Opinion
3:21CV633-GCM
11-29-2022
JACQUELINE S. MCFEE, Plaintiff, v. CAROLINA PAD, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's amended Notice of Filing of fees incurred by Plaintiff in responding to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. No. 38). In its Order denying Defendant's Motion for Sanctions as frivolous, the Court stated that it will award the Plaintiff her attorney's fees incurred in responding to the motion, and directed Plaintiff's counsel to submit an affidavit stating the amount of fees incurred.
Plaintiff seeks a total of $27,982.00 in fees, reduced from an original request for $32,078.00. Defendant seeks to reduce the amount of fees sought, arguing that the fees requested are unreasonable and excessive. Much of Defendant's opposition focuses on the lodestar method in analyzing the reasonableness of the fees. The Court will not engage in a lodestar analysis, as this method is typically used for larger, end of case awards, not discrete fee issues. The Court does note, however, that the hourly rates charged by counsel are reasonable.
Plaintiff is seeking fees incurred for work performed prior to responding to the Motion for Sanctions, including “all time related to the frivolous sanctions threat.” (Doc. No. 46, p. 3). While Plaintiff makes a reasonable argument as to why such fees should be included, the Court specifically requested “fees incurred in responding to the [Motion for Sanctions].” (Doc. No. 33).
The Motion for Sanctions was filed on March 24, 2022. Therefore, the Court will allow only the fees incurred after that date that specifically relate to responding to the Motion for Sanctions ($14,160.50 for Mr. Allan and $2,632.00 for the Terpening firm).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff may recover her fees incurred in the amount of $16,792.50.