v. Gulf Coast Limestone Inc et al

Filing 26

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR FEES, COSTS, AND INTEREST. Case terminated on 08/29/2024. (Signed by Judge David Hittner) Parties notified. (jww4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
August 30, 2024

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION .
GULF COAST LIMESTONE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.

PONTCHARTRAINPARTNERS, '
LLC,
Defendant.

§•
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

•Civil Action No. H-23-2831

FINAL JUDG1\4ENT AND ORDER FOR FEES, COSTS, AND INTEREST
Pending before. the Court is Plaintiff Gulf Coast· Limestone's Motion for
Attorney Fees (Document No. 25). Having considered the motion, submissions, and
applicable law, the Court determines that the motion'should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND .
This case arises out of a breach of contract dispute. On July 15, 2019, P,laintiff
Gulf Coast Limestone Inc ("Gulf Coast") entered into a credit agreement with
Defendant Pontchartrain Partners, LLC ("Pontchartrain''), allowing Pontchartrain to
purchase construction materials and related supplies from Gulf Coast on credit. After
the contract was executed, Pontchartrain experienced financial hardship and failed
to pay for the deliveries of materials for six invoices, amounting to a total of

$141,532.80 in unpaid invoices. 1 Based on the foregoing, on April 19, 2023, Gulf
Coast filed suit against Pontchartrain in state court asserting claims for: (1) unpaid
account, (2) breach of contract, and, in the alternative, (3) quantum meruit against
Pontchartrain. On August 1, 2023, Pontchartrain removed this matter to this Court
based on diversity jurisdiction. On April 30, 2024, Gulf Coast filed a motion for
summary judgment, contending there is no material question of fact for a jury
regarding whether Pontchartrain was in breach of contract. The Court granted Gulf
Coast's summary judgment motion on July 3, 2024. Gulf Coast now moves for
attorney fees and other items to be awarded by this Court. Pontchartrain did not
respond to Gulf Coast's motion for attorney's fees within either the original response
date, or the date of this order.
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
Gulf Coast contends he is entitled to an award of: (1) attorney fees; (2) court
costs; (3) pre-judgment interest; and (4) further post-judgment interest. Pontchartrain
did not respond to Gulf Coast's motion, failing to rebut or offer evidence to counter
Gulf Coast's contentions; Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, failure to respond is taken as

1

Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 21 at 3;
Defendant's Answer, Document No. 6 at 2.

2

a representation of no opposition. S.D. Tex. Local R. 7.4. The Court will consider
each of Gulf Coast's requests in tum.

A.

Attorney Fees
Gulf Coast contends their legal counsel is entitled to attorney fees under both

the parties' contractual agreement and the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
now that it has prevailed on summary judgment. Accordingly, Gulf Coast has
provided a detailed accounting of its attorney fees. 2 Pontchartrain did not respond or
offer any counterarguments against awarding ~ttorney's fees.
In the Fifth Circuit, the "lodestar" method is used to determine statutorily
authorized attorney fees. Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., 98 F.3d 817, 821 (5th Cir.
1996). Under the lodestar method, the Court determines the reasonable hourly rate
for the movant' s attorney and the reasonable number of hours expended on the
litigation by the movant's attorney. Id. The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the
reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours. Id. Once the lodestar is
initially determined, the Court may adjust the lodestar up or down to make the award
of attorney fees reasonable. Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453,457 (5th Cir. 1993). The
movant bears the burden of establishing the rate charged and reasonableness of the
hours expended. Riley v. City of Jackson, Miss., 99 F.3d 757, 760 (5th Cir. 1996).

2

Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, Document No. 25, Exhibit 1
(Declaration ofRandall Lindley).

3

Once the lodestar analysis is complete, the Court may increase or decrease the award
based on the factors provided in Johnson v. Ga. Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714,
717-19 (5th Cir. 1974). Saizan v. Delta Concrete Prods. Co., 448 F.3d 795,800 (5th
Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 3
Here, Gulf Coast contends that it has accrued $41,376.00 in attorney fees. In
support of its claim, . Gulf Coast produces detailed billing records, including
descriptions of the tasks performed throughout the litigation. Gulf Coast also
produced a declaration of senior partner on the case, Randall K. Lindley ("Lindley"),
in support of its fee request (the "Lindley Declaration"). 4 The Lindley Declaration
indicates Gulf Coast's legal team from Bell Nunally & Martin LLP, billed 78 .3 hours
over a period spanning from April 2023 to August 2024. Lindley declared that his
blended billable hour rate over the course of litigation was $571.72 per hour. 5

3

The Johnson factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and
difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4)
the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the
customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by
the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the.results obtained; (9) the
experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case;
(11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards
in similar cases. Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19.
4

Declaration ofRandall Lindley, supra note 2.

5

Lindley contends that his hourly rate for this matter was $550.00 per hour in 2023,
and $595.00 per hour in 2024, resulting in a blended billable hour rate of$571.72 based on
the number of hours billed by Lindley across the past seventeenth months. Declaration of
Randall Lindley, supra note 2 at4.

