Worldwide Network Services, LLC v. Dyncorp International, LLC et al, No. 1:2007cv00627 - Document 509 (E.D. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: Pltfs Worlwide Network Services, LLC and Worldwide Network Services International, FZCO's Second Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 07/23/10. (pmil)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Worldwide Network Services, LLC v. Dyncorp International, LLC et al IN THE FOR THE UNITED STATES Doc. 509 DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION Worldwide Network Services, ) LLC, ) Plaintiff and Counter- ) Defendant, ) and ) Worldwide Network Services ) International, ) FZCO, Plaintiff, ) v. ) DynCorp International, LLC, Case No. l:07-cv-627(GBL) ) Defendant and Counter- ) Plaintiff. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER is before Network Services, International, Attorneys' LLC, FZCO's Fees. the Court on Plaintiffs Worldwide and Worldwide Network Services (collectively, (Dkt. No. 4 91.) "WWNS") Second Motion for This case concerned Plaintiffs' action against Defendant DynCorp International, ("DynCorp") for racial discrimination in contracting in violation of 42 U.S.C. granted WWNS' § 1981. During a jury trial, Renewed Motion for Judgment as awarded $2,783,429.81 on its breach of No. 399.) On May 14, 2008, the the Court a Matter of contract LLC claims. jury returned a verdict Law and (Dkt. in favor Dockets.Justia.com of WWNS and against DynCorp comprised of compensatory damages, dated June 17, 2008, $10,000,000 the Court judgment amount on WWNS' $2,553,105.86. No. 19, 2008. Judgment on June WWNS moved the Court necessary expenses. {Dkt. No. directed the 414.) (Dkt. Clerk By Order to amend the from $2,783,429.81 to The Clerk entered the Amended (Dkt. No. in damages. No. 415.) On July, for trial-related attorneys' Court ordered DynCorp fees. in punitive contract claims {Dkt. $3,420,000 425.) to pay WWNS 3, fees On September 22, $1,822,743.03 2008, and 2008, the in attorneys' 461.) On September 26, 2008, DynCorp challenging the punitive damages United States Court of Appeals filed a Notice of Appeal award. (Dkt. No. 466.) The for the Fourth Circuit vacated the ten million dollar punitive damages award and remanded the case to this Court 3." Worldwide Network Servs., 08-2166, for "retrial on punitive damages 08-2108 & 2010). WWNS now moves the Court with the appeal. 2010 WL LLC v. (Dkt. No. 489477, at DynCorp Int'l, *13 (4th Cir. for attorneys' U.S.C. § is a 1988. "prevailing party" The second issue represent a reasonable number of charged. The LLC, Feb. Nos. 12, fees associated 491.) There are five issues before the Court. whether WWNS for Count is The first issue is within the meaning of 42 whether the claimed fees hours at a reasonable rate third issue is whether the Court should reduce WWNS' claimed fees because include issue time some of the ambiguous spent on the punitive damages is whether WWNS cross-appeal. The claimed fee amount issue. is entitled to recover for work done with its damages fifth issue expert is fee entries may The fourth fees and expenses in preparation for its whether a reduction to the is warranted based on the degree of success WWNS achieved on appeal. The Court grants WWNS' the amount concludes of $3 94,031.01 that WWNS attorneys' fees is a for five reasons. "prevailing party" liability for the central issue on appeal. finds as to hours § entitled to Circuit affirmed DynCorp's reasonable U.S.C. in Court the Court 42 the because the to First, Fees 1988 Second, pursuant Second Motion for Attorneys' WWNS' Fourth proposed lodestar figure expended and rate charged because the time expended was necessary for the appeal and WWNS properly documented the reasonableness Third, of the the Court reduces ambiguous claimed hours and rates. fee entries of WWNS' lead attorneys on this case by ten percent because these entries may include fees for time spent on the unsuccessful punitive damages claim. fees Fourth, the Court finds that WWNS is entitled to recover and expenses related to preparation of because DynCorp's appeal necessitated issue of the expert's initial its damages expert that WWNS preserve the exclusion and seek admission of his testimony in the event of a remand on the issue of damages. Fifth, the degree of Court finds success raised on appeal no reduction necessary based on the obtained because WWNS except the punitive damages 1^ This action arose contractual October 