UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION MEMORANDUM RULING

Transcription

1 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 6865 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION Comar Marine Corp. versus Raider Marine Logistics, LLC, et al Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-1438 (Lead) 6:12-cv-1533 (Member) Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr. Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst MEMORANDUM RULING Currently pending before is Court is e district court s referral of e determination of attorney's fees as provided in e Judgment following e trial of is matter. [Rec. Doc. 290] By Judgment dated May 21, 2013, e district judge assigned to is case awarded Plaintiff, Comar Marine Corporation ( Comar ) reasonable attorneys fees associated wi e breach of contract claim and awarded Defendants, four vessel-owning LLCs Marauder Marine Logistics, LLC, Conqueror Marine Logistics, LLC, Raider Marine Logistics, LLC and Enforcer Mariner Logistics, LLC (collectively referred to as Defendants ), reasonable attorneys fees associated wi eir claims for e wrongful arrest of e vessels. I. Background This matter arises from a contract dispute between Comar and Defendants. Comar managed e four vessels on behalf of Defendants under four contracts. Defendants terminated e contracts prematurely in August 2009, and Comar filed is lawsuit for breach of contract alleging Defendants owed it monies caused by e contract breach. Thereafter, Comar claimed it had valid maritime liens over e vessels for e monies allegedly owed by Defendants and issued a warrant of arrest against e vessels to enforce its alleged liens. Following arrest and seizure of e vessels, Defendants secured financing to bond out one of e vessels but failed to secure financing for e oer ree vessels and in September

2 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: , had to place em into bankruptcy. Comar filed its claims as a creditor in e bankruptcy proceedings asserting maritime liens over e vessels. Also in September 2009, e mortgage holders on e vessels, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank ( Chase ) and Allegiance Bank Texas ( Allegiance ), intervened in e lawsuit and filed motions for summary judgment to dismiss Comar s in rem claims against e vessels. The district court granted e banks motions holding at Comar had no maritime liens against e vessels. Thereafter, Defendants filed counterclaims against Comar including, inter alia, wrongful arrest of e vessels. After ree and a half years, and extensive discovery and motion practice, e district court conducted a bench trial on February 26, 27 and 28, 2013 at which e participating parties were Comar and Defendants. As set out in e Judgment, e district court held at (1) e Defendants materially breached e contracts by terminating wiout cause, (2) e termination fee/liquidated damages clause in e contracts was penal and us unenforceable, (3) Comar did not have valid maritime liens on e vessels, and (4) Comar wrongfully arrested e vessels. The Court awarded Comar $264, in liquidated damages based on e breach of contract. R. 288, 201. The Court held at Defendants failed to establish any actual damages from e wrongful arrest of e vessels. Id. at 167. Because each contract required e losing Party (as determined by e court) to pay all attorneys fees and expenses, e district court ordered at Comar was entitled to attorneys fees wi regard to e breach of contract claims and e Defendants were entitled to attorneys fees wi regard to e wrongful arrest of e vessels. The district court ordered e parties to submit eir records and affidavits of reasonable attorneys fees to Magistrate Judge Hill, e magistrate judge who preceded e undersigned, for determination. On April 1, 2014, following e parties submissions related to eir attorneys fees claims, Magistrate Judge Hill conducted a settlement conference wherein e parties were 2

