Swivelpole Group Pty Ltd. et al v. Swivelpole USA, Ltd. et al DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED.

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 25 Motion for Attorney Fees.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(glyons)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SWIVELPOLE GROUP PTY LTD., et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
SWIVELPOLE USA, LTD., et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-2527

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Application for Fees (Doc. 25) filed by Plaintiffs
Swivelpole Group Pty Ltd. and Swivelpole Patent Pty Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
Defendants Swivelpole USA, Ltd.; Swivelpole Holdings, LLC; Swivelpole Canada Holdings,
Inc.; ILS Products, LLC; ILS Products Holdings, LLC; ILS Manufacturing, LLC; and Andrew
Grant (collectively, “Defendants”) have not filed a response, which, pursuant to Local Rule 7.4,
is taken as a representation of no opposition.
In remanding this case, the Court found no objectively reasonable basis for Defendants’
removal and, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), granted Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’
fees and costs. Op. and Order 4-5, Oct. 9, 2012, Doc. 24. Pursuant to that Order, Plaintiffs
submitted their request for $13,746.00 in fees, including affidavits from a partner (Doc. 25-1)
and associate (Doc. 25-3), a summary of contemporaneous time records (Doc. 25-2), and proof
of average rates for attorneys and paralegals in Houston (Doc. 25-4). The Court finds that this
documentation is sufficient to show both that the stated hours are compensable, see Avitts v.
Amoco Prod. Co., 111 F.3d 30, 32 (5th Cir. 1997) (concluding that “expenses incurred because
of the improper removal may be awarded” but those “that would have been incurred had the
1/2

action remained in state court” may not), and that the hours and rates are reasonable, see La.
Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1995) (defining the lodestar as “the
reasonable hours [times] the reasonable hourly rates”). Finally, the Court sees no reason to
deviate from this amount, see id. at 329 n.19 (listing twelve factors considered in upward or
downward adjustment), nor do the parties raise any. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Application for Fees (Doc. 25) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs
are awarded $13,746.00 in attorneys’ fees.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 2nd day of August, 2013.

___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2