Premier Trailer Leasing, Inc. v. DM World Transp., LLC

• Decision Date: 31 December 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 8:19-cv-2558-T-60AAS
• Parties: PREMIER TRAILER LEASING, INC., Plaintiff, v. DM WORLD TRANSPORTATION, LLC, and ABDUVOSIT RAZIKOV, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

PREMIER TRAILER LEASING, INC., Plaintiff, v. DM WORLD TRANSPORTATION, LLC, and ABDUVOSIT RAZIKOV, Defendants.

Case No. 8:19-cv-2558-T-60AAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

December 31, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Premier Trailer Leasing, Inc. (Premier) seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs against Abduvosit Razikov. (Doc. 47). Mr. Razikov failed to respond. For the reasons below, Premier's motion should be granted in part and denied in part. Premier should be awarded attorney's fees of $37,686.00 and costs of $1,197.89 ($150.00 less than the $1,347.89 requested in the motion), for a total award of $38,883.89.

I. BACKGROUND

DM World Transportation, LLC (DM World) leased certain trailers from Premier and agreed to a Master Lease Agreement, Leasing Schedules, Rental Agreements, and an Equipment Schedule (collectively, the Agreements). (Doc. 1, ¶ 9). With the Agreements, Mr. Razikov executed and delivered a Continuing Guaranty (Guaranty), which guaranteed DM World's performance and payment under the Agreements. (Id. at ¶ 11; Doc. 1, Ex. B). Because DM World breached the Agreements by failing to pay amounts due, Premier terminated the Agreements and sought the return of the trailers and the amount due. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 13-19).

Premier sued DM World for prejudgment and post-judgment replevin, breach of contract, account stated, and open account. (Id. at pp. 5-7). Premier also sued Mr. Razikov for breach of the Guaranty related to the Agreements. (Id. at pp. 7-8). DM World filed for bankruptcy, and the court stayed the case. (Docs. 38, 39).

Premier successfully moved to reopen the case only for its breach of guaranty claim against Mr. Razikov. (Docs. 40, 41). Before DM filed for bankruptcy, Premier moved for summary judgment against Mr. Razikov. (Doc. 37). After reopening the case, the court ordered Mr. Razikov to respond to Premier's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 41). Mr. Razikov timely responded. (Doc. 42). The court granted Premier's motion for summary judgment and approved the proposed judgment. (Docs. 44, 45). The clerk entered judgment in favor of Premier and against Mr. Razikov for $1,341,276.99. (Doc. 46).

Premier now seeks its attorney's fees and costs against Mr. Razikov. (Doc. 47). Mr. Razikov did not respond and the time to do so passed.¹

II. ANALYSIS

Premier seeks $37,686.00 in attorney's fees and $1,747.89 in costs. (Docs. 47, 71). In considering a motion for attorneys' fees, "the threshold issue . . . is always entitlement." Universal Physician Services, LLC v. Del Zotto, No. 8:16-cv-1274-T-36JSS, 2017 WL 343905, *2 (M.D. Fla. January 6, 2017).

A. Entitlement to Attorney's Fees

The principle that guides motions for attorney's fees is the American Rule: Each party must pay its own attorney's fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise. Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. 121, 126 (2015) (quotation and citation omitted). Florida follows this common law rule. Price v. Tyler, 890 So. 2d 246, 251 (Fla. 2004). "A party seeking to recover attorneys' fees under Florida law bears the burden of establishing a contractual or statutory right to such an award." Plum Creek Technology, LLC v. Next Cloud, LLC, No. 8:19-cv-1974-T-60CPT, 2020 WL 3317897, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 3288033 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2020). That said, courts must strictly construe contractual provisions for attorney's fees. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Americaribe-Moriarty JV, 906 F.3d 1329, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation and citation omitted); Islander Beach Club Condo. v. Skylark Sports, LLC, 975 So. 2d 1208, 1211-12 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted).