3 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 6867 unable to reach a settlement. On August 13, 2015, e Court of Appeals for e Fif Circuit issued its judgment affirming e district court s ruling and judgment. Hence, e attorneys fees issue is now before e undersigned for determination. II. Guidelines For Attorneys Fees Calculation In e Fif Circuit, e lodestar meod is used to calculate reasonable attorneys' fees. In re Fender, 12 F.3d 480, 487(5 Cir.1994). In Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, (5 Cir.1974), e Fif Circuit identified twelve factors to be considered in determining an award of reasonable fees. Alough Johnson was a civil rights case, e Johnson factors have been employed whenever e award of reasonable attorneys' fees is auorized by statute. Lawrence v. Morris, 2011 WL , *1 (W.D.La.2011). Under e lodestar analysis, e determination of reasonable attorneys fees involves a two-step procedure. Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Kelistrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5 Cir.1995) citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. Initially, e district court must determine e reasonable number of hours expended on e litigation and e reasonable hourly rates for e participating lawyers. Then, e court must multiply e reasonable hours by e reasonable hourly rates. Id. The product is e lodestar, which e court eier accepts or adjusts upward or downward, depending on e circumstances of e case, assessing e factors set for in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, (5 Cir.1974). The twelve Johnson factors are: (1) e time and labor required; (2) e novelty and difficulty of e issues; (3) e skill required to perform e legal services properly; (4) e preclusion of oer employment by e attorney; (5) e customary fee; (6) wheer e fee is fixed or contingent; (7) e time limitations imposed by e client or circumstances; (8) e amount involved and results obtained; (9) e experience, reputation, and ability of e attorneys; (10) e undesirability of e case; (11) e nature and leng of e professional 3

4 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 6868 relationship wi e client; and (12) e awards in similar cases. Id. Many of e Johnson factors are subsumed wiin e initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate, and should not be double counted. Jason D.W. by Douglas W. v. Houston Independent, 158 F.3d 205, 209 (5 Cir.1998). Additionally, e Supreme Court has limited greatly e use of e second, ird, eigh, and nin factors for enhancement purposes, and accordingly, e Fif Circuit has held at [e]nhancements based upon ese factors are only appropriate in rare cases supported by specific evidence in e record and detailed findings by e courts. Walker v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 99 F.3d 761, (5 Cir.1996). The fee applicant bears e burden of proving e reasonableness of e number of hours expended on eir prevailing claim. Leroy v. City of Houston, 906 F.2d 1068, 1079 (5 Cir.1990). Applicants do not have e right to bill for time on issues on which ey do not prevail. Walker, 99 F.3d at 769. The party seeking attorney's fees must present adequately documented time records to e court. Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 457 (5 Cir.1993). Using is time as a benchmark, e court should exclude all time at is excessive, duplicative, or inadequately documented. Id. citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at Moreover, hours which result from e case being overstaffed or are excessive, redundant or oerwise unnecessary, even ough actually expended, are not hours reasonably expended and are to be excluded from e calculation. Leroy, 906 F.2d at 1079; Flowers v. Wiley, 675 F.2d 704, 705 (5 Cir.1982) ( ere should have been no compensation for hours spent in duplicative activity... ). The time of two or ree attorneys in a courtroom or conference when one would do may be discounted. Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717. Finally, e court may reduce e fee award where a party fails to meet his evidentiary burden. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Leroy, 831 F.2d at (reducing e lodestar for inadequate documentation). Ultimately, e court has discretion to fashion a reasonable attorneys fee. Hensley 4

5 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 6869 at When making its determination, e court must provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for e fee award, making subsidiary factual determinations regarding wheer e requested hourly rate is reasonable, and wheer e tasks reported by counsel were duplicative, unnecessary, or unrelated to e purposes of e lawsuit. Id. at The Fif Circuit has noted at its concern is not at a complete litany be given, but at e findings be complete enough to assume a review which can determine wheer e court has used proper factual criteria in exercising its discretion to fix just compensation. Brantley v. Surles, 804 F.2d 321, (5 Cir.1986). 1. Comar s Submissions III. Attorneys Fees Submissions and Objections Thereto The affidavit of Comar s lead counsel, Robert Stefani, of King, Krebs & Jurgens, PLLC ( King Krebs ), states at e total amount of attorneys fees sought by Comar is $501, for legal services from 2009 rough May 31, 2013, performed by ten (10) attorneys, five (5) paralegals and two (2) lawclerks. R , Aff. Of Stefani. Comar contends, to e extent e time and labor required for litigating is multi-party maritime case in is court and e bankruptcy court are not fully considered in e lodestar, ey should be considered as a basis for an upward departure under e first Johnson factor. Defendants object to Comar s counsel s billing invoices asserting at e entries include tasks at are non-recoverable. R They submit opposition spreadsheets listing eir objections to specific entries made by Comar including ose related to: (1) wrongful arrest and/or e maritime lien litigation; (2) Defendants bankruptcy proceedings; (3) termination fees/liquidated damages; (4) claims on which Comar partially prevailed; (5) Comar s abandoned claims; (6) claims incorrectly or excessively billed; and (7) clerical tasks. R Defendants submit at Comar s total fee request should be reduced by more an 50%. 5