5, alleging WWNS from DynCorp's timely advantage, the in the summer of civil its 2006. On Complaint against DynCorp defamation, interference two counts of and breach of dealing. tortious issue. termination of filed its race discrimination, with contract, issue BACKGROUND relationship with WWNS 2006, succeeded on every tortious interference with prospective business conspiracy, breach of contract, implied covenant of good faith and fair During the jury trial, Motion for Judgment as the Court a Matter of Law on granted WWNS' its breach of Renewed contract claims and awarded $2,783,429.81 prior to the conclusion of ten day trial. (Dkt. No. 3 99.) a Motion for Reconsideration of Order. (Dkt. No. verdict in WWNS' discrimination, breach of 400.) favor fair dealing. the On May 14, 2008, 2008, DynCorp May 12, the 2008 filed Rule 50 jury returned a liable for interference with employment contracts, and breach of In addition compensatory damages, Court's finding DynCorp tortious contract, On May 13, the the to awarding covenant of 3.42 the jury awarded WWNS in punitive damages on Counts I and III, the good faith and million dollars in ten million dollars § 1981 claim and the contract claims, entered judgment in respectively. favor of WWNS On May, 2008, 2008 Judgment and directed the judgment upon resolution of By Order dated June (Dkt. recognizing DynCorp's Reconsideration remained pending, 17, No. the By Order Motion for the Court vacated the May 23, Clerk to enter an amended (Dkt. the The Court issued a judgment pertaining $2,783,429.81 on June 19, amount of to the Court granted in part the to WWNS' fees September 22, attorneys' (Dkt. the 26, Court 2008, finding of Court's denial of 50(b) its No. Accordingly, (Dkt. § No. 415.) 425.) On to pay WWNS' $1,822,743.03. DynCorp No. in the for trial-related (Dkt. ordered DynCorp (Dkt. filed an appeal Fourth Circuit on three primary grounds. challenged the (Dkt. from 414.) WWNS moved the Court in the amount of On September claims No. and necessary expenses. 2008, fees contract in favor of WWNS. After entry of judgment, attorneys' and Clerk entered an Amended Judgment $15,973,105.86 408.) separate order reducing the amount of $2,553,105.86. 2008, final No. denied in part DynCorp's Motion for Reconsideration. 413.) Clerk in 407.) DynCorp's motion. 2008, 2008, and against DynCorp accordance with the jury's verdict. dated May 30, 23, First, No. with the DynCorp 1981 liability on grounds that renewed Federal Rule of Civil motion was an abuse of discretion. requested a new trial based on numerous, Second, 461.) this Procedure DynCorp allegedly erroneous evidentiary rulings by the the testimony of WWNS' the testimony of WWNS' testimony of WWNS' scope that of the Court, including challenges minority executive was consultant irrelevant; was prejudicial; information-technology witness permissible lay testimony. Fourth Circuit vacate Third, or remit that: and the jury instructions given was On October 22, 2008, DynCorp's appeal expert, Mr. WWNS filed a to request that Alexis Maniatis, remand on the issue of On February 12, now be requested the attorneys' fees improperly prejudicial. award, 2009, a three finding that this Court's legal meaning of a resulted in 1981 claim, admitted in the event of a judge panel arguments of the Fourth except its challenge to Count I, the § failure to properly instruct "malice," a required element of "serious prejudice" to DynCorp. Fourth Circuit remanded the case jury's verdict did not award went to specify what portion of Count I The for retrial on the amount of punitive damages specifically allocable to Count damages to Fourth Circuit vacated the punitive damages the jury on the § in response initially excluded damages to the punitive damages award with respect The that damages. Circuit rejected all of DynCorp's 1981 claim. the was beyond the DynCorp cross-appeal its (2) (3) award and the jury's award of punitive damages on grounds one of (1) as opposed to III because the the punitive III. On April Attorneys' the Court expenses 20, WWNS pursuant Fees 2010, to for $415,735.81 as Pipeline Serv. As Co. such, fees absent 42 U.S.C. v. Second Motion for 1988. fees WWNS now moves and other necessary fees parties are Wilderness Soc'y, responsible fees. 421 statutory authority. 