Fantastic Sams Franchise Corporation v. Mosley, 4:16-cv-02318

Fantastic Sams (plaintiff) sued former franchisee Gerald Mosley after his 2005 franchise agreement expired (April 17, 2016), alleging breach of contract and Lanham Act/state claims; the Franchise Agreement allows injunctive relief and contains an attorneys’ fees clause plus a mediation/arbitration provision but reserves temporary injunctive relief to courts.
The court granted a preliminary injunction (Dec. 23, 2016) on the breach-of-contract claim and later issued a permanent injunction (Feb. 2017) restricting Mosley from operating a competing salon within five miles for two years.
Fantastic Sams moved for attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs under the contract; Mosley did not respond and the motion was treated as unopposed under local rules.
Plaintiff sought $53,650 in fees and $8,649.42 (after a discount) in costs; fee work was performed first by Quarles & Brady and then by MehaffyWeber, with multiple attorneys and staff billing.
The court found the contract authorized fees and costs, deemed the requested hourly rates reasonable, but found inadequate evidence of billing judgment and potential duplication; it reduced claimed hours by 50%, producing a lodestar of $26,990 and awarded $8,649.42 in costs.
The court dismissed Fantastic Sams’s remaining claims as moot after entry of the permanent injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to contractual attorneys’ fees and costs	Franchise clause entitles successful party to attorneys’ fees, filing fees, court costs, and litigation expenses	No response (deemed no opposition)	Plaintiff entitled to recover fees and costs under Texas law and the Agreement
Reasonableness of hours billed	Hours billed for successful preliminary and permanent injunctive work were reasonable and limited (excluded later motions)	No response	Court found billing records lacked evidence of billing judgment/discounts and reduced hours by 50% for duplication/excess
Reasonableness of hourly rates	Submitted market evidence showing rates reasonable for community and experience	No response	Court accepted the submitted hourly rates as reasonable
Recovery of litigation expenses and costs	Itemized $12,283.13 but discounted to $8,649.42; expenses included investigator, copying, e-research, depositions, travel	No response	Court found the discounted $8,649.42 reasonable and awarded it

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (hours reasonably expended and billing judgment required)
Saizan v. Delta Concrete Prods. Co., Inc., 448 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 2006) (reduce fee award when billing judgment not shown)
Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041 (5th Cir. 1998) (lodestar two-step for fee calculation)
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (factors for adjusting lodestar)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (reasonable hourly rate = prevailing market rate)
Walker v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761 (5th Cir. 1996) (scrutinize duplication when multiple attorneys work)
La. Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 1995) (lodestar presumed reasonable; party seeking reduction bears burden)
City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (lodestar presumed reasonable; adjustments exceptional)