You're viewing Docket Item 16 from the case ISOLATOR FITNESS, INC. v. 6 PACK FITNESS, LLC. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 5:12-cv-04984-LS Document 16 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA



vs.



ISOLATOR FITNESS, INC.,








6 PACK FITNESS, LLC,




Plaintiff










Defendant

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 12-4984













:
:
:
:
:
:
:


STENGEL, J.















June 3, 2013

M E M O R A N D U M



Plaintiff Isolator Fitness, Inc., has filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees in

the amount of $22,939.50 following the entry of an Order of Default Judgment on March

27, 2013. The defendant has chosen not to respond. For the following reasons, I will

grant the motion in its entirety.

I. BACKGROUND



The complaint in the above-captioned case was filed on August 30, 2012, and

served upon Defendant 6 Pack Fitness, LLC, on October 15, 2012 by USPS Certified

Mail and on December 3, 2012 by USPS Certified Mail Restricted Delivery. Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1) required the defendant to file an answer with the court

within twenty-one days thereafter. On December 27, 2012, the plaintiff requested the

Clerk of Court to enter a default against the defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 55(a) for failure to respond to the complaint. On January 2, 2013, the Clerk of

Court entered such a default. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for default

judgment. The defendant has yet to respond.

Case 5:12-cv-04984-LS Document 16 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 3



On February 28, 2013, I entered an Order to Show Cause giving the defendant

until March 8, 2013 to show cause as to why the court should not grant the relief sought

in the plaintiff’s motion. There being no response, I entered an Order of Default

Judgment on March 27, 2013 based upon the defendant’s failure to respond to both the

complaint and my Order.

II. LEGAL STANDARD



The starting point for a determination of attorney’s fees, the lodestar calculation, is

the product of the number of hours reasonably expended times an hourly fee based on the

prevailing market rate. Doering v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 857 F.2d

191, 195 (3d Cir.1988); see also Maldonado v. Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181, 184 (3d Cir.

2001). The burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of both the hours expended and

hourly rates falls on the party seeking those fees. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell

Int’l, Inc., 426 F.3d 694, 703 (3d Cir. 2005)(citing Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177,

1183 (3d Cir.1990)). The party requesting fees must submit “fairly definite information

as to hours devoted to various general activities, e.g., partial discovery, settlement

negotiations, and the hours spent by various classes of attorneys.” United Auto. Workers

Local 259 Social Sec. Dept. v. Metro Auto Center, 501 F.3d 283, 291 (3d Cir. 2007)

(quoting Evans v. Port Auth., 273 F.3d 346, 361 (3d Cir. 2001)).

III. DISCUSSION



The plaintiff requests $22,939.50 for attorney’s fees. In support of its request, the

plaintiff has attached a sufficiently detailed accounting of the tasks performed and hours

expended by various attorneys related to this action. See Document #14. Of course, the



2

Case 5:12-cv-04984-LS Document 16 Filed 06/04/13 Page 3 of 3

defendants have not opposed the amount of fees nor have they raised any specific

challenges to the hours worked or hourly rates established by the plaintiff. After a review

of the record, especially the evidence of the defendant’s correspondence to plaintiff’s

counsel which triggered this action, I am convinced that an award of attorney’s fees is

warranted here.



Once a court determines attorney’s fees should be awarded, it must then determine

what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee for a given matter. The presumptively

reasonable “lodestar” rate consists of the hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly

rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 432 (1983). After conducting this calculation,

a court may then adjust the amount to take into account any other relevant factors that are

not already adequately represented in the lodestar calculation, and may reduce a fee

award if a bill includes an excessive amount of time to perform a task or contains

duplicative entries. Gulfstream III Assocs., Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d

414, 422 (3d Cir. 1993).



The evidence submitted with the motion reveals that counsel worked 101.1 hours

in this case at the reasonable rates of between $95 and $275 per hour. I find no reason to

adjust or reduce this bill. Accordingly, I will grant the motion for attorney’s fees in its

entirety without a hearing,1 and award the plaintiff the sum of $22,939.50 plus interest.



An appropriate Order follows.


1 The plaintiff has sufficiently supported the amount of requested attorney’s fees with exhibits and
declarations. Thus, I find that a hearing is unnecessary under Rule 55(b)(2)(B) to determine the amount of
damages due, as the requested amount is computable from the submitted documentary evidence. See 10
James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.32[2][c] (Matthew Bender ed. 2010) (In
determining damages following an entry of Default Judgment, the court need not hold an evidentiary
hearing with oral testimony. Rather, the “hearing” may be one in which the court asks the parties to
submit affidavits and other materials from which it can decide the issue).



3