511 U.S. § OF REVIEW 1988 809, § 814-15 authorizes and expert 42 U.S.C. Alyeska U.S. 240, Eckerhart, that fees to a independent to grant reasonable "prevailing party" 461 U.S. 424, (2000). Section 1988 see also Hensley, 429 the case. (1983). Id.; U.S.C. grants a fees award Hensley v. A "prevailing party" fees must show through clear and convincing evidence that Nutri/Sys., when the the opposing party violated 42 facts of v. (1994) . a court 1988(b)-(c) moving for attorneys' EEOC v. 247 Key Tronic Corp. court the sole discretion to determine the attorneys' based on the for courts generally will not award attorneys' factfinder determines 1981. § their own attorneys' explicit United States, STANDARD "American Rule," bearing the costs of § U.S.C. its the prevailing party on appeal. Under the attorneys' 42 filed in attorneys' II. (1975). timely the amount requested is reasonable. Inc., 461 U.S. 685 F. Supp. at 440-41 568, 572 (Burger, (E.D. C.J., Va. 1988); concurring). Where a "prevailing party" court must undertake reasonable 243-44 three analytical fee award. (4th Cir. is authorized attorneys' steps See Robinson v. 2009). First, Eguifax, lodestar figure by multiplying the number of v. Mills after Corp., 549 "determining F.3d 313, the then should subtract unrelated to omitted). fees for hours "[o]nee the incurred for unsuccessful, percentage of the finds $394,031.01. that WWNS is a fees pursuant to § spent at proposed the figure, the on unsuccessful (internal it claims fees then awards some degree of Second Motion for Attorneys' As court citation subtracted the an initial matter, Fees the Court entitled to attorneys' because the Fourth Circuit affirmed § 1981 issue. lodestar figure reasonable appeal Second, ANALYSIS expended and rate charged because necessary for 2008)). Id. DynCorp's liability for the central, finds WWNS' (citing Grissom depending on the "prevailing party" 1988 F.3d 235, reasonable hours the] 244 court has plaintiff." The Court grants WWNS' amount of of 560 "determine a 243 unrelated claims, III. the Id. remaining amount, success enjoyed by the at (4th Cir. [reasonableness successful ones." Third, 320 Id. a in calculating a a court must expended times a reasonable rate." fees, the time as The Court to hours expended was and WWNS properly documented the in reasonableness of the reduces the ambiguous claimed hours and rates. fee entries of WWNS' attorneys by ten percent because these The Court lead appellate entries may include for time spent on the unsuccessful punitive damages Court finds that WWNS is entitled to recover associated with the preparation of expert's the event of a remand on the Court of appeal A^ except the issue of succeeded on every punitive issue of testimony in Finally, the substantial degree issue raised on damages award. Prevailing Party As an initial matter, the Court finds prevailing party entitled to attorneys' because the the the his damages. sufficiently demonstrates a success because WWNS The its damages expert because initial exclusion and admission of finds WWNS claim. fees and expenses DynCorp's appeal necessitated that WWNS preserve the fees jury found DynCorp liable Fourth Circuit affirmed the compensatory damages. the 506 plaintiff 'prevails' in the Hobby, when actual claim materially alters parties by modifying the the legal some U.S. relief 103, relief 111 is § a 1988 § 1981 and form of A court may award attorneys' least Farrar v. fees under for violating judgment those parties who achieve at claim. that WWNS fees only to on the merits of (1992). WA on the merits of his relationship between the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits State 792 the Teachers Ass'n (1989) plaintiffs." v. Garland Indep. (holding that to a resolution of Id. at 111-12; [sic] time the Inc. 598, 603 damages v. W. Va. Farrar, in any amount, of the damages Farrar, 506 at The that U.S. jury enters received. of Health 506 U.S. legal judgment in the plaintiffs' Dept. to point at favor, Buckhannon Bd. & Human Res., 112-13 for the plaintiff's a jury found DynCorp liable discrimination and other violations of 111. judgment, 532 & U.S. ("A judgment for whether compensatory or nominal, the defendant's behavior Here, relief. affirms the amount (2001); of plaintiffs prevail when a or an appellate court Care Home, 782, and the defendant"). benefits of 489 U.S. the dispute which changes secure an enforceable regardless Dist., Sch. plaintiffs must also In other words, Tex. "the plaintiffs must be able relationship between itself them at see also modifies benefit."). to WWNS the law. for unlawful Although the Fourth Circuit vacated the punitive damages