Cohan v. Roshni Investments Group, Inc.
0:14-cv-60502
S.D. Fla.Mar 14, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Cohan sued Roshni Investments (d/b/a Travelodge) under the ADA; defendant defaulted and the court entered default judgment on October 16, 2014.
- Plaintiff filed a Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees and costs on May 26, 2015 (over five months after the 60‑day local‑rule deadline).
- Local Rule 7.3 requires filing fee motions within 60 days of final judgment and conferral requirements; Plaintiff served only a draft and filed 21 days after that service.
- The magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s counsel submitted billing records nearly identical to records used in a separate ADA case, raising concerns of unit billing, duplication, and inaccuracies.
- Plaintiff sought $5,000 in attorney’s fees and $1,660 in costs (including $1,200 expert fee); Plaintiff did not produce invoices supporting the expert fee or service costs.
- The magistrate judge issued an order to show cause; counsel’s explanation (tasks identical across cases because matters were similar) was found unpersuasive, and the magistrate recommended denial of the fee motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness (Local Rule 7.3) | Motion served (draft) and filed after service; implied compliance. | No response. | Motion untimely; no showing of excusable neglect; recommend denial. |
| Excusable neglect (Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)) | No specific justification offered for delay. | No response. | Pioneer factors not satisfied; cannot find excusable neglect. |
| Accuracy of billing / unit billing | Counsel: identical tasks took identical time; efficient practice. | No response. | Billing records appear virtually identical to another case; unit billing suspected; hours not proven reasonable. |
| Recovery of costs (expert fees, service fees) | Counsel claims actual expert and service costs. | No response and no invoices produced. | Expert and service fees not documented; filing fee allowed but motion for costs untimely; recommend denial of costs request. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 1994) (lodestar method governs attorney’s‑fee awards)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (standards for reasonable attorney’s fees and lodestar calculation)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (definition and factors for excusable neglect)
- McCool v. Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, 222 Fed. Appx. 847 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court discretion to accept or reject late filings)
- In re Holub, 129 B.R. 293 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (accuracy in timekeeping is required; unit billing unacceptable)
- Browne v. Costales, 579 So.2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (reversing fee award where counsel used unit billing; practice unacceptable)