Molina v. KP Stoneymill, Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 March 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action GLS-19-3123
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
• Parties: JOSE MOLINA, Plaintiff, v. KP STONEYMILL, INC., et al., Defendants.

JOSE MOLINA, Plaintiff,
v.
KP STONEYMILL, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. GLS-19-3123

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

March 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Honorable Gina L. Simms United States Magistrate Judge

Pending before this Court is a “First Supplemental Memorandum in Support of His Previous Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, ” (ECF No. 65) (“Supplemental Petition”), which was filed by Plaintiff Jose Carballo Molina (“Plaintiff”) on January 12, 2022. To date, Defendants KP Stoneymill, Inc., d/b/a/ King Pollo, KP Wheaton, Inc., and Dae Sung (David) Ji (“Defendants”) have failed to file an opposition. Pursuant to Local Rule 105.2, absent a specific deadline from the Court, any opposition was due by no later than January 26, 2022. The Court does not find that a hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6. (D. Md. 2021). The Court grants the Supplemental Petition and awards attorney's fees and costs, as set forth more fully herein.

I. BACKGROUND

The prior history of this case is set forth in great detail in the Court's memorandum opinion and order granting Plaintiff's original motion for attorney's fees and costs. (ECF No. 44).

Subsequently, on July 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Judgment to Reduce Award of Attorney's Fees to Judgment.” In that motion, Plaintiff represented that Defendants had failed to pay the attorney's fees and costs awarded despite being requested to do so. (ECF No. 46). The

1

Court directed Defendants to respond to the motion by August 6, 2021. (ECF No. 47). Defendants never responded to the motion, so on August 24, 2021 the Court granted the motion and entered judgment for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 48).

On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed several writs of garnishment of wages against the bank accounts held by the Defendants at a bank (“Garnishee Bank”), and the affidavits of service of the same. (ECF Nos. 52-56). On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed notice that this Court's judgment awarding attorney's fees had been recorded in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. (ECF No. 57). The Garnishee Bank answered the writs on October 14, 2021, asserting that accounts existed for Defendants KP Stoneymill, Inc. and KP Wheaton, Inc., but there were no funds in the accounts. For Defendant Dae Sung (David) Ji, three accounts with funds existed, and the Garnishee Bank set aside the proceeds pending further court action. (ECF Nos. 58-60).

On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment against the Garnishee Bank, seeking an order from this Court requiring it to pay over the funds in Defendant Dae Sung Ji's accounts, plus interest, in satisfaction of the judgment entered by this Court on August 24, 2021. (ECF No. 61). The Garnishee Bank filed an answer to the motion for judgment, and ultimately this Court entered judgment in the amount of $22, 152.52. (ECF Nos. 63, 64).

On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Supplemental Petition. (ECF No. 65). That same day, Plaintiff notified the Court that judgment entered on August 24, 2021 had been fully satisfied from the funds found in the accounts at the Garnishee Bank. (ECF No. 66). Plaintiff also filed a notice that the $10, 000 settlement amount ordered by this Court to be paid to Plaintiff had been paid. (ECF No. 67).

2

II. ANALYSIS

As a preliminary matter, a plaintiff who prevails on an FLSA claim is entitled to the payment of attorney's fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).^[1] While the payment of fees and costs are mandatory, the amount awarded for the same is discretionary. See Randolph v. Powercomm Constr., Inc., 715 Fed.Appx. 227, 230 (4th Cir. 2017); Burnley v. Short, 730 F.2d 136, 141 (4th Cir. 1984).

In addition, because this FLSA Plaintiff has been forced to engage in post-judgment litigation to obtain the settlement amount and the amount of attorney's fees and costs awarded by the Court, the grant of reasonable attorney's fees and costs for those efforts is appropriate. See Jackson v. Egira, LLC, Civ. No. RDB 14-3114, 2017 WL 4162128, at *4 (D. Md. July 28, 2017(award of post-judgment fees and costs appropriate given the litigation and collection efforts engaged in by counsel); see also Sky Cable, LLC v. DIRECTV, Inc., 23 F.4th 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2022)(in a statutory fee-shifting case, reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with post-judgment collection and enforcement actions appropriate).

As set forth more fully infra, the amount of attorney's fees and costs awarded to Plaintiff as a prevailing party must be reasonable.

In addition, in our district, Appendix B to the court's Local Rules sets forth the rules and guidelines for attorney's seeking fee awards in cases such as this one. See United States District Court for the District of Maryland: Local Rules, Appendix B, Rules and Guidelines for Determining Attorneys' Fees in Certain Cases (“the Guidelines” or “Loc. R., App. B.”), ¶¶1a-1b, 2-4.

3

A. Reasonable Attorney's Fees

To calculate the amount to be awarded in attorney's fees, a court must determine what is reasonable. To do so, courts engage in a three-step process. First, a court must calculate the lodestar, “the number of reasonable hours expended times a reasonable rate.” Randolph, 715 Fed.Appx. at 230 (citing McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81, 88 (4th Cir. 2013)). To determine reasonable hours and rates, the Fourth Circuit has held that a court's discretion should be guided by the factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974) (the Johnson factors), which was initially adopted by the Fourth Circuit in Barber v. Kimbrell's Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 (4th Cir. 1978). Later the Fourth Circuit further tweaked the Johnson factors in McAfee v. Boczar. The Johnson factors are:

(1) the time and labor expended

(2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised;

(3) the skill required to perform the legal services rendered;

(4) the attorney's opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation;

(5) the customary fee for like work;

(6) the attorney's expectations at the outset of the litigation (whether the fee is fixed or contingent);

(7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances;

(8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained;

(9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney(s);

(10) the “undesirability” of the case within the legal community in which the suit arises;

4

(11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between the attorney and the client; and

(12) attorneys' fees awards in similar cases.

738 F.3d at 88 n.5; see also Thompson v. HUD, Civ. No. MJG 95-309, 2002 WL 31777631, at *6 n.19 (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2002).

Per Randolph, the second step requires a court to subtract fees for hours spent on unsuccessful claims unrelated to successful ones. 715 Fed.Appx. at 230.

As a third and final step, a court should award “some percentage of the remaining amount, depending on the degree of success enjoyed by the plaintiff.” Randolph, 715 Fed.Appx. at 230 (citing to McAfee, 738 F.3d at 88).

1. Attorneys' Fees Sought

For his post-judgment collection...