Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 01-2762.
November 28, 2001
ORDER — MEMORANDUM
And now, this 28th day of November, 2001, attorney's fees and costs of $8,670.43 are added to the default judgment of $23,929.27 entered against defendant Arthur Faber on September 28, 2001, making a total judgment of $32,599.70. In the event plaintiff effectuates recovery of the judgment, it may reapply for an increase in attorney's fees.
While it is not in dispute that plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees and costs in this case, the "party seeking attorney's fees has the burden to prove that its request for attorney's fees is reasonable." Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1183 (3d Cir. 1990). "The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Id. (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). This "lodestar" figure can then be adjusted downwards if it "is not reasonable in light of the results obtained." Id. (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434-37, 103 S.Ct. at 1940-41).
Plaintiff requests fees and costs for two law firms totaling $16,187.43, but this amount appears to be excessive. Plaintiff's submissions disclose some duplication of effort, including especially the amount of conferring between primary and local counsel in this perfunctory matter in which defendant is pro se. Accordingly, half an hour (at $170 per hour) is deducted from the "lodestar" for duplicated effort on the pro hac vice motion and half-time is allocated for all entries for correspondence between plaintiff's counsel. This yields a "lodestar" figure of $11,967.25. That amount is generous given that plaintiff obtained a default less than four months after filing the complaint — and given that, except for conclusory affidavits from counsel, plaintiff provides no evidence to meet its burden of showing reasonable hourly rates "according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community." Rode, 892 F.2d at 1183.
Local counsel's firm of Fisher, Schumacher Zucker billed one hour on June 11, 2001 for drafting a motion for admission pro hac vice, while primary counsel's firm of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty Bennett billed nearly an hour in total for the same and related tasks on June 12th, 18th, and 22d 2001, and July 6, 2001. Fisher, Schumacher Zucker Billing Statement at 3; Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty Bennett Billing Statement at 1-2. More generally, the firms duplicated effort and seemingly made work for themselves by conferring almost continuously with each other. Twenty-six of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty Bennett's forty-five billing entries consisted, at least in part, of correspondence with Fisher, Schumacher Zucker. GPMM B Billing Statement at 1-3. Nineteen of Fisher, Schumacher Zucker's thirty-eight entries consisted, at least in part, of correspondence with Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty Bennett. FS Z Billing Statement at 1-7. There were three instances of "correspondence with [Craig Miller] re service [of process]." Id. at 3.
The "lodestar" figure will be reduced to $8,000 in light of the limited relief obtained, which may well be an uncollectible judgment. The complaint included six counts: trademark infringement, unfair competition, misappropriation of goodwill, and three breach of contract claims. Plaintiff gained partial relief on the trademark infringement claim, in the form of an injunction and an award of fees and costs, and the minimum relief sought ($23,929.27) on the first breach of contract claim. Plaintiff's costs of $670.43 appear to be reasonable and will be added to the attorney's fees, of which $8,000 are approved, as follows. For Fisher, Schumacher Zucker, $3,500, plus $555 costs; and for Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty Bennett, $4,500, plus $115.43 costs.