Woliner v. Summers et al, No. 9:2018cv80305 - Document 140 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER DETERMINING AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES TO BE PAID BY PLAINTIFF, KENNETH WOLINER, TO DEFENDANTS KRISTEN SUMMERS, LOUISE ST. LAURENT, AND LUCY GEE PURSUANT TO THIS COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SA NCTIONS DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2018 [DE 108]. Plaintiff, Kenneth Woliner shall reimburse Defendants, Kristen Summers, Louise St. Laurent, and Lucy Gee, for their attorneys fees in the amount of $1,922.50, and costs in the amount of $676.20, for a total of $2,598.70. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay the sum of $2,598.70 to Defendants on or before February 21, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 1/10/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Woliner v. Summers et al Doc. 140 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT O F FLORID A CaseNo.I8-CV-8O3OS-DIM ITROULEASN ATTHEW M AN KEN N ETH W O LIN ER ,M .D ., Plaintiff, FILED BY D.C. VS. JAN 12 2919 ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U S DISQ CX M A RTH A SO FRO N SK Y ,K RISTEN SU M M ER S,LO U ISE W ILH ITE ST. LA UREN T,AN D LU CY GEE, s.n.oFdLà.-w.p, a. D efendants. ORDER EXPENS DEES TERMI NING AMOUNTOFATTORNEYS'FEEY COSTSAND TO BE PA ID BY PLA INTIFFJ K EN N ET H W O LIN ER ,TO D EFEND AN T S K R ISTEN SU M M ER S,LO U ISE ST .LA U R ENT UA N D LUC Y G EE PU RSUA N T TO TH IS C O UR T 'S O R DER G M NT IN G D EFEN D AN T S' M OTION FO R SANCTIONS DATED NOVEM BER 13.2018 IDE 1081 TH IS C AU SE w as originally before the Court upon D efendants, K risten Sllm m ers, LouiseSt.Laurent,andLucyGee's(Cr efendants'')M otion forSanctionsgDE 771andM otionto Compel the Completion of Plaintiff's Deposition and for Sanctions gDE 891.This Court previously granted Defendant's M otion for Sanctions gDE 771 and M otion to Compelthe Completion ofPlaintiff'sDeposition and forSanctions gDE 891and detennined thatPlaintiff shallbe required to pay Defendants'reasonable expenses,costs and attom eys'fees in relation to the scheduled September24,2018deposition,Defendants'M otion forSanctions (DE 771,the costs associated w ith the second deposition ofD efendant,and D efendants'M otion to Com pelthe Completion ofPlaintiff'sDeposition and forSanctions(DE 891.Accordingly,thisCourtmust 1 Dockets.Justia.com now determ ine the appropriate am ount of attorneys' fees,costs and expenses to be aw arded to D efendants Sum m ers,St.Laurent,and Gee. See D E 108,pg.17. BA CK G R O U ND The Courtpreviously entered an O rder G ranting D efendants'M otion for Sanctions and M otion to Com pelthe Com pletion of Plaintiff's D eposition and for Sanctions.See DE 108. ln thatOrder,the Courtstated thatitw ould award D efendants Sum m ers,St.Laurent,and G ee their reasonable expenses in retaining a coul' t reporter for the scheduled Septem ber 24, 2018 deposition,and D efendants'attorneys'feesforresearching and drafting the M otion for Sanctions (DE 771,reviewing and researching PlaintiffsResponse,researching and drafting Defendants' Reply,asw ellas the tim e spentin review ing and com plying w ith CourtO rders to take Plaintiff s deposition,subsequentto the Septem ber24,2018 CourtO rder;and D efendants'reasonable costs in connection with the second deposition,including the courtreporter's fee and the cost of the second deposition transcript,and attorneys'fees in researching and drafting Defendants'M otion to Compelthe Completion of Plaintiff's Deposition and for Sanctions gDE 891,Plaintiffs ResponseandCross-M otion (DE 991,andDefendants'Reply (DE 1021. ln orderto determ ine the appropriate am ountofattorneys'fees,costs,and expenses to be aw arded to Defendants, this C ourt required D efendants to file an affidavit docum enting all attom eys' fees, costs,and expenses incurred, including the am ount of attorneys' fees sought, hours expended,services rendered,and hourly rate sought.See D E 108.The Courtthen ordered Plaintiffto filearesponseorobjectiontothehourlyrateclaimedby Defendants'counselandthe num ber of hours incurred by counsel which relate to the scheduled Septem ber 24, 2018 deposition,Defendants'Motion for Sanctions (DE 771,the costs associated with the second 2 deposition of Defendant, and Defendants' M otion to Compel the Completion of Plaintiff's DepositionandforSanctions(DE 891.SeeDE 108. II. A FFID A VIT.R ESPO N SE .A N D REPLY A . D efendants'A fsdavit Defendantstiled a N otice ofCom pliance w ith CourtO rderD E 108 on D ecem ber4,2018. (DE 1191.DefendantsattachedtherequiredAffidavitfrom theircounseltotheNotice.(DE 1191).In the AffidavitofJames0.W illiams,Jr.,Esq.,M r.W illiamsseeksattorneys'feesin the amountof$1,992.50and costsintheamountof$100.(DE 119-1,pg.31.ThatAffidavitdid not contain costs related to the second deposition of Plaintiff,w hich took place on Decem ber 5, 2018.Defendants filed an Amended Notice ofCompliance gDE 1271on December27,2018, w hich included an Am ended A ffidavitby M r.W illiam s.The A m ended A ffidavit detailed the fees and costs forthe continuation of Plaintiff s deposition on D ecem ber 5,2018,in the am ount of$576.20.(DE 127-1,pg.61.Defendantsseek an hourly rateof$95.00 forattorney time and $40.00 forpazalegaltim e. B. PlaintifpsR esponse in O pposition Plaintiff filed his Compliance with CourtOrder DE 108 and Response/objections to Defense Counsel's Requestfor Fees and Costs on December 27,2018. (DE 1241.In his Response,Plaintiff states that he has significant debt,and notes thatthe Courtallowed him to pursuehisappealtotheEleventh Circuitinformapauperis.(DE 124,pgs.1-21.Plaintiffasserts thatthe Court's sanction ofdenying his M otion to A m end Com plaintw as severe,'lcertainly has punished Plaintiff,and hasacted asan effective deterrent.''gDE 124,pg.21.Plaintiffasksthe Courtto consider his tsdire financialstatus''and the factthathe is notperm itted to w ork pursuant 3 to the Am erican BarAssociation Restrictionsand Nova Law School'spolicies,and find thatan awardofattorneys'feeswouldbeunjustin lightofPlaintiff'sinabilitytopay.(DE 124,pg.2-41. Finally,Plaintiffasksthatifm onetary sanctionsareimposed,thesanctionsbe lim ited to $100.00 fortheexpensesincurred forthecourtreporter,andthatapaymentplanbeestablished.gDE 124, Pg.51. C. D efendants'R eply D efendants filed a N otice of Com pliance w ith Court Order D E 108 and Reply to Plaintiff'sResponse/objectionsto DefenseCounsel'sRequestsforFeesand Costs(DE 1241.ln reply,DefendantsnotethatPlaintifffailedtoobjecttotherateandhoursclaimedbyDefendants' counsel.(DE 124,pg.21.Defendantsalso rejectPlaintiffsargumentthatfeesand costsshould not be im posed because Plaintiff is indigent,pointing out that Plaintiff has dsdem onstrated an ability to pay legalcosts associated w ith hiscase''including costs oftranscripts,depositions,and an expert.1d. 111. D ISCU SSIO N A reasonable attorney's fee aw ard is d'properly calculated by m ultiplying the num ber of hours reasonably expended on the litigation tim es a reasonable holzrly rate.'' Am .CivilLiberties Union v.Barnes,l68F.3d 423,427 (1lth Cir.1999)(quoting Blum v.Stenson,465U.S.886, 888 (1994)).This'ilodestar''may then be adjusted fortheresultsobtained by theattomey. See Barnes,168F.3d at427(citing Lorangerv.Stierheim,10F.3d 776,781(11th Cir.1994)).(tln determ ining w hat is a Sreasonable' hourly rate and w hat num ber of com pensable hours is ûreasonable,'the courtis to consider the 12 factors enum erated in Johnson v.Georgia H ighway 4 Express,Inc.,488F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974).''Bivinsv.Wrap ltUp,Inc.,548F.3d 1348,1350 (1lthCir.2008).Thesefactorsare: (1)thetimeand laborrequired;(2)thenovelty and difficulty ofthequestions;(3) the skillrequisite to perform the legalservice properly;(4)the preclusion of employmentbytheattorney dueto acceptanceofthecase;(5)thecustomary fee; (6)whetherthe fee istixed orcontingent;(7)time limitationsimposed by the clientorthecircumstances;(8)theamountinvolvedand theresultsobtained;(9) theexperience,reputation,andabilityoftheattorneys' ,(10)thedsundesirability''of thecase;(11)thenatureandlengthoftheprofessionalrelationshipwiththeclient; and(12)awardsin similarcases. f#.at1350n.2(citationomitted). The reasonable hourly rate is defined as the uprevailing m arketrate in the relevantlegal com m unity for sim ilar services by law yers of reasonably com parable skills, experience, and reputation.''Barnes,168F.3d at436(quoting Normanv.HousingAuth.ofM ontgomery,836F. 2d 1292,1299 (11th Cir.1999)).Thefeeapplicantbearstheburdenofestablishingtheclaimed m arketrate.See Barnes,168 F.3d at427.The Courtm ay use its own experience in assessing the reasonableness of attorneys'fees.N orm an, 836 F.2d at 1299; Touzoutv.Am .Best Car Rental KF Corps,No.15-61767-CV,2017W L 2541225,at*1(S.D.Fla.June 12,2017). W ith regard to the type of evidence thatthe fee claim ant should produce in supportofa claim ,in Barnes,the Eleventh Circuithas stated, The 'fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlem ent and docum enting the appropriate hours and hourly rates.''N orm an,836 F.2d at 1303. Thatburden includes i dsupplying the courtw ith specific and detailed evidence from w hich the courtcan detennine the reasonable hourly rate.Further,fee counselshould have m aintained recordsto show the tim e spenton the differentclaim s,and the general subject matter of the time expenditures ought to be set out with sufficient particularity so thatthe districtcourtcan assessthe tim e claim ed foreach activity . . . . A w el l-prepared fee petition also w ould include a sum m ary,grouping the time entries by the nature of the activity or stage of the case.'1d.(citations omitted). 5 168 F.3d at427. In subm itting arequestforattorney'sfees,fee applicants are required to exercise'dbilling judgment.''Barnes,168F.3dat428 (quoting Hensley v.Eckerhart,461U.S.424,434 (1983)). If fee applicants do notexclude 'dexcessive,redundant,or otherw ise ulm ecessary''hours, w hich are hours idthat would be unreasonable to bill to a client and therefore to one's adversary irrespective of the skill,reputation or experience of counsel,nthe courtmustexercise billing judgmentforthem.SeeBarnes,168F.3d at428(quoting Norman,836 F.2dat1301(emphasis in originalj).The burden restsonthefeeapplicantto submitarequestforfeesthatwillenable the courtto determ ine how m uch tim e w as reasonably expended.Loranger,10 F.3d at782. W hen responding to m otions forattorney's fees,opponents are required to lodge specitic objections to any requests.See Barnes,168 F.3d at427 (stating that objections from fee opponentsmustbetobespecificand d'reasonablyprecise'');Norman,836F.2dat1301($'(a1sthe district court m ust be reasonably precise in excluding hours thought to be urlreasonable or urmecessary,so shouldtheobjectionsfrom feeopponents.l')Failingto lodgespeciticobjections is generally deem ed fatal.See, e.g.,Gray v.fockheed A eronauticals' y-t Co., 125 F.3d 1387, 1389 (11th Cir.1997);Scelta v.Delicatessen SupportSrvcs.Inc.,203 F.Supp.2d 1328,1333 (M .D.Fla.2002). A . C ounsel's H ourly Rate ln seeking reim bursem entfor theirattorneys'fees,D efendantsrely on the billing records oftheir attorney,Mr.James 0.W illiams,Jr.,Esq.gDE 127-1,pgs.4-71.Defendants seek $1,992.50 in attorneys' fees and paralegal fees,at $95.00 per hour for attorney Jam es 0. W illiam sand foratlorney Jessica R.Butlerof W illiams,Leininger,& Cosby,P.A.and $40.00 6 perhourforparalegalJL.(DE 127-1,pg.3).In supportofDefendants'request,Mr.W illiams stated in his Am ended A ffidavitthathe has been a m em berofthe Florida B ar since 1986 and he is a partner atW illiams,Leininger,& Cosby,P.A.(DE 127-1,pg.1j.Defendants failed to include any biographical inform ation of attom ey Jessica R . Butler and failed to include the identity and qualificationsofparalegalJL.However,Plaintiffdoesnotchallengethehourly rates of counselas urlreasonable.B ased upon the Court's own knowledge and experience,the Court findsthat$95.00 perhourforattorney tim eand $40.00 perhourforparalegaltime isreasonable in thiscase. B. Num ber O fH oursR easonably Expended N ext,the Courtm ust determ ine w hether the num ber of hours billed w ere related to the scheduled September 24,2018 deposition,Defendants'M otion for Sanctions (DE 771,the second deposition of Defendant, and Defendants' M otion to Com pel the Com pletion of Plaintiffs Deposition and for Sanctions (DE 891.ln M r.W illinm's Amended Affidavit,he asserts that he, M s. Butler, and his paralegal spent a total of 20.7 hours in connection w ith retaining a court reporter for the Septem ber 24, 2018 deposition, researching and drafting Defendants'M otion for Sanctions (DE 771,reviewing and researching Plaintiffs Response, researching and drafting D efendants'Reply,review ing and com plying w ith the C ourt's Orderto take Plaintiff s deposition after Septem ber 24, 2018, researching and drafting Defendants' M otiontoCompelthecompletionofPlaintiff'sDepositionandforSanctions(DE 891,reviewing Plaintiff'sResponse and Cross-M otion,and researching and drafting Defendants'Reply.gDE 127-1,pg.21.TheCourthascarefullyreviewedthetimeentries,anddoesnotfindthe20.7hours billed forthe drafting and litigation oftw o diseovery m otions and m ultiple eom m unications with 7 Plaintiff regarding the rescheduling of Plaintiff s deposition to be excessive, redundant or ulmecessary.ItisdearthatDefendants'counselexercisedprudentbillingjudgmentin recording time entries.M oreover,Plaintiffhasnotobjected to any ofthe hoursclaimed by Defendants' counsel. C . C alculation ofLodestar A m ount The Court finds the hourly rate requested by D efendants' counsel and the ntlm ber of hours expended by counselto be reasonable.Therefore,the Courtwill award a totalam ountof $1,922.50 in attom eys'feesto DefendantsSum mers,St.Laurent,and Gee. D . C osts Defendants seek an award of $676.20 in costs. LDE 127-1, pg. 61. Specitically, Defendants seek $100.00 for the cancellation fee ofPlaintiffs Septem ber 24,2018 deposition from Palm Beach Reporting Service,Inc.and $576.20 forthe attendance and transcriptfees of PlaintiffsseconddepositionDecember5,2018.1d.Plaintiffdoesnotobjecttothesecosts.These costs were specitically awarded by the Court in its November 13,2018 Order (DE 1081. Therefore the Court finds that these costs are reasonable,and aw ards D efendants costs in the am ountof$676.20. E. PlaintifpsFinancialStatus PlaintiffaskstheCourtto findthatamonetary award ofattorneys'feeswould beunjust in lightofPlaintiff'sstatusasapro se litigantproceeding informapauperis..dpro selitigant proceeding informapauperisremainssubjectto therelevantlaw and l'ulesofcourt,including theFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.Moonv.Newsome,863F.2d 835,837-38(11th Cir.1989). These rulesprovide for sanctions form isconductand forfailure to com ply w ith courtorders.Id. 8 lfapro selitigantignoresadiscovery order,he isand should be subjectto sanctions like any otherlitigant.1d.Courtscanassesscostsandmonetary sanctionsagainstlFP litigants.1d.(citing Harrisv.Forsyth,742 F.2d 1277 (11th Cir.1984)($1acourthasdiscretiontoawardcostsagainst indigentsCasin othercases''');Cotnerv.Hopkins,795F.2d900,902(10th Cir.1986)(imposition of$1,000 tineon inmatelitigantnotpresumptively objectionable);Carterv.United States,733 F.2d 735,737 (10th Cir.1984),cert.deniei 469 U.S. 1161, 105 S.Ct.915,83 L.Ed.2d 928 (1985)(ûdW e agree thatsanctionsare an appropriate remedy to preventabuse ofthejudicial process. Restrictive conditions, other than total preclusion, which are available include assessmentofdamagestotheprevailingparty andimpositionofsingleordoublecosts.''l' ,Toner W ilson,102 F.R .D . 276 (M .D.Pa.1984) (award of attomeys'fees for violation discoveryorderspermissibledespiteparty'spovertyandprösestatusl). W here m onetary sanctions are im posed on an in.ft?r' nktzpauperislitigantand the litigant com es forw ard showing a true inability to pay,it m ight be an abuse of discretion for the court then to dismiss for failure to pay.SeeHerring v. Whitehall,804 F.2d 464, 468 (8th Cir.1986), 'Hornbuckle v.Arco Oil(f GasCo.,732 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir.1984),ccr/.denie4 475 U.S.1016,106 S.Ct.1198,89L.Ed.2d312(1986);Thomasv.GerberProductions,703F.2d 353 (9th Cir.1983).However,theCourtisnotherein consideringdismissalofPlaintiff'slawsuitasa sanction,and there is insufficientevidence forthe Courtto find thatPlaintiffhas a true inability to pay.Plaintifps in /i ?rvltr /pauperisstatusalonedoesnotlnakeobvioushisinability topayany x costs whatsoever. M oon,863 F.2d at838.Itis clearthatPlaintiff has dem onstrated an ability to pay legal costs like the costs of transcripts and three w itness depositions, and he w as able to retainan economicsexpert.(DE 131,pg.21.lnthiscase,thefactsdo notsupporttheexerciseof the Court's discretion to reduce the sanctions aw ard.Plaintiff him self broughtthe action in the firstplace,aftirmatively invoked thejurisdiction ofthis Court,and aggressively pursued this case.Plaintiffhas also engaged in a pattern ofdiscovery violations.See D E 108.Plaintiffshould notbe able to shield him self from an aw ard ofattorneys'fees and costs incurred by D efendants, especially sincetheaw ard isnotunreasonably high underthefactsofthiscase. lV . C O N C LUSIO N Based on the foregoing, it is hereby O RD ER ED that Plaintiff,K enneth W oliner shall reim burse Defendants,Kristen Sum m ers,Louise St.Latlrent,and Lucy Gee,fortheir attorneys' feesin the amountof$1,922.50,and costs in the amountof$676.20,for a totalof $2,598.70. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay the sum of $2,598.70 to Defendants on or before February 21,2019.The check,m oney order,cashier's check, or w ire transfer shallbe m ade payable to the tnlst account of D efendants' attorney, M r.Jam es 0 .W illiam s, Jr.of W illiam s, Leininger,& Cosby,P.A .Should Plaintifffailto pay the sum of$2,598.70 in fullon orbefore Febnlary 21,2019,D efendants shallhave the rightto file an affidavitofnon-paym entstating the amount unpaid,and an appropriate motion seeking entry of a judgment against Plaintiff, contempt,orotherappropriaterelief. J DONE AND ORDERED in Chambersthis/P day ofJanuary,2019 atWestPalm Beach,Palm Beach County,in the Southern D istrictofFlorida. < # :-- - - - - W ILLIAM M A T E M A N UN ITED STA TES M A G ISTRA TE JU DG E
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
