Centrella v. Ritz-Craft Corp.
| Decision Date | 12 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00111-jmc |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | Carmine Centrella and Mary Brennan-Centrella, Plaintiffs, v. Ritz-Craft Corporation of Pennsylvania, Inc., and Mountain View Modular Homes, Inc., Defendants. |
(Docs. 139, 141)
In June 2014, Plaintiffs Carmine Centrella and Mary Brennan-Centrella commenced this action against Defendants Ritz-Craft Corporation of Pennsylvania, Inc., and Mountain View Modular Homes, Inc., alleging violations of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and breaches of express and implied warranties in relation to Plaintiffs' purchase of a modular home that was manufactured by Ritz-Craft and installed on Plaintiffs' land by Mountain View. (Doc. 1.) About a year after the suit was filed, in June 2015, the Clerk of Court entered default against Mountain View pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), leaving Ritz-Craft as the only active defendant in the case. (Doc. 55.) For the next two years, Plaintiffs and Ritz-Craft engaged in litigation activity including but not limited to: exchanging written discovery; conducting depositions; preparing and filing motions including Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint and Ritz-Craft's Motion for Summary Judgment; and attending two failed mediations.
In August 2017, a five-day jury trial was held. Plaintiffs sought to prove that Ritz-Craft committed unfair or deceptive acts or omissions that were likely to mislead Plaintiffs into purchasing the modular home, in violation of the VCPA; and that the home did not comply with Vermont's energy code, was not energy efficient, was not constructed with good workmanship, and was not fit for the purposes for which Plaintiffs purchased it, in violation of certain express and implied warranties made by Ritz-Craft to Plaintiffs before or at the time of purchase. Ritz-Craft denied these allegations, asserting that, at the time the modular home was delivered to Mountain View, it was in compliance with all representations and warranties issued by Ritz-Craft and with Vermont's energy code and standards of energy efficiency. Ritz-Craft further attempted to show that it had no control or involvement in Plaintiffs' purchase of the modular home from Mountain View and no responsibility for the work performed on the home by Mountain View or its subcontractors at the home site.
At the close of Plaintiffs' evidence, the Court granted in part Ritz-Craft's oral motion under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissed Plaintiffs' claim for exemplary damages. On August 14, 2017, the jury found in favor of Plaintiffs on the VCPA claim but rejected Plaintiffs' warranty claims against Ritz-Craft. (Doc. 134.) On the VCPA claim, the jury awarded Plaintiffs their consideration paid to Ritz-Craft for the modular home, in the stipulated amount of $94,262. (Id. at 2.)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Application for Costs and Attorney Fees, wherein Plaintiffs seek an award of $165,418.50 in attorney fees adjusted upward based on a .4 multiplier for a total fee award of $231,585.90, plus $7,567.03 in costs. (Doc. 141 at 5, 11.) Ritz-Craft filed an Opposition to the Application (Doc. 151); and thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. 153), and Ritz-Craft filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. 161). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Prejudgment Interest, wherein Plaintiffs request that the Court award them prejudgment interest at a rate of 12% per annum from the date of the Complaint's filing through the date of entry of judgment. (Doc. 139 at 3-4.) Ritz-Craft again filed an Opposition (Doc. 150), and Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. 154). Ritz-Craft's Supplemental Motion for Post-Trial Relief pursuant to Rules 50 and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is also pending. (Doc. 169; see Docs. 140, 147.) Therein, Ritz-Craft seeks judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial. (Id.) Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to that Motion (Doc. 162), and Ritz-Craft filed a Reply (Doc. 163). This Opinion and Order addresses Plaintiffs' Application for Costs and Attorney Fees (Doc. 141) and Plaintiffs' Motion for Prejudgment Interest (Doc. 139). Ritz-Craft's Supplemental Motion for Post-Trial Relief (Doc. 169) is addressed in a separate Opinion and Order which is filed simultaneously with this ruling.