6 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: Defendants Submissions Defendants submit at during e litigation, counsel in five law firms provided legal services related to e wrongful arrest on eir behalf: (1) Baker Donelson Law Firm ( Baker Donelson ) $279,192.40; (2) Gordon Arata Law Firm $222,333.86; (3) Wayne A. Shullaw $27,388.00; (4) Vidrine & Vidrine Law Firm ( Vidrine & Vidrine ) $31,910.84; and, (5) Elmore & McConnell Law Firm ( Elmore & McConnell ) $124, for a total of $685, R The billing invoices for Elmore & McConnell provide at e firm represented Defendants in e lead case from August 20, 2009 rough January 31, 2012, while ose of Baker Donelson pertain to at firm s representation of Defendants in e lead case from January of 2012 rough e February 2013 trial and e motion practice which followed. The billing invoices for Vidrine & Vidrine relate to Defendants 2009 bankruptcy proceedings filed after e arrest of e vessels. Defendants submit at e billing invoices of Gordon Arata and Wayne A. Shullaw represent attorney s fees incurred by Allegiance s and Chase s counsel, respectively, for ose banks defense of Comar s assertion of maritime lien rights against em. Defendants cite e loan agreements between Defendants and Allegiance and Defendants and Chase as requiring at Defendants pay e reasonable attorney s fees incurred by e banks in defending eir mortgage liens over e vessels. 1 Defendants contend at in order to offset any reductions e Court may make, e Court should consider e following Johnson factors in light of e leng and complexity of is litigation: Number 1, Time & Labor Involved; Number 2, Novelty & Difficulty of e 1 Trial exhibits 315 and 316 provide at any proceeds from e sale of e vessels shall be applied first to e payment of all attorney s fees, costs and expenses made by [e Bank] in e protection of its rights. R. 297, FN 3; 4. Furer, e Chase Bank agreement specifically provides at if [e Vessel Parties] [file] for bankruptcy or oer relief from creditors, [e Vessel Parties] agrees to pay [Chase s] reasonable attorneys fees. Id. at FN 5. 6

7 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 6871 Questions; Number 3, Skill Requisite to Perform e Legal Services Properly; Number 7, Time Limitations; and, Number 8, The Amount Involved & e Results Obtained. Comar objects to Defendants inclusion of e billing invoices of eir bankruptcy attorneys, Vidrine & Vidrine Law Firm, as well as ose of Gordon Arata Law Firm and Wayne A. Shullaw, for e attorney s fees incurred by e intervenors, Allegiance Bank and Chase Bank. Comar furer objects to Defendants request for compensation related to e personal guarantors and liquidated damages issues as well as for work relating to unsuccessful claims and contentions, including under LUTPA and breach of its good fai duty. Comar filed a general objection to Defendants original exhibit of e attorneys fees paid to eir initial counsel from August, 2009 to November, 2011, Elmore & McConnell, because it listed only e date and amount of e invoices submitted to Defendants. R After Defendants supplemented e exhibit wi detailed entries, Comar filed spreadsheets wi specific objections to many of e entries. In light of Defendants ultimate filing of e billing entries of Elmore & McConnell, e Court will consider e hourly rates and hours expended by at firm in determining reasonableness of e attorneys fees paid by Defendants. IV. Analysis A. Hourly Rates Claimed In order to determine reasonable hourly rates, attorneys fees are to be calculated at e prevailing market rates in e relevant community. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). The relevant community for e purpose of awarding attorney fees is e judicial district in which e litigation occurred, in is case e Western District of Louisiana. Jordan v. Allain, 619 F.Supp. 98, 113 (N.D.Miss.1985). In his affidavit, King Krebs attorney Robert Stefani submits e hourly billing rates 7

