Electronics Capital Corporation v. Sheperd, 29763 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 29763 Summary Calendar.,29763 Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | ELECTRONICS CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Donald SHEPERD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robert E. Davis, Joe W. Matthews, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Stanley E. Neely, Stephen H. Philbin, II, Dallas, Tex., for Electronics Capital Corp.; Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney & Neely, Dallas, Tex., of counsel.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal relates solely to the reasonableness of attorneys' fees awarded in connection with a judgment in favor of appellees, Electronics Capital Corporation, in the amount of $207,219.13. The judgment was rendered against appellant William Donald Sheperd as guarantor of a note made by General Electrodynamics Corporation and payable to appellees.
After granting summary judgment for appellant on the merits, the district court conducted a hearing in order to fix attorney's fees. In the document upon which suit was brought, the appellant promised to pay reasonable attorney's fees in case suit was brought to enforce collection of the debt. On this issue, testimony was taken from counsel for both parties as well as from six respected local attorneys. The attorney for appellee testified that he spent approximately 30 hours preparing motions, pleadings, affidavits, negotiating with appellees, and participating in hearings. Testimony from the six local attorneys resulted in estimates of reasonable fees ranging from approximately $3,000 to approximately $25,000; appellees asked for $20,000 and appellant suggested $2,500. Based on this evidence, the district court fixed the fee at $10,000.
Determination of a reasonable attorney's fee is a matter which is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Hoffman v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 411 F.2d 594, 595 (5th Cir. 1969); Connecticut Importing Co. v. Frankfort Distilleries, 101 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1939). See B-M-G Investment Co. v. Continental-Moss-Gordin, Inc., 437 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1971); Campbell v. Green, 112 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1940). Actual time spent in obtaining the judgment is not the only factor to be considered in fixing attorneys' fees in cases of this nature. The amount involved, the difficulty of collection, the value of the services rendered to the client and other elements may be considered. Our examination of the record reveals no abuse of this discretion. The judgment is affirmed.
* 1 Rule 18, 5th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re King Resources Co. Securities Litigation
...takes an hour; many a patient would think he is entitled to more. Legal Therapeutics, supra, at 660. See also Electronics Capital Corp. v. Sheperd, 439 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1971). In light of all relevant factors discussed herein below, the Court finds that the allowance requested by plaintif......
-
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.
...labor required. Although hours claimed or spent on a case should not be the sole basis for determining a fee, Electronics Capital Corp. v. Sheperd, 439 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1971), they are a necessary ingredient to be considered. The trial judge should weigh the hours claimed against his own ......
-
KLLM Transp. Servs., LLC v. JBS Carriers, Inc.
...labor required. Although hours claimed or spent on a case should not be the sole basis for determining a fee, Electronics Capital Corp. v. Sheperd, 439 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1971), they are a necessary ingredient to be considered. The trial judge should weigh the hours claimed against his own ......
-
Ferguson v. Winn Parish Police Jury, 74--3408
...Ins. Co. v. Algie, 482 F.2d 861 (5 Cir. 1973); Weeks v. So. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 467 F.2d 95 (5th Cir. 1972); Electronics Capitol Corp. v. Sheperd, 439 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1971). Plaintiff does not set out any particular reasons to justify his argument that the trial court's award constitut......