4

Additionally, Lindley declared that a senior associate worked on the matter at a rate
of$535 per hour. Lindley also declared that a junior associate worked on the matter
at a blended rate of $483 .46 per hour. 6 Lindley contends the billing rates charged
avoided unnecessary expense by utilizing associate attorneys with lower billable
hour rates. Lindley also contends that an additional 12.8 hours were incurred for a
senior counsel's time, but out of an abundance of caution the firm declined to seek
recovery of that counsel's fees.
The Court has carefully analyzed the billing records and task descriptions
produced by Gulf Coast. Based on the Court's analysis of the bill, Lindley billed
20.1 hours at $571.72 per hour, senior associate Nathan Cox billed 33.9 hours at
$535.00 per hour, and junior associate Laura Lavernia billed 14.7 hours at $483.46
per hour. 7 Based on the Court's calculation, the total attorney fee award should be
$41,376.00. 8 Gulf Coast contends the billable rates are reasonable and necessary in
this matter. Gulf Coast further contends that the rates charged are within the range
of what is commonly charged for practicing in federal district court on commercial

6

Lindley contends that a junior associate staffed on this matter's hourly rate was
$440.00 per hour in 2023, and $470.00 per h·our in 2024, resulting in a blended billable
hour rate of $483 .46 per hour based on the number of hours billed by the associate over the
past seventeenth months. Declaration ofRandall Lindley, supra note 2 at 5.
7

Declaration ofRandall Lindley, supra note 2 at 4-6.

8

(20.1

X

$571.72) + (33.9

X

$535.00) + (14.7

5

X

$483.46) = $41,376.00.

litigation matters and based on the experience and qualifications of the attorneys
involved. Pontchartrain did not respond to Gulf Coast's motion for attorney fees or
offer any argument or evidence to • suggest the . proffered attorney fees are
unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court determines that an award of $41,736.00 is
appropriate. The Court now turns to the award of court costs and expenses.
B.

Court Costs

Gulf Coast requests costs of $474.55, consisting of $389.55 filing fees and
$85.00 in service fees. Pontchartrain does not dispute Gulf Coast's requested court
costs. The Court "may only award those costs articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 absent
explicit statutory or contractual authorization to the contrary." Cook Children 's Med.
Ctr. v. The New England PPO Plan of Gen. Consol. Mgmt., Inc., 491 F.3d 266, 274

(5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Mota v. The Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512,
529 (5th Cir. 2001)); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920. A party seeking costs must attach an
affidavit "made by himself or by his duly authorized attorney or agent having
knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and has been necessarily incurred
in the case and that the services for which fees have been charged were actually and
necessarily performed." 28 U.S.C. § 1924. The Court may deny the award of certain
costs if the supporting affidavit is too conclusory to allow the Court to make a
reasonable determination as to necessity. United States ex rel. King v. Solvay S.A.,

6

Solvay S.A., No. H-06-2662, 2016 WL 3523873, at *8 (S.D. Tex. June 6, 2016)
(Miller, J.), aff'd, 871 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2017).
Here, Gulf Coast provided the amount of the court costs and confirmed them
in the Lindley Declaration. 9 Gulf Coast contends· that all the requested costs are
reasonable and necessary to progress the litigation in this case. The Court notes that
fees associated with filing a lawsuit and serving Defendants in a matter are necessary
in the litigation process. Pontchartrain did not respond to Gulf Coast's motion or
offer any arguments or evidence to assert that the costs asked for are unreasonable
or unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court finds that Gulf Coast is entitled to costs
incurred during this case. Therefore, the Court awards $474.55 in court costs.
C.

Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment Interest
Gulf Coast contends it should be awarded $32,871.09 in pre-judgment

interest, arguing that the contractual agreement signed by the parties provides for
pre-judgment interest at an 18% rate~ Gulf Coast also contends that it is entitled to a
post-judgment interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total amount of the
judgment from the date of judgment until paid in full. Pontchartrain does not dispute
Gulf Coast is entitled to pre-judgment or post-judgment interest.

9

Declaration ofRandall Lindley, supra note 2, at 6.

7

The Fifth Circuit has made. clear that "pre-judgment interest is calculated
under state law." Bos. Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Tiner Assocs. Inc., 288 F.3d 222, 234
(5th Cir. 2002). In Texas, a prevailing plaihtiff in a contract case governed by Texas
law is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest 'in ~11 but exceptional
circumstances.'" Am. Int 'l Trading Corp. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 83 5 F .2d 536, 541
(5th Cir. 1987). Prejudgment interest for Texas judgments, including an equitable
award of prejudgment interest, is calculated in accordance with chapter 304 of the
Texas Finance Code. Johnson & Higgins of Tex, Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962
S.W.2d 507, 530-33 (Tex. 1998). Additionally, Texas common law allows prejudgment interest to accrue at the same rate as post-judgment interest on damages
awarded for breach ofcontract. Int'l Turbine Servs., Inc. v. VASP Brazilian Airlines,
278 F.3d 494, 499-500 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Johnson & Higgins of Tex,, Inc. v.
Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507, 530 (Tex. 1998)). The Texas Finance Code

authorizes a money judgment fo.r post-judgment interest·"at a rate equal to the lesser
of: (1) the rate specified in the contract, which may be a variable rate; or (2) 18
percent a year.'~ Tex. Fin. Code§ 304.002.
Here, Gulf Coast provides proof of the parties' contractual agreement to an
18% interest rate, which is permissible under· the Texas Finance Code. 10

10

Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 21, Exhibit

A.

8

Pontchartrain offers no opposition. Given the parties' contractual agreement and
guidance from both the Fifth Circuit and Texas Finance Code, the Court finds that
an interest rate.of 18% is acceptable, and awards Gulf Coast pre-judgment interest
in the amount of $32,871.09. The Court also awards Gulf Coast post-judgment
interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiff Gulf Coast Limestone's Motion for Attorney Fees

(Document No. 25) is GRANTED. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff is AWARDED damages in the sum of $141,532.80 ..

The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff 1s AWARD ED attorney fees m the sum of·

$41,376.00. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff is AWARDED court costs in the sum of $474.55.

The Court further.
ORDERS that Plaintiff shall recover pre-judgment interest in the amount of

$32,871.09. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff shall recover post-judgment interest at the post-

judgement rate of 18% per annum, mi the total amount of the judgment from the
date of judgment until the date of payment.
9

THIS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this ~ 'I day of August, 2024.

~~ :_◄
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge

10