8 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 6872 of e attorneys and paralegals performing work for Comar. R , Exh. A-2. He furer represents at e rates reflect ose requested by Comar: (1) Associates wi 1 5 years experience $130 $160/hour; (2) Partners wi over 8 years experience $175 & $185/hour; (3) Partners wi over 20 years of experience $235 & $290/hour; and, (4) Partners wi over 35 years of experience $300 & $340/hour. Defendants submit e hourly rates for (1) Baker Donelson: attorney wi 1 to 5 years experience $175/hour; attorney over 5 years experience $155 $230/hour; attorney over 20 years experience $ $260/hour; attorney over 25 years experience $286 $365/hour; paralegals $99.35 $125/hour; (2) Elmore & McConnell: attorneys wi 15 years experience $225/hour; paralegals $85 $95/hour; (3) Vidrine & Vidrine, attorney over 20 years experience $250/hour. The records indicate at Stefani, Comar s lead trial attorney and a partner at King Krebs wi over 25 years of experience, charged a rate of $290/hour. Hank Arnold, e lead trial attorney for Defendants, a partner at Baker Donelson, also wi over 25 years experience, charged an hourly rate of $ Chris Hannan, a Baker Donelson associate wi over five years experience, charged a rate of $230/hour while e King Kreb s associates wi similar experience charged $ per hour. The affidavits of Arnold and Hannan represent at eir associate attorneys wi 1-5 years experience were charged at a rate of $175.00/ hour, e senior partner wi over 30 years of experience at a rate of $300/hour and e paralegal at e rate of $110/hour. Defendants state at e hourly rates for e Baker Donelson counsel, as provided above, are rates reasonable in e New Orleans community. The reasonable rates, however, must be e prevailing market rates in e relevant community e Western District of Louisiana in is case. The Court must erefore determine e reasonable hourly rate for Comar and Defendants counsel given eir similar ability and experience. 8

9 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 6873 Defendants have failed to submit any evidence of e rates charged by commercial litigation attorneys in is judicial district or e Lafayette legal community. Comar submits cases in is judicial district of awards ranging from $250 to $262 per hour. Comar also cites Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Beaver Const., LLC, 2011 WL , at *4 (W.D.La.,2011), a declaratory judgment action, in which e court found at $ per hour for 38 hours of legal work was a reasonable rate for a New Orleans partner of over 20 years. Wells Fargo, however, is an anomaly. In at case e court did not address e prevailing market rates in e relevant community. Instead it found ere was no objection to e rates sought and held e amount was prima facie reasonable. Most recently, in SBA Towers II, LLC v. Innovative Anchoring Systems, LLC, 2015 WL , at *4 (W.D.La.,2015), e court awarded $ per hour to a partner in e New Orleans community wi 21 years of commercial litigation experience and $ per hour for an associate wi 7 years of litigation experience. Here, based on e qualifications and experience of Stefani and Arnold, e undersigned s general knowledge of e hourly rates of partners and associates in is legal community, because commercial litigation commands a higher rate, and because Comar s requested rate was not challenged by Defendants, e undersigned finds $ per hour for Stefani and Arnold to be a reasonable hourly rate for attorneys wi over 25 years of experience, $ per hour for Hannan and similarly experienced associates and $150 per hour for associate attorneys wi five or less years of experience. B. Reasonable Hours Expended In addition to bo parties voluminous exhibits which summarize e hours expended by each lawyer which represented em in is lawsuit, e parties submit spreadsheets wi reasons set out for each entry ey believe is objectionable. Comar submitted spreadsheets of objections to billing entries of Elmore & McConnell and Baker Donelson, Defendants 9