award, it upheld the jury's finding that DynCorp unlawfully discriminated in terminating its contractual relationship with WWNS. The Fourth Circuit also left intact the Court's $2,553,105.86 award to WWNS on the breach of contract claims. on the merits of the case because appeal modified the parties' Furthermore, WWNS prevailed the verdict and judgment on relationship and changed DynCorp's behavior towards WWNS under Farrar as 10 to the central, § 1981 claim. Therefore, award of B^_ was is a "prevailing party" reasonable appellate attorneys' Court finds WWNS' fees. proposed lodestar to hours expended and rate necessary for reasonableness the appeal of the hours first determine a reasonable hours F.3d at the expended claimed and rates times A court's reasonable time expended and WWNS properly documented attorneys' charged. fees, lodestar figure by multiplying 243. reasonableness figure charged because calculating a reasonable award of 560 entitled to an Lodestar Figure The as its WWNS a reasonable the When "a court must the number of rate." Robinson, discretion in determining the of both hours and rate is guided by twelve time and labor expended; (2) factors: (1) the difficulty of the questions raised; required to properly perform the rendered; (4) pressing the the (7) litigation; the time client or circumstances; and the results (3) legal the skill services attorney's opportunity costs instant for like work; the novelty and reputation and ability of undesirability of imposed by the the amount in controversy (9) the experience, the attorney; the case within the in which the suit arose; in the customary fee limitations (8) obtained; (5) (11) (10) the legal community the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; attorneys' and (12) fees awards in similar cases. Robinson, 560 F.2d 216, 226 n.28 set F.3d at 243 (citing Barber v. (4th Cir. forth in Johnson v. Ga. 1978) (adopting the twelve Highway Express, 11 Kimbrell's Inc., Inc., 488 577 factors F.2d 714 (5th Cir. evidence 1974))). The attorneys' supporting applicant the hours worked and rates the documentation of hours reduce fees is inadequate, the award accordingly." Hensley, market which rates [it] in the 461 U.S. community' seeks an award." LLC, *23 2010) 273, Va. 277-78 Feb. 23, (4th Cir. No. for the l:08cv894, "sufficient prevailing market rates are affidavits of who are familiar both with the Robinson, 560 ("[A]ffidavits F.3d at skills of type of work 245; Plyler, testifying to [fee] the prevailing type WL of work L.C. for v. 678129, Evatt, at 902 F.2d constitutes to verify the other the local lawyers fee applicants and in the relevant community." 902 F.2d at 278 affidavits of own rates, South Carolina familiar both with the skills of some of the applicants and more generally with civil rights litigation in South Carolina .... [were] prevailing market rates . The Court as "In fees applicant [the fee applicants'] experience and skills as well as lawyers who were 2010 Examples of what satisfactory specific evidence more generally with the of (quoting Plyler v. 1990)). Where at 433. Comstock Potomac Yard, Balfour Beatty Const., (E.D. the 'specific evidence relevant claimed. "submit the district court may addition to the attorney's own affidavits, must produce satisfactory should . finds WWNS' . sufficient evidence of the ."). proposed lodestar to hours expended because the figure reasonable time expended was necessary for 12 the appeal. liability, erroneous Here, DynCorp challenged the requested a new trial based on numerous, evidentiary rulings by the the Fourth Circuit vacate or remit the jury's award of respond on appeal to focus finding of punitive appellate brief. allegedly fees award and In order to properly jury award, WWNS' WWNS was and produce challenges Notably, 1981 and requested that the attorneys' damages. and defend its on DynCorp's Court, § required a very detailed attorneys did not request fee compensation for: (1) all time expended during October and November 2008 (including time spent reviewing notice of appeal and filing the necessary form with the Fourth Circuit); expended during May, between the last June, July and August (2) 2009 all time (the time filing and oral argument preparation, when Akin Gump attorneys monitored and reviewed legal discussions bearing on the appeal); and (3)all time billed by seven Akin Gump attorneys who worked on discrete during the appeal Drake, WWNS' (Pis.' and Andrea Vavonese, trial Mem. to