Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 01-2028-KHV
January 23, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On November 29, 2001, the Court entered default judgment on plaintiffs' claims against Ace Polyethelene Bag Co. and Kirk Molnar for fringe benefit contributions under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 and 1145. After an evidentiary hearing, the Court awarded damages in the amount of $6,333.69. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Application For Costs And Attorney Fees (Doc. #17) filed December 13, 2001. As an initial matter, to the extent plaintiffs seek to recover costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, they should file a bill of costs with the clerk pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 54.1.
With respect to plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees, plaintiffs have not complied with the requirements of D. Kan. Rule 54.2. The rule provides:
[t]he court will not consider a motion to award statutory attorney's fees until the moving party shall have first advised the court in writing that after consultation promptly initiated by the moving party, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement with regard to the fee award.
* * *
If the parties are unable to agree, within 30 days of the filing of the motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2), the moving party shall file the statement of consultation required by this rule and a memorandum setting forth the factual basis for each criterion which the court is asked to consider in making an award. Other parties shall have 10 days in which to file a response to the memorandum. The memorandum shall be supported by time records, affidavits, or other evidence.
D. Kan. Rule 54.2.
More than 30 days have passed since plaintiffs filed their motion, and plaintiffs have not filed the required statement of consultation. See Albert v. Wesley Health Servs, No. 00-2067-KHV, 2001 WL 777072 at *1 (D.Kan. July 3, 2001) (no exception in D. Kan. 54.2 for default judgment cases). In addition, plaintiffs have not filed a memorandum setting forth the factual basis for each criterion which the Court is asked to consider in making an award. Because plaintiffs have not complied with the local rule requirements, the Court will not consider their application for attorney's fees.
In particular, the Court notes that plaintiffs have not provided time records or information relating to the identity, skill and experience of the attorneys and paralegals who worked on the case. See, e.g., Albert, 2001 WL 1000951 at *1; Shrout v. Holmes, No. 00-2069-KHV, 2001 WL 980280 at * 3-4 (D.Kan. Aug. 10, 2001).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Application For Costs And Attorney Fees (Doc. #17) filed December 13, 2001 be and hereby is OVERRULED without prejudice. Plaintiffs may re-file and re-serve the motion on or before February 8, 2002. In doing so, plaintiffs shall comply with the requirements of D. Kan. Rule 54.2., including consulting, or at least attempting in good faith to consult, with defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent plaintiffs seek costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, plaintiffs shall file a bill of costs with the clerk pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 54.1. The Court extends the time for plaintiffs to file such bill of costs to February 8, 2002.