10 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 6874 counsel in e lead case. Defendants submitted a spreadsheet of objections related to King Krebs billing entries. Comar s objections consist of over 1000 entries and are mainly at Defendants counsel include attorneys fees for representation outside of e wrongful arrest. Defendants objections consist of over 800 entries and are primarily at King Krebs invoices include attorneys fees for e wrongful arrest as well as representation in e bankruptcy. While rulings on fee awards should not consume more paper an did e cases from which ey arose[,]... e district court s findings and reasons must be complete enough to assume a review which can determine wheer e court has used proper factual criteria in exercising its discretion to fix just compensation. In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prods. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 220, (5 Cir.2008). The essential goal in shifting fees (to eier party) is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection, and erefore substantial deference is owed e district court s overall sense of a suit. Fox v. Vice, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 2216 (2011). Wi is guidance, e Court will consider e submissions in e billing invoices and e objections ereto. 1. Reduction of Billing Invoices Comar submits billing statements which total $581, wi $85, in 2 reductions, for a total recovery of attorneys fees in e amount of $501, In his affidavit, Stefani specifically lists e amounts and reasons for e reductions: (1) $6, deemed unproductive, excessive, or redundant ; (2) $1, deemed unrelated to Comar s claims; (3) $25, as related to e arrests of e vessels; and (4) $47, as related to Comar s entitlement to maritime liens. Id., Exhs. A-3 & A-4. Defendants billing invoices reflect submissions from five law firms. The majority of 2 Stephani represents at e amount of $581, reflects a write-off of $79,026.00, removed from e billing statements before e bill was sent to Comar. R

11 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 6875 Defendants defense in e lead case was provided by e Baker Donelson Law Firm, and in particular, trial attorney, Hank Arnold, and associate attorney, Christopher M. Hannan. Their affidavits represent at e 1 5 year associate attorneys hours have been reduced by 5%, e senior partner, Mr. Roussel s, hours have been reduced by 50% and e paralegal, Lori Hunter s, hours have been reduced by 30%. They furer represent at e reduction of 11% adequately reflects time spent on unsuccessful claims, and at ey have omitted e time entries of ree associate attorneys as duplicative and/or ultimately unproductive. The Court finds at e foregoing reductions by bo parties are adequate to reflect any unsuccessful, unproductive, excessive, redundant or unrelated charges at exist in e billing statements. 2. Defendants Recovery of e Banks Attorneys Fees The parties submit claims for attorneys fees based on e vessel contracts between Comar and Defendants. Article 17 of e contracts provides: ARTICLE 17. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES. If eier party engages an attorney to enforce its rights under is Agreement and/or institutes litigation to enforce such rights, e losing Party (as determined by e court) shall pay all attorneys fees and expenses, court costs, costs of vessel arrest and seizure incurred by e oer Party. Comar objects to Defendants inclusion of e attorneys fees incurred by Allegiance and Chase for eir defense of Comar s maritime lien claims in is Court as well as in e bankruptcy court. The mortgage agreements between Defendants and Allegiance and Chase each required Defendants to reimburse e banks for e reasonable attorneys fees ey incurred in protecting eir mortgage lien rights. Defendants contend ese attorneys fees are recoverable eier as damages caused by Comar s bad fai wrongful arrest or as fees recoverable under e plain language of Article 17. Defendants have provided no auority, and is Court has located no 11

12 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 6876 jurisprudence on point, for e assertion at Comar should pay e attorneys fees incurred by a non-party to e contract under which e attorneys fee provision is contained. While such fees and expenses may be akin to damages, at argument comes too late. Raer, it is axiomatic at an attorney fee award based on a contract fee provision (which is e issue before e Court) is limited to e fees incurred by e party to e contract who successfully proves or defends against claims at are specifically provided for by e attorney fee clause, as opposed to fees incurred by oer parties who were not parties to e contract. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Qore, Inc., 647 F.3d 237, (5 Cir. 2011). Defendants reimbursement of attorneys fees based on eir mortgage agreements wi Allegiance and Chase may not be considered as part of Defendants claim. The Court will deduct e attorneys fees of Gordon Arata and Wayne A. Shullaw from e charges submitted by Defendants. 3. Defendants Recovery of e Bankruptcy Attorney s Fees Comar also opposes Defendants claim at e Court should award e fees and costs of Vidrine & Vidrine, bankruptcy counsel who represented Defendants ree vessels placed into bankruptcy after e wrongful arrest. Defendants assert at e wrongful arrest of e vessels by Comar caused em to be placed into bankruptcy. Comar argues at e vessel owners made e decision to put e vessels into bankruptcy because ey didn t want to post e bond amount and Chase was unwilling to loan em e bond money. The record indicates at following Defendants filing for bankruptcy of e vessels, Comar filed a proof of claim in e proceedings in order to protect its claims caused by e breach of contract. Bo Comar and Defendants were represented roughout e entire bankruptcy proceedings Comar by King Krebs and Defendants by Vidrine & Vidrine. Because Comar s wrongful arrest of e vessels is inextricably tied to 12