rate of whom were members Debra of 9.) the Court charged because Patricia Millett, prepare and argue this The appellate work WWNS reflect work performed by enlisted Mr. Anthony Pierce to case before the Fourth Circuit on appeal. involved was key aspects the 1981 § rates claimed fees reasonable both senior appellate attorneys, appealed several finding of finds WWNS' the senior appellate attorneys. and Ms. all issues of Michele Roberts, team). Additionally, as (including that of liability, extensive because DynCorp the case. DynCorp challenged requested a new trial based on 13 numerous, allegedly erroneous and requested that attorneys' Thus, fees the evidentiary rulings Fourth Circuit vacate by the or remit Court, the award and the jury's award of punitive damages. the necessary appellate work required experienced appellate attorneys. higher the rates Therefore, appellate the experienced the Court the finds the rates charged by WWNS' Court finds that WWNS community for this WWNS type of work. identifying the number of hours the most part, the tasks describing Exs. A & B.) with cases spent on specific fees. tasks and, for with sufficient detail. In addition to its own affidavits, Emily M. Yinger, a Eastern District of Virginia experienced involving complex federal of attorneys' charged in this submitted documentation WWNS also submitted the affidavit of Ms. practitioner in the senior has provided the rates Mem. the reasonable. satisfactory specific evidence of (Pis.' attorney, such an attorney may reasonably charge. attorneys Further, The more (Pis.' Mem. Ex. court litigation and awards C HI 3-5.) Ms. Yinger attested to being familiar with the qualifications, background, and experience of both Ms. (Pis.' Ex. C H 8.) Millett and Mr. Pierce. Mem. She also attested that both the number of hours expended and the were reasonable. rates charged by Ms. (Pis.' Mem. Ex. C H 8.) satisfactory specific evidence because 14 Millett it and Mr. Thus, Pierce WWNS provides submitted an affidavit of a local skills of lawyer who has the WWNS' attested to being lead appellate attorneys in this community for this type of work. finds the to hours C^ claimed amount attorneys were appropriate because WWNS "lumped" portion of the "determining the should subtract unrelated to the Court finds fees a reduction for: (1) the Court time and (2) on unsuccessful [reasonableness of the] for hours successful time claims. figure, the spent on unsuccessful ones.'" spent on that is cannot determine what spent fees as charged by WWNS' punitive damages, such that time was the Court and Unrelated Claims requests issue of improperly Accordingly, expended and rate reasonable, the unsuccessful going rates charged. for Unsuccessful Although the hours and the properly documented and reasonable expended and rate Reduction familiar with the Comstock, 2010 WL After 'court then claims 678129, at *23. Here, WWNS concedes reduced for part of of Mr. Bailey's, unsuccessful Mem. Ex. which its requested legal 17.) included time Accordingly, the research costs $2,909.25, fees by the of and two fees spent on the {Pis.' Court because portions 15 should be research costs issue of punitive damages. A at or Shin's both of computer-based legal percent, Mr. that Mem. 2; reduces Mr. conceded that Pis.' Shin's twenty-five research involved The the punitive damages Court further deducts February 24 nature of and 25, issue. all 2009, fees a total (Pis.' Reply Mem. charged by Mr. of $3,912.00, 1 n.2.) Therefore, fees by $6,821.25, the resulting in a Court the issue. reduces WWNS' lodestar figure n.l.) Bailey for because that work involved the punitive damages Reply Mem. 1 (Pis.' proposed of $408,914.56. DynCorp argues that reduced because many of inappropriately "lumped" the claimed fees the attorneys' of grouping, together and may entry, without particular (E.D. Va. "lump" improperly include (Def.'s Opp'n. 2.) "Inadequate documentation includes or * lumping,' several tasks specifying the amount of task." 2006). Guidry v. Because Mr. Clare, 442 time F. issue. appropriate these to reduce each of Thus, entries 2d 282, Millett it to determine whether these entries spent on the punitive damages single spent on each Supp. Pierce and Ms. The the practice together under a tasks together under one billing entry, for the Court further time entries are time spent on unsuccessful activities. Court agrees. should be the by is 294 frequently impossible include time Court finds ten percent