Ashland Inc. et al v. Randolph
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: Plaintiff Ashland, Inc.'s 21 MOTION and REQUEST for Attorney Fees; directing Plaintiffs, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, to file sufficient evidence, as detailed herein, to support a finding by this Court of a precise amount of "reasonable" attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in their pursuit during late 2013 of a finding of contempt against Defendant, or they risk the denial of their Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 4/10/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
ASHLAND INC., d/b/a VALVOLINE,
and ASHLAND LICENSING AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-21768
JEFF RANDOLPH d/b/a KWIK LUBE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is Plaintiffs‟ Motion and Request for Attorney Fees, ECF No. 21.
Pursuant to the Court‟s December 10, 2013, Order, ECF No. 19, finding Defendant in civil
contempt, this Court may order Defendant to reimburse Plaintiffs for reasonable attorneys‟ fees
and costs. See In re Gen. Motors Corp., 61 F.3d 256, 259 (4th Cir. 1995). However, such “a
compensatory sanction may not exceed the actual loss to the complainant caused by the actions of
respondent.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
“In awarding attorneys' fees [pursuant to a finding of civil contempt], the district court
should first focus on the time and labor expended and the customary fees for like work.” Colonial
Williamsburg Found. v. Kittinger Co., 38 F.3d 133, 138 (4th Cir. 1994). “[D]etermination of the
hourly rate will generally be the critical inquiry in setting the „reasonable fee,‟ and the burden rests
with the fee applicant to establish the reasonableness of a requested rate.” Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d
273, 277 (4th Cir. 1990). “In addition to the attorney's own affidavits, the fee applicant must
produce satisfactory specific evidence of the prevailing market rates in the relevant community for
the type of work for which he seeks an award.” Id.
“After determining the initial fee, the district court should consider whether to adjust the
fee on the basis of other factors, briefly explaining any adjustment.” Colonial Williamsburg, 38
F.3d at 138. In so doing, the court should consider the twelve factors enumerated in Barber v.
Kimbrell's, Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 n.28 (4th Cir.1978):
(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the
attorney's opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee
for like work; (6) the attorney's expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the
time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in
controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of
the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in
which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship
between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys' fees awards in similar cases.
See In re Gen. Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 1003, 1032 (4th Cir. 1997). However, “a fee based upon
reasonable rates and hours is presumed to be fully compensatory without producing a windfall”;
thus, “upward adjustments of the lodestar amount[, determined by multiplying reasonable hourly
rates by reasonable hours expended,] based on the other factors listed in Barber are not favored
and are appropriate only where exceptional circumstances are present.” Almond v. Boyles, 792
F.2d 451, 456-57 (4th Cir. 1986). Additionally, the court “may adjust the lodestar based only on
the []Barber factors that are not accounted for in the lodestar figure.” Bradford v. HSBC Mortgage
Corp., 859 F. Supp. 2d 783, 791 (E.D. Va. 2012).
Plaintiffs provided only a high-level summary of their attorneys‟ fees and costs in their
Motion. Given the applicable standard, the Court cannot rule on this Motion until Plaintiffs
provide a detailed summary of all costs and attorneys‟ fees—including both time expended and
billing rate—and some type of evidence regarding the prevailing market billing rates of other local
-2-
attorneys with the same skills as Plaintiffs‟ counsel who are familiar with the same type of work
done by Plaintiffs‟ counsel in the relevant community. See Grissom v. The Mills Corp., 549 F.3d
313, 323 (4th Cir. 2008); Plyler, 902 F.2d at 278.
The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiffs, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, to file1
sufficient evidence, as detailed above, to support a finding by this Court of a precise amount of
“reasonable” attorneys‟ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in their pursuit during late 2013 of a
finding of contempt against Defendant, or they risk the denial of their Motion for Attorney Fees,
ECF No. 21.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this written Opinion and Order to counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER:
1
April 10, 2014
In their Motion, Plaintiffs offer to provide more detailed information under seal regarding their calculation of
reasonable attorneys‟ fees, including both an affidavit of counsel and copies of invoices submitted for payment. The
Court has no objection to this type of filing.
-3-
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?