Before analyzing the substance of Plaintiffs' Application for Costs and Attorney Fees, the parties' discovery dispute related to the Application must be addressed. On September 18, 2017, the Court granted Ritz-Craft's unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Motions—including the pending Application for Costs and Attorney Fees and Motion for Prejudgment Interest—setting the newdue date at October 19, 2017. (Docs. 143, 144.) On October 17, two days before Ritz-Craft's responses to Plaintiffs' Application for Costs and Attorney Fees and Motion for Prejudgment Interest were due, Ritz-Craft filed an "Expedited Motion for Additional Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Motions." (Doc. 148.) Therein, Ritz-Craft requested an additional extension of time, until November 13, to respond to Plaintiffs' Application for Costs and Attorney Fees and Motion for Prejudgment Interest, asserting that: (1) this would "put all pending post-trial motions on the same track, thereby eliminating potential confusion and promoting efficiency and judicial economy"; and (2) Plaintiffs' post-trial motions "are lengthy and raise a number of factual and legal issues that must be addressed" with respect to Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees and costs, requiring additional time for Ritz-Craft to respond. Ritz-Craft further explained:
Ritz-Craft has determined that additional information is needed from Plaintiffs so that Ritz-Craft can fairly oppose Plaintiffs' post-trial motions, including but not limited to the fee agreement between Plaintiffs and their counsel (which Plaintiffs reference several times in support of their fee application) and the information (e.g., invoices) from which the billing summaries submitted by Plaintiffs were prepared (particularly because the summaries themselves do not add up in all respects).
(Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs promptly filed a Response in Opposition to Ritz-Craft's "Expedited Motion," pointing out that Ritz-Craft waited until "[m]ore than five weeks after receiving [Plaintiffs'] post-trial motions" to begin to request additional documents from Plaintiffs. (Doc. 149 at 1.) On October 19, despite its October 17 filing seeking an extension of time to file responses to Plaintiffs' post-trial motions, Ritz-Craft filed Oppositions to each of Plaintiffs' post-trial motions. (See Docs. 150, 151.) Therefore, on October 23, the Court issued a text order stating that Ritz-Craft's "ExpeditedMotion for Extension of Time to File Response" was moot, in light of Ritz-Craft's October 19 filings. (Doc. 152.)
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' Application for Costs and Attorney Fees (Doc. 141) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Court awards Plaintiffs $127,273.50 in attorney fees and $7,567.03 in costs, to total $134,840.53. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Prejudgment Interest (Doc. 139).
Plaintiffs make the following arguments in support of their request for an award of attorney fees totaling $231,585.90 and costs totaling $7,567.03: (1) because the jury returned a verdict declaring that Ritz-Craft violated the VCPA, Ritz-Craft is required to pay Plaintiffs' legal fees (Doc. 141 at 5-6); (2) to calculate those fees, the Court should use the lodestar formula of reasonable time multiplied by reasonable hourly rate (id. at 6); (3) the amount of time Plaintiffs' counsel spent on this case—as documented in their billing records and explained in their affidavits—was necessary, appropriate, and reasonable (Doc. 141-5 at 15-19); (4) the hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs' counsel are usual, customary, and reasonable (id. at 19); (4) applying a modifier of .4 to upwardly adjust the fees is reasonable and warranted, considering the skill and experience of Plaintiffs' counsel, the excellent results obtained, and the contingent nature of the fee arrangement (id. at 19-23; Doc. 141 at 9-10); and (5) the costs incurred by Plaintiffs' counsel were necessary, appropriate, and reasonable (Doc. 141 at 10; Doc. 141-5 at 23-24). For support, Plaintiffs submit the Affidavit of attorney expert Gregory Mertz (Doc. 141-5), as well as the Affidavit of Plaintiffs' counsel Joshua Simonds (Doc. 141-1), the billing sheets of Plaintiffs' counsel KathrynKent and Joshua Simonds (Docs. 141-2 and 141-3), respectively, and a record of "Reimbursable Expenses" incurred by Plaintiffs during the litigation (Doc. 141-4).
In response, Ritz-Craft makes the following arguments: (1) the hourly rates and number of hours claimed are unsubstantiated, unreasonable, and inconsistent (Doc. 151 at 2-7); (2) the amount of fees sought is "more than double" the amount awarded by the jury and is thus unreasonable "on its face" (id. at 5)1; (3) Plaintiffs are not entitled to an upward modifier because the case involved a straightforward VCPA claim, Mountain View's default made it easier for Plaintiffs to succeed, Plaintiffs succeeded on only one of three claims, and this was a purely private dispute with no public purpose (id. at 7-10); (4) the fees should be reduced by at least 5% due to the limited experience of Plaintiffs' counsel particularly Attorney Kent, the limited information supplied by Plaintiffs in support of their Application, and "applicable Vermont law" (id. at 11); and (5) the fees and costs awarded must exclude amountsincurred for the purpose of establishing damages for Ritz-Craft's alleged breach of warranties because Plaintiffs did not succeed on those claims and they did not share a common core of facts with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial