From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO v. PARADISE MOTORS, INC.

United States District Court, D. Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John
Sep 5, 2008
Civil No. 2004-162 (D.V.I. Sep. 5, 2008)

Opinion

Civil No. 2004-162.

September 5, 2008

Gregory H. Hodges, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For the Plaintiff. Ronald W. Belfon, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For Defendants Paradise Motors, Inc. George E. Dennis. Tamika Archer, AAG, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For Defendant Bureau of Customs Border Control. Joycelyn Hewlett, AUSA, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For Defendant Internal Revenue Service.


ORDER


Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") for an award of attorneys fees and costs.

I. FACTS

The facts of this case were previously discussed in Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Paradise Motors, Inc., Civ. No. 2004-162, 2007 WL 2900319 (D.V.I. Aug. 14, 2007). As such, the Court will only briefly summarize the facts here.

This matter arises out of a series of loan agreements between BPPR and George E. Dennis ("Dennis") and Paradise Motors, Inc. ("Paradise" collectively "the Defendants"), spanning from 1992 to 2000. The Defendants executed a series of promissory notes, guarantees, and security agreements in favor of BPPR to secure repayment of the various loans. Paradise and Dennis both defaulted on their loans and failed to cure their defaults. Thereafter, BPPR commenced the instant action for judgment and foreclosure against the Defendants. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of BPPR. BPPR now seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $17,559.77 for litigating this action.

II. DISCUSSION

Title 5, section 541 of the Virgin Islands Code provides for the award of costs and attorneys fees. Costs which may be allowed in a civil action include:

(1) Fees of officers, witnesses, and jurors;
(2) Necessary expenses of taking depositions which were reasonably necessary in the action;
(3) Expenses of publication of the summons or notices, and the postage when they are served by mail;
(4) Compensation of a master as provided in Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(5) Necessary expense of copying any public record, book, or document used as evidence in the trial; and
(6) Attorney's fees as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

5 V.I.C. § 541(a). The statute further provides: "there shall be allowed to the prevailing party in the judgment such sums as the court in its discretion may fix by way of indemnity for his attorney's fees in maintaining the action or defenses thereto. . . ." Id. at (b).

To determine a fair and reasonable award of attorneys' fees, the Court considers factors including the time and labor involved, skill required, customary charges for similar services, benefits obtained from the service and the certainty of compensation. Lempert v. Singer, Civ. No. 1990-200, 1993 WL 661181, at *2 (D.V.I. Dec. 30, 1993); see also Morcher v. Nash, 32 F. Supp. 2d 239, 241 (D.V.I. 1998). Reasonable attorneys' fees may include charges for work that was "useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation." Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 561 (1986); see also Gulfstream III Associates, Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d 414, 420 (3d Cir. 1993) (noting that reasonable attorneys' fees may include charges for measures necessary to enforce district court judgments as well as other charges "reasonably expended" to advance the litigation).

"In computing what is a reasonable award of attorney's fees in a particular case, the court should consider, among other things, the novelty and complexity of the issues presented in that case." Good Timez, Inc. v. Phoenix Fire Marine Ins. Co., 754 F. Supp. 459, 463 (D.V.I. 1991). The decision whether to award fees to a prevailing party and to what extent is within the court's discretion. Jo-Ann's Launder Ctr. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 31 V.I. 226, 234 (1995).

Applying the standard outlined above, the Court finds that some of the attorney's fees and costs requested by BPPR was reasonably expended. However, the Court finds that several items were not. For instance, BPPR requests reimbursement for several different types of legal work that are grouped together. Such entries "are so vague as to prevent meaningful judicial review." Morcher, 32 F. Supp. 2d at 242-243. Moreover, "these undifferentiated entries hinder the Court in determining whether the time spent on each of the listed activities was reasonable[.]" Id. at 243.

BPPR also requests reimbursement for basic secretarial tasks like photocopying and facsimile. However, "[g]eneral photocopy, facsimile, and telephone charges are not compensable under section 541." Id. at 243. Additionally, BPPR requests reimbursement for conferences between its own attorneys and paralegals. Such expenses are duplicative, and not to be included in assessments of reasonable fees. See Morcher, 32 F. Supp. 2d 239, 241-42 (D.V.I. 1998) ("Multiple lawyer conferences, not involving opposing counsel . . . involve duplicative work.").

The Court also notes that this matter was a simple foreclosure action that was unopposed throughout. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that $11,033 in attorney's fees and costs was reasonably expended.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Paradise Motors, Inc. and George E. Dennis shall reimburse BPPR for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $11,033.


Summaries of

BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO v. PARADISE MOTORS, INC.

United States District Court, D. Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John
Sep 5, 2008
Civil No. 2004-162 (D.V.I. Sep. 5, 2008)
Case details for

BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO v. PARADISE MOTORS, INC.

Case Details

Full title:BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO Plaintiff, v. PARADISE MOTORS, INC. GEORGE E…

Court:United States District Court, D. Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John

Date published: Sep 5, 2008

Citations

Civil No. 2004-162 (D.V.I. Sep. 5, 2008)

Citing Cases

Midland National Life Insurance Company v. Sheridan

In addition, the "`[c]ourt should consider, among other things, the novelty and complexity of the issues…

Coffelt v. Fawkes

Defendant cites two cases for the proposition that conferences between counsel are not compensable. (Dkt.…