The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CASH FLOW RESOURCES, LLC CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-2116
HORIZON CONSULTING, INC. SECTION: “G”(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
In this litigation, Plaintiff Cash Flow Resources, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brought claims against
Defendant Horizon Consulting, Inc. (“Defendant”) for breach of contract, violation of the
Louisiana Open Account Statute, and detrimental reliance.1 On June 4, 2025, this Court granted
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment2 and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendant in the amount of $488,456.89, plus attorney’s fees, pre-judgment interest, post-
judgment interest, and costs.3 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Fees and Costs.4
Defendant has not filed a response, timely or otherwise, and accordingly, the motion is deemed
unopposed.5 Having considered the motion, the memorandum in support, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court grants the motion.
Plaintiff seeks a total award of $7,861.73, representing $5,380 in attorney’s fees, $816 in
1 Rec. Doc. 1.
2 Rec. Doc. 23.
3 Id. at 16–17.
4 Rec. Doc. 25.
5 Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be
filed eight days prior to the noticed submission date. The submission date for Plaintiff’s “Motion to set Fees and
Costs” was July 9, 2025, and accordingly Defendant’s response was due on or before July 1, 2025.
paralegal fees, and $1,665.73 in expenses.6 In diversity actions, state law controls the
reasonableness of fees awarded where state law supplies the rule of decision.7 Under Louisiana
law, a party may recover attorney’s fees only “where authorized by statute or contract.”8
Louisiana’s Open Account Statute permits a creditor to recover “reasonable attorney’s fees” when
it brings an action to collect on an open account and meets the statutory requirements.9 In the Order
granting the motion for default judgment, the Court found Plaintiff met the statutory requirements
to recover attorney’s fees under the Open Account Statute. Therefore, the only issue remaining is
the reasonableness of the award requested.
Under Louisiana law, “[c]ourts may inquire as to the reasonableness of attorney’s fees as
part of their prevailing, inherent authority to regulate the practice of law.”10 A reasonable hourly
rate is to be determined “according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community” for
attorneys of similar experience in similar cases.11 “Louisiana federal courts sitting in diversity have
applied both federal and state cases to determine whether a requested rate reflects rates actually
6 Rec. Doc. 25 at 1.
7 Alyeska Pipeline Servs. Co. v. Wilderness Soc., 421 U.S. 240, 259 n.31 (1975); Walker Int’l Holdings, Ltd.
v. Repub. of Congo, 415 F.3d 413, 415 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 461 (5th Cir.
2002)).
8 Ogea v. Loffland Bros. Co., 622 F.2d 186, 190 (5th Cir. 1980) (internal citations omitted).
9 La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2781.
10 State Dept. of Transp. and Dev. v. Williams, 597 So. 2d 439, 441–42 (La. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
The Louisiana Supreme Court set forth ten factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee award:
(1) the ultimate result obtained; (2) the responsibility incurred; (3) the importance of litigation; (4) the amount of
money involved; (5) the extent and character of the work performed; (6) the legal knowledge, attainment, and skill of
the attorneys; (7) the number of appearances involved; (8) the intricacies of the facts involved; (9) the diligence and
skill of counsel; and (10) the Court’s own knowledge. Id. at 442. These factors weigh in favor of awarding attorney’s
fees to Plaintiff.
11 Covington v. McNeese State Univ., 2012-2182 (La. 5/7/13); 118 So. 3d 343, 350 (citing Blum v. Stenson,
465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984)).
charged in the community.”12
In support of the request for a rate of $200 per hour, Plaintiff’s attorney Jonathan P. Lemann
(“Lemann”) submits a declaration stating that his normal billing rate is $200 per hour, as well as
the invoices containing the time and costs incurred in this matter.13 The Fifth Circuit, in DaSilva
v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, affirmed the district court’s award of an
hourly rate of $200 per hour for an attorney, noting that such an hourly rate was “within the middle
of the range.”14 Court records reflect that Lemann has been practicing law for over 25 years.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that $200 per hour is appropriate considering Lemann’s
experience and supporting case law.
Next, the Court turns to the number of hours reasonably expended on this litigation. The
Court considers whether the attorney exercised “reasonable billing judgment.”15 “It is well settled
that a court, in awarding an appropriate attorney fee, should reduce the number of hours submitted
in the fee application if the claimed time is ‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’”16
Plaintiff contends that its attorney has reasonably expended 26.9 hours of attorney time to
investigate and draft the complaint in this matter.17 In support, Plaintiff attaches time records
documenting the work performed on this case.18 The time records reflect time spent drafting the
12 Receivables Exch., LLC v. Adv. Tech. Servs., Case No. 14-0668, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64562, at *9 (E.D.
La. Apr. 28, 2015) (Roby, M.J.).
13 Rec. Doc. 25-2.
14 599 F. App’x 535, 543 (5th Cir. 2014).
15 Covington, 118 So. 3d at 349–50.
16 Id. at 350 (internal citations omitted).
17 Rec. Doc. 25-2.
18 Id.
complaint, serving the Defendant, drafting the motion for default judgment, and reviewing the
Court’s ruling.!’ The time records reflect that paralegals also performed 9.6 hours of work in this
matter at a rate of $85 per hour.*’ Defendant has not responded to this motion or presented any
information to show that the work performed was excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.
Therefore, the Court concludes that the number of hours expended on this litigation was
reasonable.
Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:2781 also allows for the recovery of costs. Plaintiff seeks to
recover $1,665.73 in expenses.”! The costs incurred include a fee of $1,587.50 for a process server
and $78.73 for FedEx overnight shipments to Defendant. The Court finds that the costs were
reasonably incurred.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cash Flow Resources’ Motion to Set Fees and Costs”
is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Horizon Consulting, Inc. shall remit
payment to Plaintiff Cash Flow Resources, LLC in the total amount of $7,861.73, representing
$5,380 in attorney’s fees, $816 in paralegal fees, and $1,665.73 in expenses.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 4th _ day of August, 2025.
NANNETTE IVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 Td.
20 Td.
21 Td.
22 Rec. Doc. 25.