defining “prevailing party” as one “for whom final judgment is rendered”
How later courts described this case
- defining “prevailing party” as one “for whom final judgment is rendered”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ARKON SOLUTIONS, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-22-223-G
)
PLATINUM CHEMICAL )
CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is the Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. No. 16) filed through
counsel by Plaintiff Arkon Solutions, Inc. on December 28, 2022. No response was filed
within the time allowed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(g).
I. Background
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 17, 2022, asserting a claim for breach of
contract under Oklahoma law against Defendant Platinum Chemical Corporation. See
Compl. (Doc. No. 1).1 On December 14, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment, finding no dispute of material fact as to any of the elements of
Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. See Order of Dec. 14, 2022, at 2 (Doc. No. 14). The
Court therefore entered judgment on this claim in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of
$823,286.57, plus interest. See id.; J. (Doc. No. 15) at 1.
1 Although the pleading additionally presented a claim for unjust enrichment, under
Oklahoma law, a party may not pursue such a claim when it has an adequate remedy at law
for breach of contract. See Valley View Agri, LLC v. Producers Coop. Oil Mill, No. CIV-
15-1297-D, 2017 WL 1208670, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2017).
Along with its entry of judgment, the Court found that Plaintiff “ha[d] established
its entitlement to recover its attorneys’ fees and upon submission of a Motion properly
submitted in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, attorneys’ fees will be awarded.” Order
of Dec. 14, 2022, at 3 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 936); accord J. at 1.
II. Standard of Decision
Plaintiff now seeks an award of its attorney’s fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d)(2) and Local Civil Rule 54.2. In diversity actions, “attorney fees are a
substantive matter” governed by state law. Combs v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 991,
1001 (10th Cir. 2008). Generally, “Oklahoma courts are committed to the American Rule,”
whereby “every litigant is responsible for its own litigation expenses.” State ex rel. Dep’t
of Transp. v. Norman Indus. Dev. Corp., 41 P.3d 960, 962 (Okla. 2001). Attorney fees are
available, however, when authorized by a specific statute. See Combs, 551 F.3d at 1001.
As the basis for its request, Plaintiff invokes title 12, section 936 of the Oklahoma
Statutes, which authorizes attorney fees to the prevailing parties of certain contract
disputes. The relevant language provides:
In any civil action to recover for labor or services rendered, or on an open
account, a statement of account, account stated, note, bill, negotiable
instrument, or contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods, wares, or
merchandise, unless otherwise provided by law or the contract which is the
subject of the action, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable
attorney fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 936(A).
The award of fees to the prevailing party under section 936(A) is “mandatory.” Kay
v. Venezuelan Sun Oil Co., 806 P.2d 648, 650 (Okla. 1991). “[T]he determination of
reasonableness and amount of the fee award is generally left to the sound discretion of the
district court,” however. Gamble, Simmons & Co. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 175 F.3d 762,
773 (10th Cir. 1999). As recognized by Plaintiff, under Oklahoma law “the correct method
for determining a reasonable attorney fee is to calculate the ‘lodestar’— the number of
hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate—and then to enhance or
reduce the fee by consideration of the factors in State ex rel. Burke v. City of Oklahoma
City.” Brown v. Elephant Talk N. Am. Corp., No. CIV-18-902-PRW, 2022 WL 1527523,
at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 13, 2022) (footnote omitted) (citing Burke, 598 P.2d 659, 661
(Okla. 1979)); see also Pl.’s Mot. at 2-3.
III. Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney Fees
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees seeks an award of $18,124.50, representing
fees for 57.5 hours of attorney time and 7.5 hours of time worked by paralegals. See Pl.’s
Mot. at 3-5. In accordance with Local Civil Rule 54.2, Plaintiff has submitted detailed
billing records, as well as an affidavit signed by attorney Michael K. Avery, to support its
lodestar calculation and fee request. See id. Exs. 1, 2 (Doc. Nos. 16-1, 16-2).
As Defendant has not objected or otherwise responded to the Motion, the Court
deems the factual representations made therein confessed pursuant to Local Civil Rule
7.1(g). Based upon the previously entered Judgment and award of damages, Plaintiff is
the prevailing party in this matter. See Comanche Nation of Okla. ex rel. Comanche Nation
Tourism Ctr. v. Coffey, 480 P.3d 271, 278 (Okla. 2020) (defining “prevailing party” as one
“for whom final judgment is rendered”). In addition, having considered the relevant
factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's request for $18,124.50 is reasonable and well
supported by the case record.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff Arkon Solutions, Inc.’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Platinum Chemical Corporation
shall pay $18,124.50 in attorney’s fees to Plaintiff Arkon Solutions, Inc. pursuant to title
12, section 936(A) of the Oklahoma Statutes.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2023.
(Vauba B. Kodo
United States District Judge