it to account for any time potentially spent on the punitive damages issue.1 See id. 1 In so doing, (finding that a court could reduce a fee award however, Pierce's and Ms. briefs. the Court does not find it necessary to reduce Mr. Millett's entries related to the preparation of amicus 16 if attorney provided inadequate documentation by percentage or reducing an amount not adequately documented). $14,883.55, which results DynCorp also argues or This in a (2) additional the jury's and is reduction totals lodestar figure of that WWNS may not not connected, damages expert because legally or claims. $394,031.01. recover fees Section 1981 verdict or defense thus unrelated to WWNS' fixing a excluding those hours associated with the preparation of WWNS' "the cross-appeal was (1) factually, to thereof on appeal" (Def.'s Opp'n 4.) The Court rejects DynCorp's argument because DynCorp's appeal necessitated that WWNS preserve the issue of the expert's initial exclusion and seek admission of his testimony in the event Although the Court of a remand on the issue of damages. excluded the testimony of Mr. appellate fees Thus, is not Maniatis at ruling does not prevent WWNS recovering fees related to preparing the WWNS needed to preserve exclusion for review in case issue of damages. the award of affected by this evidentiary disposition. the Court's previous Moreover, trial, Therefore, the the from expert on appeal. issue of the expert's Fourth Circuit remanded on the the Court associated with the preparation of Mr. awarded. 17 finds that fees Maniatis are properly D. The Degree of The Court the degree substantial of Success finds unwarranted a further reduction based on success obtained because degree of the court has Obtained success subtracted the in this fees case it remaining amount, depending on the degree attorneys' of Robinson, fees award, 560 F.3d at Hensley, obtained excellent should not be reduced prevail DynCorp argues that Metts, the Court (Def.'s distinguishable Opp'n 6.) from this 973 973 F.2d at 383. Here, succeed on appeal the the enjoyed by . the degree When the the plaintiffs fee award failed to lawsuit." (4th Cir. WWNS' "a Id. at 435. 1992), attorneys' fee "limited degree of However, the Court In Goodwin, finds Goodwin the court ordered a fees because the plaintiff its initial thirteen claims. Goodwin, the jury returned a significant verdict in favor of WWNS and against DynCorp, other violations of . should reduce case. is 436. . F.2d 378 fifty percent reduction in attorney's prevailed on only one of at in the award by thirty percent based on its success." "Once In determining an factor results, on every contention raised of success 244. U.S. simply because Citing Goodwin v. of critical 4 61 plaintiff has and on appeal. some percentage "the most success obtained." achieved a incurred for unsuccessful, unrelated claims, the plaintiff." then awards WWNS law. concerning finding discrimination and Moreover, while WWNS did not the punitive damages 18 issue, the Fourth Circuit nonetheless affirmed awards $5 million, specifically upholding DynCorp's unlawful discrimination. issue was prevail, to WWNS the only Furthermore, issue on appeal liability for in which WWNS Therefore, of the punitive damages making the current disposition an for WWNS under Hensley. in excess the did not "excellent result" Court finds that WWNS achieved a substantial degree of success and will not further reduce the claimed fees. IV. The Court grants CONCLUSION Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Attorneys' Fees because WWNS prevailed on its claim against DynCorp and sufficiently demonstrated the reasonableness of the claimed appellate fees. of The Court reduces $21,704.80 because WWNS' request unsuccessful punitive damages awards WWNS a total of Therefore, is it It claimed amount by a includes claim. $394,031.01 time spent on the Accordingly, in attorneys' total the Court fees. hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' is GRANTED. the is Second Motion for Attorneys' Fees further ORDERED that Defendant DynCorp International, Plaintiffs Worldwide Network Services, 19 LLC pay LLC and Worldwide Network Services International, FZCO attorneys' fees in the amount of $394,031.01. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to counsel. Entered this £>_: daY of July, 2010. Gerald Bruce Lee Alexandria, ' United States District Judge Virginia 20
]]>
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.
