Opinion

Wright v. Board of Commissioners of the Capital Area Transit System

Court
District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Filed
Jan 6, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 22.5%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GENE WRIGHT, JR., ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 20-644-SDD-RLB

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE

CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Fix Attorneys’ Fees filed on December 23, 2021.

(R. Doc. 52). The deadline to oppose this motion has expired. (R. Doc. 50). Accordingly, the

motion is unopposed.

On November 16, 2021, Gene Wright, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel, which

asserted that the Board of Commissioners of the Capital Area Transit System (“Defendant”) did

not respond to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

(R. Doc. 46-3), and sought an award of attorney’s fees with respect to the filing of the motion.

(R. Doc. 46). Defendant failed to file a timely opposition. Accordingly, the Court granted the

Motion to Compel and awarded Plaintiff the recovery of reasonable expenses incurred in making

the motion, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. (R. Doc. 50). The Order provides that if the parties could not reach resolution on a

reasonable amount of expenses to be paid, Plaintiff may file a Motion for Fees and Costs setting

forth the reasonable amount of costs and attorney’s fees to be paid by Defendant, including

evidentiary support, incurred in obtaining the Court’s Order.

Plaintiff now seeks recovery of $450 as the measure of the reasonable attorney fees

incurred in obtaining the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s counsel submits a Declaration providing that

he provided billing information to defense counsel, and stated the following: “Please see the

below information pulled from my billing software. At a rate of $225/hour for myself, and

$100/hour for my paralegal, our fees for the motion to compel are in excess of $500.00. To keep

things simple, I propose that we agree that Defendant pay $500 for my fees.” (R. Doc. 52-2 at 1).

The Declaration further states that defense counsel responded “I am in receipt of your email. I

have sent it to CATS general counsel.” (R. Doc. 52-2 at 1). The Declaration represents that

defense counsel provided no further response. (R. Doc. 52-2 at 2). The Declaration further

represents that Plaintiff’s counsel “spent 2.25 hours on preparing the motion to compel, which

would include revieing and synthesizing the facts and relevant underlying communications,

drafting the motion, memo, and declaration, research as needed, and careful quality control

check.” (R. Doc. 52-2 at 2). The Declaration states that Plaintiff’s counsels’ “reasonable hourly

rate in this district is at least $225.00/hour” but, for the sake of simplicity, he will only request

$200.00/hour. (R. Doc. 52-2 at 2).

Once a district court has determined that a party is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees,

as in this case, it must find the number of hours reasonably expended on the case1 and the

reasonable hourly rate for the attorney’s services. Wegner v. Standard Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 814,

822 (5th Cir. 1997). The court then multiplies those two figures together to determine the

“lodestar” amount of attorney’s fees. Id. The lodestar amount is presumed to be the reasonable

fee, but it may be adjusted upward or downward after consideration of the factors set forth in

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–719 (5th Cir. 1974).2

1 Counsel is “charged with proving that they exercised billing judgment.” Winget v. Corporate Green, LLC, No. 09-

0229, 2011 WL 2173840, *4 (M.D. La. 2011) (quoting Walker v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development,

99 F.3d 761, 770 (5th Cir. 1996)). Attorneys exercise billing judgment by not charging for time that is unproductive,

excessive, or duplicative when seeking a fee award. Id.

2 Those factors include the following: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions

presented; (3) the skill required 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) the time

limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount of money involved and the results obtained;

Having considered the underlying Motion to Compel, the assertions and evidence in

support of the instant Motion to Fix Attorneys’ Fees, and the lack of any opposition, the Court

finds that $450 is a reasonable award of attorney fees incurred in bringing Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel. The Court finds the appropriate lodestar to be calculated at 2.25 hours at $200 an hour

($450). Plaintiff does not seek any costs in addition to attorney fees. The Court finds no basis for

reducing the lodestar figure.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Fix Attorneys’ Fees (R. Doc. 52) is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and this Court’s prior Order (R. Doc. 50), Defendant shall pay Plaintiff the

amount of $450 in reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the Motion to Compel within 14

days of the date of this Order.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 6, 2022.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.

U NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(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. Id.

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.