Opinion
Civil Action No: 00-3094 Section "T"(4)
April 2, 2002
ORDER
The Court, having considered the complaint, the records the applicable law, the Report and Recommended of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the objection to the Magistrate's Report filed on behalf of the plaintiff, hereby rejects the Report and Recommendation and sets forth a different 0pinion in this matter.
I. Background:
On August 21, 2001, this Court granted Great White Fleet (US) Limited's Motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against defendant, DSCV Transport plaintiff then filed A Motion to Determine and Set Attorney's Fees and Costs on September 10, 2001. The matter was referred to united States Magistrate Judge to conduct hearings, including an Evidentiary Hearing, if necessary, and to submit Proposed Findings and Recommendations for disposition pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 73.3E. Based on the applicable law, the Magistrate recommended that the plaintiff's motion be denied.
II. Law and Analysis:
This Court has chosen to utilize the law on attorney's fees as set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. At the time the Report and Recommendation was concluded, plaintiff had not submitted the necessary affidavits to support an award of attorney's fees and costs under the circumstances and denial of plaintiffs motion was thereby recommended. However, because plaintiff has presently submitted the required documents and has shown that the determination of attorney's fees is prima facie reasonable, this Court rejects the recommendation of the Magistrate denying plaintiff an award of attorneys fees.
Specifically, the affidavits of plaintiffs attorneys, Robert C. Mirone, Gregory Barnett and Martin F. Casey all demonstrate that the requested rates are comparable to those that are standard in the community for similar services provided by lawyers of reasonably equitable experience, reputation and skill. See Blum v. Stenson, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1547 (1984). In fact, the affidavits of all three attorneys establish that the rate is actually below the prevailing market rate.
Additionally, because legal costs were awarded pursuant to the terms of a contract between the parties-and not because they were taxable costs awarded to the prevailing party under the law-they are recoverable under the contract. In an effort to provide this Court with sufficient evidence, Great White submitted the bills from the law firm of Casey Barnett which identified the costs by category. Although plaintiffs did not earmark each and every transaction such as phone calls and photocopies, the level of specificity is reasonable under the circumstances and provides sufficient documentation for a determination of costs.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs Motion to Determine and Set Attorney's Fees and Costs (doc. #36) in the amount of $51,877.00 and $2,611.66 respectively, be GRANTED.