Davis et al v. Perry et al
Filing
217
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER re 216 Supplement. Signed by Judge Orlando L. Garcia, Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (rf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
WENDY DAVIS, MARC VEASEY, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN
AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), et al.
Plaintiffs
VS.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil No. SA-11-CA-788-OLG-JES-XR
) [LEAD CASE]
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil No. SA-11-CA-855-OLG-JES-XR
) [CONSOLIDATED CASE]
)
)
)
)
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES
On this date, the Court considered Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Filing in Support of the Davis
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs (docket no. 216). In its prior Order, the
Court denied fees for work performed by Cheryl Olson because Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that
she was qualified by virtue of education, training, or work experience to perform substantive legal
work. However, the Court permitted Plaintiffs to supplement the record with such evidence, and
Plaintiffs have done so.
The Court has reviewed the Declaration of Cheryl Olson and finds that Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that she is qualified by virtue of her education, training, and work experience to
perform substantive legal work. The Court will therefore determine a reasonable award of attorneys’
fees based on her work.
-1-
The Davis Plaintiffs seek paralegal fees for Cheryl Olson in the amount of $8,927.50 (31.75
hours at rates between $280 and $295). The term “attorney’s fee” has historically included fees for
paralegal services. Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 582 (2008). However,
“[p]aralegal work can only be recovered as attorney’s fees if the work is legal rather than clerical.”
Vela v. City of Houston, 276 F.3d 659, 681 (5th Cir. 2001); Allen v. U.S. Steel Corp., 665 F.2d 689,
697 (5th Cir. 1982) (paralegal expenses are separately recoverable only as part of a prevailing party’s
award for attorney’s fees and expenses, and even then only to the extent that the paralegal performs
work traditionally done by an attorney; otherwise, paralegal expenses are separately unrecoverable
overhead expenses).
A. Hours Reasonably Expended
Defendants argue that the Court should deny or reduce any award for work performed by
Olson because the work was clerical in nature and was block-billed. Defendants also argue that the
requested hourly rates are excessive. The Court has previously ruled that although Jenner & Block
utilized block-billing, this does not require an across-the-board reduction in fees because the Court
is able to determine whether the time spent on the listed tasks is reasonable. The same is true for
Olson’s time entries.
The Court has reviewed Defendants’ specific objections to Olson’s time entries, which
include “block billing,” “duplicative with internal and/or external counsel,” and “clerical,
administrative.” Olson submits several entries for cite checking and reviewing and revising
appellees’ brief in the Supreme Court. Olson’s Declaration states that she reads the case law to
ensure that cited cases provide legal and factual support for the propositions for which they are cited,
and ensures compliance with the Court’s local rules and with Bluebook requirements. The Court
finds that Olson’s time spent cite checking, reviewing, and revising briefs is compensable legal work
since this work would be performed by an attorney if Olson had not performed it.
These time entries are sometimes block-billed with other entries, which makes it difficult to
determine exactly how many hours were billed for cite-checking, reviewing, and revising. The Court
finds that ten hours is a reasonable amount of time for cite checking, reviewing, and revising
appellees’ brief, which was forty-six substantive pages, plus a table of contents, table of authorities,
and three-page appendix. Olson has billed 8.75 hours related to the reply brief, which was forty-five
-2-
substantive pages, plus a table of contents and table of authorities and a four-page supplemental
appendix. The Court reduces that by .5 hours (less .25 hours for “assisted in filing and serving reply
brief” and less .25 hours for formatting the four-page supplemental appendix), for a total of 8.25
hours. Olson also states that she ensured that the preparation of appendices and the filing of the
material with the Supreme Court complied with all applicable Supreme Court rules. The Court finds
that this activity is clerical, given that it could be performed by a legal secretary and does not require
legal expertise. Accordingly, the Court makes the following reductions:
• 12/01/2011 entry is reduced by 1.25 hours because “reviewed and organized appendix
materials” and “assisted in filing and serving opposition to emergency application for a stay” is
vague and clerical and the Court is unable to determine precisely how much time was billed for these
activities given the use of block billing (when combined with the 11/30/2011 entry of 2.5 hours, this
leaves a total of 3.5 hours for cite checking the opposition to emergency application for a stay).
• 12/15/2011 entry for “met with C. Lopez re filing requirements for merits brief” is
disallowed as vague and clerical.
• 12/16/2011, 12/19/2011, 12/20/2011, and 12/21/2011 entries are reduced from 16.75 to 10
hours for cite checking, reviewing, and revising appellees’ merits brief, and the rest is disallowed
as clerical or excessive, as discussed above.
• 12/22/2011 entry of .75 for “assisting in filing and serving printed versions of appellees
brief” is disallowed as clerical.
• 12/30/2011 and 1/2/2012 entries of 6.25 hours for “cite checked reply brief; formatted
supplemental appendix” and 1.25 hours for “reviewed and revised reply brief; assisted in filing and
serving reply brief” are reduced by .5 hours as discussed above, for a total time of 8.25 hours for cite
checking, reviewing, and revising the reply brief.
This results in a total of 21.75 hours (a reduction of ten hours, and includes 3.5 hours for
work related to the opposition to the stay motion, 10 hours related to the merits brief, and 8.25 hours
related to the reply brief).
B. Reasonable Hourly Rate
This Court has previously determined that the prevailing market rates of the forum should
govern. The Court takes judicial notice that the State Bar of Texas Legal Assistant Division has
-3-
surveyed its membership, and the median hourly rate for a paralegal in Texas and in San Antonio
was found to be $107. See Structural Metals, Inc. v. S&C Elec. Co., No. 09-CV-984-XR, 2013 WL
3790307, at * 10 (W.D. Tex. July 19, 2013). District courts in Texas have held that paralegal hourly
rates between $60 and $200 are reasonable. Id. (noting that Texas courts have found a rate of $125
to be reasonable)(citing Richardson v. Tex–Tube Co., 843 F. Supp. 2d 699, 709 (S.D. Tex.2012)
Gromer v. Mack, No. 3:11–CV–0682–D, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 847, at *3–5, 2012 WL 28835
(N.D. Tex. Jan.4, 2012); Chapman v. A.S.U.I. Healthcare & Dev. Ctr., Civ. A. No. H–11–3025,
2013 WL 487032, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2013) (finding a rate of $175 reasonable for a senior
paralegal in Houston)); see also Coach, Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL
3249470 (Aug. 7, 2012) (awarding $90 per hour); see also DeHoyos v. Allstate Corp., 240 F.R.D.
269, 325 (W.D. Tex. 2007) ($130 to $200 were reasonable rates).
Olson is the head paralegal and senior paralegal/paralegal coordinator at a large firm, and has
over twenty years of experience as a paralegal. Considering Olson’s experience, the median hourly
rate, and awards in past cases, the Court finds that $125 is a reasonable hourly rate for her services.
C. Calculation of the Lodestar
The lodestar for Olson’s work is 21.75 hours times $125, for a total award of $2,718.75.
Conclusion
The Davis Plaintiffs are awarded an additional $2,718.75 in attorneys’ fees for the work of
Cheryl Olson.
SIGNED January 15, 2014.
__/s/_________________________________
JERRY E. SMITH
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
__/s/________________________________
ORLANDO L. GARCIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
__/s/________________________________
XAVIER RODRIGUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?