Lopez v. XTEL Construction Group, LLC, 2012 WL 769493

Plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees and costs following settlement enforcement and default judgment in a wage case.
Settlement agreement was reached in February 2011; further enforcement actions occurred in 2011.
Court granted enforcement of the settlement and later entered a default judgment against defendants.
Plaintiffs petitioned for fees: $18,009.00 for seven student attorneys and $1,770.00 for Professor Michele Gilman.
Court reduced the requested rates and hours, determining reasonable rates and hours for student and supervising attorneys.
Total award granted is $7,193.20 for attorney’s fees and costs, with potential for future fee applications related to enforcement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of student hours billed	Lopez argues 156.6 hours are reasonable for enforcement and default proceedings.	No responsive filing from defendants.	Hours reduced; 65 hours approved as reasonable for student work.
Reasonableness of student-attorney rates	Rates up to $115 per hour for student attorneys are reasonable.	No response from defendants.	Rate for student attorneys set at $105 per hour.
Reasonableness of supervising-attorney rate	Professor Gilman’s $300/hour rate is reasonable given experience.	No response from defendants.	0.9 hours of supervising-time awarded at $300/hour.
Pro bono status and entitlement to fees for student work	Clinics may recover fees for uncompensated student work where appropriate.	No responsive filing.	Fees awarded for student-attorney work despite lack of client payment, citing supporting authority.
Total fee and cost award	Total statutory fees plus costs justified by outcomes and expenses.	No response from defendants.	Fees and costs awarded in total $7,193.20; costs $98.20 included.

Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (Supreme Court 1984) (reasonable hourly rate in line with prevailing market rates)
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (Johnson factors for calculating fees)
Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc., 577 F.2d 216 (4th Cir. 1978) (Johnson factor framework adopted by Fourth Circuit)
Brinn v. Tidewater Transp. Dist. Comm’n, 242 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2001) (pro bono fees may be awarded in appropriate cases)
Smith v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 144 (4th Cir. 1984) (Fourth Circuit directive to consider fee entry where student counsel contributed)
Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273 (4th Cir. 1990) (standards for determining reasonable attorney’s fees)