Route Triple Seven Ltd. Partnership v. Total Hockey, Inc.
127 F. Supp. 3d 607
E.D. Va.2015Background
- Total Hockey (tenant) and Route Triple Seven (landlord) entered a Virginia commercial lease providing attorney’s fees to the “substantially prevailing party.”
- Landlord sued for alleged lease breaches (certificate to do business, rent deposit, plans/specs) and challenged tenant’s election of remedies; tenant counterclaimed for an Improvement Allowance.
- District court granted summary judgment to tenant on all landlord claims and granted landlord summary judgment on tenant’s single counterclaim; Fourth Circuit affirmed.
- Tenant moved for attorney’s fees under the lease after the appeal; landlord contested fee entitlement and reasonableness of requested fees.
- Court addressed: procedural pleading rules (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g) v. 54), whether tenant “substantially prevailed,” whether a remedies-limitation clause barred fees, and the reasonable lodestar award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Rule 9(g) to fee motion | Fees are special damages and had to be pleaded specifically under Rule 9(g) | Rule 54 governs fee motions for contractual fee rights; pleading not required | Rule 9(g) does not apply; Rule 54(d)(2)(A) controls for contractual fee claims |
| Whether tenant is “substantially prevailing” | Tenant did not prevail on its counterclaim, so not substantially prevailing | Tenant won on all landlord claims and thus substantially prevailed | Tenant substantially prevailed (won bulk of significant issues) |
| Lease remedies clause bars fee recovery | Section limiting remedies to termination (and landlord’s assets) precludes fee awards | Fee provision (Section 2701) is an express exception; clause applies only to breach remedies against landlord’s assets | Remedies clause does not bar attorney’s fees; Sections read harmoniously giving effect to both provisions |
| Reasonableness and amount of fees | Opposes tenant’s claimed fees as excessive | Seeks $224,428 + costs; supports rates by Vienna Metro Matrix | Court reduced certain hourly rates, applied 15% reduction for lumping/vagueness, awarded $150,527.35 in fees + $1,026.75 nontaxable costs + $3,084.50 taxable costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Purchasers, Inc. v. Aircraft Sales, Inc., 705 F.2d 712 (4th Cir. 1983) (attorneys’ fees are special damages when they are an element of statutory damages)
- Robinson v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1971) (liberal construction of Rule 54(c) to afford relief proved)
- Sheets v. Castle, 263 Va. 407 (Va. 2002) (definition of prevailing party as party in whose favor judgment is rendered)
- RF & P Corp. v. Little, 247 Va. 309 (Va. 1994) (substantially prevailing party need not prevail on every theory)
- Grissom v. Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2008) (lodestar calculation framework and adjustments)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; adjustments rare)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (billing documentation and reduction for inadequately documented hours)
- Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (factors for assessing reasonableness of fees)
- Orca Yachts, LLC v. Mollicam, Inc., 287 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2002) (res judicata bars claims that might have been presented in prior action)