Opinion
Civil No. SA-96-CA-0258.
April 13, 1998.
ORDER
On this date came to be considered Plaintiff's Motion for Allowance of Attorney's Fees, filed March 12, 1998 and Defendant's Response, filed March 20, 1998 in the above-styled and numbered cause. After careful consideration, the court will grant the motion to the extent discussed below.
A request for the utilization of awarding attorney's fees is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Hodge v. Seiler, 558 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1977). In determining the rate of attorney's fees, the judge must evaluate both the quantity and quality of the attorney's work. Anderson v. Morris, 658 F.2d 246 (4th Cir. 1981). In this case, the court has thoroughly assessed the quality of attorney Peter N. Susca's work, and the court finds that it was clearly substandard. Mr. Susca intentionally attempted to mislead this Court by making false representations to the court prior to the trial. In light of the inferior quality of Mr. Susca's work, the court finds that $85.00 per hour is a reasonable rate for attorney's fees.
Plaintiff's claims for attorney's fees will not be reduced because of the grant of summary judgment to Defendant on claims of breach of warranty, or because the court disallowed recovery by Plaintiff of "lost profits." All the claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant Veon arose out of the purchase of the Hercules Centerliner 8000. There was substantial overlap among the claims asserted by Plaintiff to such an extent that all of such claims arose out of the same transaction and entailed proof of essentially the same facts.
However, the court finds that the attorney's fees referable to the prosecution of the claims against Stimsonite (the third-party defendant who was granted judgment as a matter of law) are not allowable. That amount was $1,627.00, and the total award will be reduced accordingly. In addition, in the invoice dated November 4, 1996, Plaintiff charges Defendant for drafting "Objections/Responses to Request for Production in Divorce Proceeding." Defendant is not liable for fees incurred by Mr. Gruen in his divorce. That amount is $170, and the total award will be reduced accordingly.
Further, the Court finds that attorney's fees of $816 should not be awarded for Mr. Susca's February 4, 1998 Pre-trial preparation, since that preparation entailed formulating methods of misrepresentation to the court.
February 4, 1998 was the day the Joint Motion for Continuance was filed, which contained the false information.
Mr. Susca's award of attorney's fees will therefore be reduced from $80,530 to $38,958.50.
The court arrived at $38,958.50 by subtracting ($1,627 + $170 + $816) from $80,530, and then dividing that result ($77,917) by two, since $85.00 is 1/2 of $170.
Furthermore, the summary of costs included in Plaintiff's application for Bill of Costs include $824 to "Barclay Productions." This is not a recoverable cost, and Plaintiff's Bill of Costs of $9,269.17 will be reduced by this amount.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees is granted to the extent that Plaintiff shall recover $25,927.33 from Defendant. This court will not award Plaintiff appellate attorney's fees.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will recover his Bill of Costs from Defendant in the amount of $8,445.17.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will NOT RECOVER his attorney's fees and court costs until Mr. Susca has passed the final examination in his professional responsibility course.