Baywater Drilling, LLC v. Southwest Energy Partners LLC
2:16-cv-07968
E.D. La.Mar 22, 2017Background
- Baywater moved to fix attorneys’ fees after the Court granted its motion to compel and awarded fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).
- The Court ordered Baywater to file a motion to fix fees; Baywater sought $1,062.50 and the motion was unopposed.
- Fee request detailed work by two attorneys: Peter Tompkins (30+ years) billed 1.5 hours at $265/hr; Tarryn Walsh (≈2 years) billed 3.8 hours at $175/hr.
- The Court reviewed reasonableness under the lodestar method (hours × reasonable hourly rate) and considered Johnson factors for any adjustment.
- The Court found the rates and hours reasonable, made no lodestar adjustment, and awarded $1,062.50 to the plaintiff, payable within 21 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requested attorney rates are reasonable | Requested $265/hr for Tompkins and $175/hr for Walsh are market rates given experience | No opposition to rates | Rates are prima facie reasonable and awarded |
| Whether hours billed were reasonable | 1.5 hrs (Tompkins) and 3.8 hrs (Walsh) were reasonably expended on the motion to compel | No opposition; no showing of excess or duplication | Hours found reasonable and awarded |
| Proper method to calculate fee award | Use lodestar (hours × rate) and consider Johnson factors only if adjustment warranted | N/A | Lodestar applied; total $1,062.50; no adjustment made |
| Whether Johnson factors require modifying lodestar | Johnson factors considered; no exceptional circumstances shown to adjust | N/A | No upward or downward adjustment to lodestar |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar = reasonable hours × reasonable rate; starting point for fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (hourly rate should reflect prevailing market rates for similar services)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (twelve factors for adjusting the lodestar)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (lodestar generally presumed reasonable; enhancements limited)
- Walker v. City of Mesquite, 313 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2002) (billing judgment requirement; reduce hours if not demonstrated)
- Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041 (5th Cir. 1998) (do not double-count Johnson factors already subsumed in lodestar)