satisfy the procedural requirements of Federal Rule 54 and Local Rule 54.1(b). But
Integrated provided only the hours worked and the hourly rate, it did not provide detailed
billing entries showing the work on each aspect of the case. Nevertheless, the Court now
turns to the Parties’ substantive claims.
Integrated alleges Nelson acted in bad faith by first agreeing, in a court-filed joint
stipulation agreement, to pay Integrated only to go back on its promise and drag out these
proceedings further. (See ECF No. 92.) This is a good point. Nelson’s behavior here borders
on bad faith.
This Court does not condone Nelson’s approach to this litigation. But Integrated has
not provided the Court with sufficiently specific acts that, in the Court’s view, would amount
to sanctionable bad faith conduct. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 33. The American legal system
is designed so that “each litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or
contract provides otherwise.” Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 500 U.S. 242, 253
(2010). For its own reasons, Integrated chose to file a brief in support of GAIC’s Motion to
Enforce Judgment. This was not required by the rules or by order of this Court. This was a
choice—Integrated’s choice. The Court therefore declines to exercise its inherent authority to
award Integrated its attorney fees. 1

1

The Court need not address Nelson’s arguments that Integrated is collaterally estopped from
pursuing attorney’s fees or that its Motion is untimely.
3

CONCLUSION
Integrated’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 92) is DENIED. Each Party shall
bear its own fees and costs.

SO ORDERED, this 19th day of November, 2018.
s/ Thomas L. Parker
THOMAS L. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4