Opinion

Thomas v. Viskase Companies Inc

Court
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Filed
May 10, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.1%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMIE THOMAS and ARGUSTER WILLIAMS,

Both Individually and on Behalf of All Others

Similarly Situated; and SEAN GARNETT PLAINTIFFS

V. No. 3:19-cv-330-DPM

VISKASE COMPANIES, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

1. This case was litigated hard on almost all issues for nearly

two and a half years. There were some complexities presented by the

rounding rules and the two groups of plaintiffs. The parties settled the

liability issues, Doc. 106, and all that remains is a dispute about

attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs’ counsel spent 367.15 hours on this

case, which has generated a request for $74,988.95 in fees and $3,357.98

in costs. Viskase estimates that a $29,000 award is more reasonable.

The Court must determine the number of hours reasonably expended

multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and then make any appropriate

reductions. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-40 (1983); Quigley v.

Winter, 598 F.3d 938, 956-59 (8th Cir. 2010).

2. The Court agrees with Viskase that the proposed hourly

rates are too high across the board for this kind of work in this District.

The Court will make the appropriate reductions. The reductions are

based on the Court’s experience with current market rates in all kinds

of cases. The Court awards fees for these listed hours and rates:

Josh Sanford - 19.65hours x $250/hour = $4,912.50

Vanessa Kinney - 52.50hours x $200/hour = □ $10,500.00

Steve Rauls - 1480hours x $175/hour = $2,590.00

Sean Short - 188.50hours x $150/hour = $28,275.00

Samuel Brown - 12.50 hours x $100/hour = $1,250

Paralegal - 49.50hours x $75/hour = $3,712.50

Law Clerk - 29.70hours x $25/hour = $742.50

$51,892.50

3. The Court appreciates counsel’s self-audit and voluntary

time reductions. The Court is not persuaded by Viskase’s argument

that counsel’s decision not to provide documentation about the self-

deducted time justifies ignoring that salutary effort. There is still,

however, more to be trimmed.

The 16.75 hours Short billed for the time he spent traveling

throughout Arkansas to attend virtual depositions will not be shifted

onto Viskase. Most paying clients are willing to go to their lawyer to

avoid paying additional fees for time spent traveling. The Court will

therefore deduct $2,512.50 from the lodestar amount.

A further across the board 25% reduction is reasonable to account

for overstaffing, duplicated effort, and inefficiencies. Five lawyers, a

law clerk, and a paralegal are excessive for this case. Too much time

_2-

was spent on intra-office conferences, meetings, calls, and emails.

Clients don’t pay extra for staff work or excessive oversight, so fees for

these types of matters will not be awarded.

All material things considered, the Court awards $37,035.00 as the

reasonable attorney’s fee for the work in this case. Hensley, 461 U.S. at

434-37.

4. The Court also awards a reduced amount in costs. FED. R.

Civ. P. 54(d)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The filing fee and copy costs are

recoverable, 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1) & (4). So is the $145 cost to find correct

addresses. The postage and the private service fee, however, aren't

recoverable as costs. Smith v. Tenet Healthsystem SL, Inc., 436 F.3d 879,

889 (8th Cir. 2006); Crues v. KFC Corp., 768 F.2d 230, 234 (8th Cir. 1985).

Neither is travel for deposing counsel's clients. But, paying clients are

routinely billed for postage and private service. Those expenses —

$661.55 — will therefore be added to the fee.

Here’s the summary:

Attorney Fees........................637,696.55

COStS... □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ see 191,231.90

Total... ceeeeeeeeeee cence seen 198,928.45

5. A final point: the Court notes that it reserved jurisdiction to

enforce the parties’ settlement and resolve any attorney’s fee issues

expired on 4 April 2022. Doc. 108. The latter reservation was

unnecessary and mistaken. The Court always has jurisdiction over fee

issues post-judgment because they’re a collateral matter. Jowa v. Union

Asphalt & Roadoils, Inc., 409 F.2d 1239, 1243 (8th Cir. 1969).

Plaintiff's motion for fees and costs, Doc. 109, is mostly granted

and partly denied.

So Ordered.

MAraned

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge

10 Mor QORD

_4-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.