Opinion
CASE NUMBER: 06-10632.
February 26, 2007
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 54. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
II. BACKGROUND
Here, Plaintiffs were awarded a default judgment after Defendant failed to answer the complaint, which alleged breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation regarding four promissory notes. On July 18, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment in the amount of $104,823.00 plus costs. Defendant did not file objections to the amount of fees and costs requested by Plaintiffs. The entire case consisted of five filings by Plaintiffs — the complaint, a response to an order to show cause, request for clerk's entry of default, a motion for default judgment, and this motion for attorney fees.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
IV. ANALYSIS
Reed v. Rhodes179 F.3d 453472th Id.5454Baker v. First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n 142 F.3d 431432White White, Inc. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp.786 F.2d 728730
Because this is a breach of contract case, Michigan law applies. Under Michigan law, contractual provisions to pay reasonable attorney's fees in the event of a breach are valid. See Sentry Ins. v. Lardner Elevator Co., 153 Mich.App. 317, 326 (1986). It is up to the prevailing party to introduce evidence regarding the reasonableness of such fees. See Matter of Howarth's Estate, 108 Mich.App. 8, 12 (1981). Michigan Courts do not have a precise formula to determine whether the fees are reasonable. Courts consider factors such as: (1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. Schellenberg v. Rochester Michigan Lodge No. 2225, 228 Mich.App. 20, 45 (1992). A court, however, is not limited to these factors and may exercise its discretion in the amount of fees awarded. Id. at 45-46.
Plaintiffs seek to recover attorney fees in the amount of $2,379.30 and $250.00 in court costs. The promissory notes each stated that "in case suit or action is instituted to collect this note, or any portion hereof, borrower promises to pay such additional sum, as a Court may adjudge reasonable, for attorney's fees in said proceedings." In their Affidavit of Services Rendered, Plaintiffs provided a list of services completed by their counsel. The attorney fee is based on Plaintiff's counsel hourly rate of $210.00 for 11.33 hours. Plaintiffs assert that the fee is reasonable in light of the 27 years of experience of counsel, the amount of time required, and the amount at issue.
The Affidavit states the following services were rendered: (1) office consultation; (2) review all client documentation including Promissory Notes, communications with Defendant, etc; (3) read investigator's report — Jack S. Way; (4) research legal issues regarding venue and jurisdiction; (5) draft Complaint, telephone conference with client; (6) revise and prepare final draft of Complaint; (7) review private investigator's report and letter to client; (7) research and draft Default Entry and Default Judgment; (8) draft Brief in Support of Motion for Entry of Default Judgment; (9) draft Affidavit in Support of Default Entry; (9) draft Affidavit in Support of Default Judgment; (10) telephone conference with Clerk of the Court; and (11) research local court rules.
However, the affidavit fails to itemize the hours worked. Nor does it state that all the work was completed by Plaintiffs' counsel. Even though the Court would have preferred an itemized billing statement, Michigan Courts have stated that an itemized attorney fee bill, in itself, is not sufficient to establish the reasonableness of a fee; nor are trial judges required to accept it on its face. See Perryman v. Haverhill Farms, Inc., 125 Mich.App. 30, 33 (1983). The relevant inquiry is whether the requested amount is reasonable in light of the aforementioned factors.
Plaintiffs' counsel has 27 years of legal experience. Even without an itemized statement, it appears that he spent an hour or less on each service listed. The Court finds this to be quite economical for the nature of the motions drafted and research conducted. Moreover, his hourly rate is reasonable for an attorney with over 20 years of experience.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees and costs paid to the clerk is reasonable and awards $2,629.30.
V. CONCLUSION
IT IS SO ORDERED.
GRANTED.