RONNIE WOODALL, Plaintiff v. QUALITY BICYCLE PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED AND RUSSELL T. PICKAVANCE II, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CYCLEAST, Defendants.
CAUSE NO. 1:20-CV-554-LY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
December 1, 2020
SUSAN HIGHTOWER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants’ Application for Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed September 3, 2020 (Dkt. 29), and the associated response and reply briefs. The District Court referred the motion to the undersigned for report and recommendation, pursuant to
I. BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff Ronnie Woodall filed a state court action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when a bicycle manufactured by Defendant Quality Bike Products, Inc. and sold by Defendant Russell T. Pickavance II, individually and d/b/a Cycleast (collectively, “Cycleast“) disassembled during use. Dkt. 1-1. Defendants filed a Notice of Removal based on diversity jurisdiction, claiming that Defendant Pickavance was improperly joined. Dkt. 1. Woodall subsequently moved to dismiss pursuant to
II. ANALYSIS
A. Attorneys’ Fees
Woodall contends that the District Court‘s award of attorneys’ fees and costs is limited to Cycleast and should not include fees or costs for Defendant Quality Bicycle Products. The Court disagrees. The District Court‘s Final Judgment states that “Cycleast is awarded its reasonable and necessary attorney‘s fees and costs,” and defines the term “Cycleast” to refer to both defendants collectively. Dkt. 28 at 1, 2. The Court therefore determines the amount of fees and costs to be awarded for both defendants.
Courts use the “lodestar method” to calculate an appropriate fee award. Heidtman v. Cnty. of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038, 1043 (5th Cir. 1999). The lodestar amount is calculated by multiplying the number of hours an attorney reasonably spent on the case by an appropriate hourly rate, which is the market rate in the community for the work. Id. There is a strong presumption that the lodestar figure is reasonable. Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 554 (2010). After calculating the lodestar amount, a court may enhance or decrease the amount of fees based on the factors set forth in Johnson v. Ga. Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989).1 The party seeking fees has the burden to
1. Hourly Rates
Cycleast seeks an hourly rate of $195 per hour for partner work and $170 per hour for associate work. Dkt. 29-1 ¶ 7. Lead attorney R. Wayne Gordon submitted an affidavit in support of the application in which he states that for a case of this nature “in the Western District of Texas, a reasonable rate for attorney‘s fees is between $150 and $300 an hour.” Id.
Gordon‘s affidavit provides information regarding his practice and years of legal experience, but contains no biographical information for the other four attorneys for whom fees are sought. Dkt. 29-1.
Cycleast has requested $18,906.50 in fees for 104.2 hours worked, resulting in a blended hourly rate of $181.44. Despite the lack of biographical information, the Court finds that the blended hourly rate of $181.44 is within the reasonable market rate in the Western District of Texas. See Am. Acad. of Implant Dentistry v. Parker, Cause No. AU-14-CA-00191-SS, 2018 WL 401818, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2018) (approving hourly rate of $275 and $375 for attorneys with 11 and 25 years’ experience, respectively); Medina v. Fed. Janitorial Serv., No. EP-12-CV-350-PRM, 2013 WL 8480147, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2013) (stating that court may rely on prior decisions and knowledge of prevailing market rates).
2. Time Expended
Next, the Court reviews the time records to determine whether the hours expended on the case are reasonable. The reasonable number of hours is determined by eliminating duplicative,
The time entries submitted by Cycleast lack narrative descriptions that would allow the Court to determine whether they are duplicative or excessive. See Walker, 99 F.3d at 768 (“If more than one attorney is involved, the possibility of duplication of effort along with the proper utilization of time should be scrutinized.” (quoting Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717)). The Court finds that Cycleast has not met its burden to show that its counsel exercised reasonable billing judgment.
Cycleast provides time entries from four different attorneys totaling 30.4 hours relating to the Notice of Removal, with a fee total of $5,360.50. Dkt. 29-1 at 6. The Notice of Removal is an eight-page document with copies of previously filed documents serving as seven of its eight exhibits, yet the associate work related to its filing totals 22.7 hours and the partner work is 7.7 hours. Id. Cycleast provides time entries from four different attorneys totaling 15.5 hours relating to the Original Answers to the First Amended Complaint by Defendant Quality Bicycle Products, Inc. (10.2 hours) and Defendant Pickavance d/b/a Cycleast (5.3 hours). The Answers are nearly identical. Dkt. 18; Dkt. 19. Cycleast provides time entries from five different attorneys totaling 17.3 hours relating to the Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff‘s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with a fee total of $3,166.00. The Response is an eight-page document, yet two associates billed a total of 8.3 hours and three partners billed a total of 9 hours. Dkt. 29-1 at 8.
Because it is not clear from the time records that the hours spent by Cycleast‘s attorneys working on this case were not duplicative and excessive, the Court finds that a reduction of 20% of the total
3. Computation of the Lodestar Amount
Multiplying 83.4 reasonable hours by the reasonable hourly rate of $181.44, the lodestar amount is $15,132.10. The Court finds that the base lodestar amount adequately takes into consideration the Johnson factors, and no further adjustment is warranted. See Saizan v. Delta Concrete Prods. Co., 448 F.3d 795, 800 (5th Cir. 2006).
B. Costs and Expenses
Most cases under
III. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT IN PART Cycleast‘s Application for Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Dkt. 29) and award attorneys’ fees in the amount of $15,132.10 and $400 in costs. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that this case be removed from the Magistrate Court‘s docket and returned to the docket of the Honorable Lee Yeakel.
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm‘n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party‘s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See
SIGNED December 1, 2020.
SUSAN HIGHTOWER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE