MC Bank & Trust Company v. Suard Barge Service, Inc. et al, No. 2:2016cv14311 - Document 28 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 25 Motion for Attorney Fees. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. IT IS ORDERED that there be a judgment in favor of plaintiff against Defendant Louis O'Neil Suard, Jr. in the amount of $63,806.97. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek additional fees and costs incurred in future collection efforts. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/12/2017. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MC Bank & Trust Company v. Suard Barge Service, Inc. et al Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA M C BANK AND TRUST COMPANY VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-14311 SUARD BARGE SERVICE, INC., ET AL SECTION “R” (2) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is plaintiff’s m otion for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of Defendant Suard Barge Service, Inc.’s default on a $ 3,950 ,0 0 0 loan provided by Plaintiff M C Bank & Trust Com pany. 2 The loan was guaranteed by Defendant Prem ier Services, Inc. and by Defendant Louis O’Neil Suard, J r. in his individual capacity. 3 On May 9, 20 17, Suard Barge Service and Prem ier Services each filed a notice of bankruptcy. 4 The 1 2 3 4 R. Doc. 25. R. Doc. 1 at 2-4. R. Doc. 23 at 2, 12-14. R. Doc. 13; R. Doc. 14. Dockets.Justia.com Court stayed this m atter as to Suard Barge Service and Prem ier Services only. 5 On September 11, 20 17, the Court granted default judgment to plaintiff against Louis O’Neil Suard, J r. in the am ount of $ 3,0 0 6,0 77.0 3 in principal, $ 789,468.17 in accrued interest, $3,50 7.30 in reim bursem ent for life insurance prem ium s, $ 8,50 0 .0 0 in vessel survey costs, and interest in the sum of $535.33 per day from August 24, 20 17. 6 The Court’s default judgment further stated that plaintiff is entitled to costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees in an am ount to be determ ined at a later date. 7 Plaintiff tim ely m oved for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. 8 Mr. Suard has not responded to plaintiff’s m otion. II. D ISCU SSION Under the terms of Mr. Suard’s personal guaranty, plaintiff is entitled to recover from him the full am ount of Suard Barge Service’s indebtedness, including “all collection costs and legal expenses related thereto perm itted by law, [and] reasonable attorneys’ fees.”9 Plaintiff requests $ 63,80 6.97 in 5 6 7 8 9 R. Doc. 15. R. Doc. 23; R. Doc. 24. R. Doc. 24. R. Doc. 25. R. Doc. 1-14 at 1. 2 attorneys’ fees and costs, representing $ 61,936.25 in attorneys’ fees and $ 1,870 .72 in costs and expenses. 10 The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s item ized costs and expenses and finds them justified. Because plaintiff’s right to attorneys’ fees arises out of a guaranty agreement declared valid under Louisiana law, “[s]tate law controls both the award of and the reasonableness of” attorneys’ fees. See Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 30 2 F.3d 448, 461 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). Under Louisiana law, courts m ay inquire into the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and should consider: “(1) the ultim ate result obtained; (2) the responsibility incurred; (3) the im portance of the litigation, (4) am ount of m oney involved; (5) extent and character of the work performed; (6) legal knowledge, attainm ent, and skill of the attorneys; (7) num ber of appearances made; (8) intricacies of the facts involved; (9) diligence and skill of counsel; and (10 ) the court’s own knowledge.” State v. W illiam son, 597 So. 2d 439, 442 (La. 1992). These factors are derived from Rule 1.5(a) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. at 442 n.9. Am ong the factors listed in Rule 1.5(a) is “[t]he fee customarily charged in the locality for sim ilar legal services.” Id. The Court need not expressly consider all the factors, however, and may m ultiply the num ber of hours worked by an hourly rate the Court deems 10 R. Doc. 25-1 at 1. 3 reasonable. See Fourchon Docks, Inc. v. Milchem Inc., 849 F.2d 1561, 1568 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court has reviewed line by line the item ized billing statem ent subm itted by plaintiff and finds the hours expended to be reasonable. The billing statement and the record reflect that plaintiff’s counsel reviewed extensive loan docum entation involving m ixed collateral and m ultiple guarantors, prepared a dem and letter, researched the basis for federal jurisdiction, drafted the initial com plaint, and prepared a successful m otion for default judgment. 11 The billing records further indicate that plaintiff’s counsel expended considerable tim e negotiating with Mr. Suard regarding a possible settlem ent, and working to collect on defendants’ debt in related bankruptcy proceedings. Further, the Court finds the requested hourly rates reasonable. The record reflects that three attorneys worked on this case: Richard Aguilar, Adam McNeil, and Mark Chaney. 12 Aguilar is a m anaging m em ber of McGlinchey Stafford’s New Orleans office, with over thirty years of experience in comm ercial litigation and bankruptcy law. 13 Aguilar spent 11 12 13 R. Doc. 1; R. Doc. 1-17; R. Doc. 11. R. Doc. 11-18; R. Doc. 25-1 at 5-6. R. Doc. 25-1 at 5. 4 10 1.5 hours on this case, at a rate of $ 395 per hour. 14 McNeil has over seventeen years of experience in comm ercial and business litigation, with particular expertise in legal issues related to m ortgaged vessels. 15 McNeil spent 7.5 hours on this m atter, at a rate of $ 350 per hour. 16 Chaney is a 20 14 law graduate and an associate in McGlinchey Stafford’s comm ercial litigation section. 17 Chaney spent 84 hours on this case, at a rate of $225 per hour. 18 The Court finds that the hourly rates requested are reasonable in light of the attorneys’ experience and expertise. Plaintiff subm its survey results from the National Law J ournal’s annual survey of law firm billing rates indicating that these hourly rates are within the range charged by sim ilar New Orleans law firm s. 19 The Court has approved sim ilar hourly rates for attorneys with sim ilar experience. See, e.g., DirectTV, LLC v. Ertem , No. 13487, 20 15 WL 459398, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 20 15) (approving hourly rates of $ 350 / hour for partners and $ 250 / hour for associates). Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled $ 61,936.25 in attorneys’ fees and $ 1,870 .72 in costs and expenses. 14 15 16 17 18 19 R. Doc. 11-18; R. Doc. 25-1 at 5. R. Doc. 25-1 at 6. R. Doc. 11-18; R. Doc. 25-1 at 6. R. Doc. 25-1 at 6. R. Doc. 11-18; R. Doc. 25-1 at 6. R. Doc. 25-2. 5 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s m otion for attorneys’ fees and costs. IT IS ORDERED that there be a judgm ent in favor of plaintiff against Defendant Louis O’Neil Suard, J r. in the am ount of $ 63,80 6.97. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek additional fees and costs incurred in future collection efforts. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ 12th _ day of Decem ber, 20 17. ___ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 6
]]>
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.