13 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 6877 Defendants breach of contract for management of e vessels, e Court finds at bo parties claim for attorneys fees related to e bankruptcy proceedings may be asserted. C. Costs and Expenses Comar seeks reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred by counsel. Stefani states in his affidavit at its Total Costs Billed are $20, After deducting $4, in costs related to e arrest of e vessels, Comar s total cost request is 3 $15, Defendants submit ey are entitled to reimbursement of $10,882.79, which reflects $11, ey actually billed, reduced by $1000 to account for legal research. They also submit at Allegiance, represented by Gordon Arata, incurred a total of $1, in costs. Because e Court has disallowed e inclusion of Allegiance s attorneys fees, it will exclude e costs incurred as well. Defendants provide in eir memorandum at e fees of Elmore & McConnell and Vidrine & Vidrine were included 4 in eir submissions for attorneys fees. Reasonable out-of pocket expenses may be awarded to a prevailing party because ey are part of e costs normally charged to a fee-paying client. Associated Builders & Contractors v. Orleans Parish School Board, 919 F.2d 374, 380 (5 Cir.1990). Wheer ese expenses are reasonable is committed to e sound discretion of e trial judge. Id. After considering e billing statements of e law firms and e deductions made by e parties, e Court will award e parties costs and expenses as requested. V. Conclusion Based on e foregoing, e undersigned recommends at attorneys fees in e 3 While Comar submits at e amount is $15,319.46", is is apparently a maematical error. 4 Defendants also submit at e costs and expenses of Wayne Shullaw, bankruptcy counsel for Chase Bank were included in eir fee request. Just as e Court will not consider e costs of Gordon Arata on behalf of Allegiance Bank, it will not consider ose of Chase Bank. 13

14 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 6878 amount of $501, be awarded to Comar. As to Defendants hourly rates, e undersigned furer recommends e following: (1) at e hourly rates of Baker Donelson s attorneys and staff be reduced as follows: Hank Arnold from $ to $ reduced from $123,120 to $99,180 (-$23,940.00); Christopher Hannan from $ to $ reduced from $97,566 to $74,235 (-$23,331.00); and, Associate attorneys from $ to $ reduced from $15,400 to $13,200 (-$2,200), totaling $49, (2) at e attorneys fees of e Gordon Arata Law Firm and Wayne A. Shullaw, totaling $249,721.86, be deducted from e total attorneys fees; and, (3) at e total amount of $386, ($685, , , , ,721.86) in attorneys fees be awarded to Defendants. The undersigned furer recommends at Comar be awarded $15, in costs and expenses and Defendants awarded $10, in costs and expenses. Under e provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by is recommendation have fourteen days from service of is report and recommendation to file specific, written objections wi e Clerk of Court. A party may respond to anoer party s objections wiin fourteen days after being served wi of a copy of any objections or responses to e district judge at e time of filing. Failure to file written objections to e proposed factual findings and/or e proposed legal conclusions reflected in e report and recommendation wiin fourteen days following e date of its service, or wiin e time frame auorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking eier e factual findings or e legal conclusions accepted 14

15 Case 6:09-cv RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 6879 by e district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (5 Cir.1996). Signed January 7, 2016, at Lafayette, Louisiana. 15