Premier asserts that, as the prevailing party, it is entitled to recover its attorneys' fees from Mr. Razikov under the Agreements and the Guaranty. (Doc. 47,p. 4). Under the Agreements, Premier can recover reasonable attorney's fees incurred in securing the repossession and remove of the trailers from DM World. (Doc. 1, Ex. A, ¶ 9(b)). Under the Guaranty,

[Mr. Razikov] agrees to pay upon demand all of Potential Lessor's [Premier's] costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and Potential Lessor's legal expenses, incurred in connection with the enforcement of this Guaranty. Costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, including Potential Lessor's reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses whether or not there is a lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses for bankruptcy proceedings (and including efforts to modify or vacate any automatic stay or injunction), appeals, and any post-judgment collection services.

(Doc. 1, Ex. B, ¶ 8(c)).

The Guaranty states that Mr. Razikov agreed to pay costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in connection with the enforcement of the guaranty. As the court noted when granting Premier's motion for summary judgment, "by signing and executing a guaranty agreement, [Mr.] Razikov is obligated to pay and perform all the duties under the contract." (Doc. 44, p. 5). Thus, Premier is the prevailing party and entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the contractual provisions. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603 (2001) (A prevailing plaintiff is "one who has been awarded some relief by the court" and "has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his claims.").

B. Amount of Attorney's Fees

Premier requests an award of $37,686.00 in attorney's fees. Specifically,Premier asks for an award for the work of Attorney R.J. Haughey at $395 per hour for 51.8 hours (total of $20,461.00) and an award for the work of Attorney Ali V. Mirghahari at $250-$275 per hour² for 70.3 hours (total of $17,255.00). (Doc. 47, p. 5).

The initial burden of proof that the fee is reasonable falls on Premier, who must submit evidence about the number of hours expended and the hourly rate claimed. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988). Mr. Razikov has not responded to this motion, and his time to do so has expired. Thus, Premier's motion is presumed to be unopposed. Carruega v. Steve's Painting, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-715-FtM-29CM, 2017 WL 3387228, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2017). Nevertheless, the court must still analyze the reasonableness of the requested attorney's fees.

The starting point for setting an attorney's fee is to determine the "lodestar" figure: the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299. A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation. Gaines v. Dougherty Cty. Bd. of Edu., 775 F.2d 1565, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985).

Most or all of these factors are subsumed in the calculation of the lodestar:

(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11) the nature and length of any professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.

Norman, 836 F.2d 1292 (citing Johnson v. Ga. Hwy. Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974)).

The reasonableness of the rate charged is determined by its congruity with "those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 n. 11 (1984). The going rate in the community is the most critical factor in setting the fee rate. Martin v. Uni. of S. Ala., 911 F.2d 604, 610 (11th Cir. 1990).

A fee applicant may meet the burden to show the reasonable rate by producing either direct evidence of rates charged under similar circumstances, or opinion evidence of reasonable rates. Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299. The court may also use its own expertise and judgment to assess the value of an attorney's services. Id. at 1303; Am. Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas Cty., 278 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1310 (M.D. Fla. 2003); Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1331 (M.D. Fla. 2002).

The courts are not authorized "to be generous with the money of others, and it is as much the duty of courts to see that excessive fees and expenses are not awardedas it is to see that an adequate amount is awarded." Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11th Cir. 1999). When reducing fees, courts may "conduct an hour-by-hour analysis or it may reduce the requested hours with an across-the-board cut." Bivins v. Wrap it Up Inc., 548 F.3d 1348, 1350 (11th Cir. 2008). Although courts may apply either method, they cannot apply both. See id. Finally, courts need not become "green-eyeshade accountants." Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). Instead, the essential goal for the court is to "do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection." Id.

The court will address the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged before addressing the reasonableness of the time entries.

1. Reasonable hourly rate

The court may decide a reasonable rate based on its own expertise and judgment. Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303-04. The court looks to the skills, experience, and reputation of the attorneys to determine what comparable lawyers charge for similar services in this locality. "The general rule is that the 'relevant market' for purposes of determining the reasonable hourly rate for an attorney's services...