Domain Protection LLC v. Sea Wasp LLC, 4:18-cv-00792

Sea Wasp obtained an order granting its Second Motion for Sanctions against attorney Gary Schepps and the Court directed Schepps to provide Sea Wasp’s costs for briefing that motion.
Domain Protection (the plaintiff) filed motions for reconsideration and clarification; the Court denied reconsideration and clarified that Sea Wasp was awarded attorneys’ fees for briefing the sanctions motion, encouraging parties to agree on an amount and setting deadlines for dispute.
Sea Wasp’s counsel (Sanders) submitted an invoice and correspondence showing negotiation attempts and requested $7,110.50 for work on the sanctions briefing (hourly rates: Beyer $110, Young $475, Sanders $550; hours: Beyer 5.45, Young 1.6, Sanders 11.8).
Schepps exchanged letters with the Court disputing Sanders’ willingness to negotiate and suggesting lower effective rates, but did not file the motion to contest fees the Court had authorized him to file.
The Court applied the lodestar method, reviewed the submitted time records and rates, found them reasonable, declined to reduce the lodestar, and awarded Sea Wasp $7,110.50 in attorneys’ fees.
The Court ordered Schepps to pay Sea Wasp $7,110.50 within 14 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to fees for briefing sanctions motion	Domain Protection argued (via Schepps) that fees should be limited / challenged Sanders’ conduct in negotiations	Sea Wasp contended the Court already awarded fees for briefing and provided invoice showing fees incurred	Court held Sea Wasp entitled to fees as previously ordered and proceeded to determine amount
Reasonableness of hourly rates and hours	Schepps suggested effective rates should be $250 or less and disputed fees	Sanders submitted contemporaneous time records and proposed rates/hours supporting $7,110.50	Court found the rates and hours reasonable and adopted the lodestar without adjustment
Adequacy of opposition	Schepps sent letters alleging negotiation failure but did not file the required motion contesting fees	Sea Wasp submitted correspondence evidencing negotiation attempts and timely invoice	Court treated Schepps’ letters as insufficient (no formal motion) and credited Sea Wasp’s documentation
Payment timing	N/A	Sea Wasp sought prompt payment	Court ordered Schepps to pay $7,110.50 within 14 days

Black v. SettlePou, 732 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2013) (lodestar method governs attorney’s fees calculation)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable hourly rate measured by prevailing market rate in relevant community)
Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2002) (relevant legal community is where the district court sits)
Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 1993) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; requirement for adequately recorded time)
Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041 (5th Cir. 1998) (use of Johnson factors to assess lodestar adjustments)
Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (enumeration of twelve Johnson factors)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (degree of success is the most critical factor in awarding fees)
Jason D.W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 1998) (many Johnson factors subsumed in lodestar)
Heidtman v. Cty. of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038 (5th Cir. 1999) (certain Johnson factors are reflected fully in lodestar amount)