Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Entegee, Inc. v. Metters Industries, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

July 19, 2018

ENTEGEE, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
METTERS INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          MICHAEL S. NACHMANOFF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Statement of Fees and Costs (Dkt. No. 105-1). On June 6, 2018, Plaintiff submitted this statement to Defendant, pursuant to the Court's Order dated May 30, 2018, requesting $27, 324.00 in attorney's fees and $247.50 in costs expended in connection with Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Dr. Metters' Motion to Quash. See Non-Party Dr. Samuel Metters' Opp'n to Plaintiff's Statement of Fees & Costs [hereinafter Dr. Metters' Opp'n] at 1 (Dkt. No. 105); see Ex. A (Dkt. No. 105-1). On June 13, 2018, Dr. Metters filed his Opposition to Plaintiff's Statement of Fees and Costs (Dkt. No. 105), arguing that the Court should deny Plaintiff's request based upon its failure “to comply with the law requiring documentation and verification of fees and costs.” Id. at 2. Dr. Metters argued that, in the alternative, Plaintiff is not entitled to the full amount sought in the statement. See Id. at 2. Because the Court finds no basis for Dr. Metters' attempt to avoid paying fees and costs and deems Plaintiff's documentation to be sufficient, it focuses on his latter argument.

         I. Legal Standard

         Upon determining that an award of attorney's fees and costs is appropriate, a court employs the lodestar method to assess the amount. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 801 (2002). The lodestar method consists of “multiplying the number of reasonable hours expended times a reasonable rate.” McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81, 88 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Robinson v. Equifax Information Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243 (4th Cir. 2009)). To establish such hours and rate, a court considers the following:

(1) Time and labor expended;
(2) Novelty and difficulty of the questions raised;
(3) Skill required to properly 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;
(7) The time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances;
(8) The amount in controversy and the results obtained;
(9) The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney;
(10) The undesirability of the case within the legal community in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.