BP Products North America Inc. v. Stanley et al, No. 1:2009cv01147 - Document 69 (E.D. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 62 Defendants' MOTION for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 9/1/2010. (tche)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BP Products North America Inc. v. Stanley et al Doc. 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE I EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., SEP - I 2010 ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA ) CHARLES V. STANLEY, et al.. Defendants. L l:09cvll47 (LMB/TRJ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the defendants' Fees [62], Petition for Attorneys' in which defendants seek an award of $141,654.71, consisting of $127,966.00 in attorneys' fees and $1,483.71 in costs that have already been invoiced for defending this civil action and $12,205.00 in fees and costs that have not yet been invoiced for preparation of the petition for attorneys' fees. The plaintiff has opposed the amount sought to the extent that it includes attorneys' count. fees for hours spent on an unsuccessful For the following reasons, $114,547.88 in attorneys' the defendants will be awarded fees and $5,483.71 in costs. I.Background Plaintiff BP Products North America, Inc. ("BP") brought this action for declaratory judgment pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the parties for the sale of a retail gasoline station property by BP to the defendants, Stanley ("Stanley") Properties and his business, ("Telegraph"). Charles V. Telegraph Petroleum Specifically, BP sought to enjoin Dockets.Justia.com defendants from violating a restrictive covenant on the property which limited the sale and use of petroleum products that were not BP-branded. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment1 and on July 15, 2010, the Court ruled in favor of the defendants. Section 43 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement provides that: A party to this Agreement who is the prevailing party in any legal proceeding... brought under or with respect to this Agreement... recover court shall be additionally entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees from the non-prevailing party. Compl., Ex. 1 at 143. The defendants, litigation, as the prevailing parties in this filed a petition for attorneys' fees under paragraph 43 seeking a total award of $141,654.71, consists of $127,966.00 in attorneys' which fees and $1,483.71 in costs that have already been invoiced and $12,205.00 in fees and costs that have not yet been invoiced. opposes the petition, The plaintiff requesting a thirty percent reduction in the fee award on the grounds that the defendants are not entitled to any award of fees on Count II of their 1 The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on both counts of the complaint and both counts of the defendants' counterclaim. The defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to all counts except Count II of their counterclaim, which alleged that BP failed to act in good faith by conditioning the Purchase and Sale Agreement on defendants signing a 15-year Dealer Supply Agreement with Eastern Petroleum Corporation, whose rates were commercially unreasonable, in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code. counterclaim. II. Discussion Although the defendants are the prevailing parties, they still bear the burden of establishing that the fees and costs they seek are reasonable. 277 fee, (4th Cir. 1990). See Plyler v. Evatt. 902 F.2d 273, In arriving at a reasonable attorneys' the Court first must determine the lodestar figure by multiplying the number of reasonable hours expended times a reasonable hourly rate. Servs.. 560 F.3d 235, See Robinson v. 243 (4th Cir. Equifax Info. 2009). In determining the number of reasonable hours expended and a reasonable hourly rate, the Court considers the twelve factors set out in Barber v. Kimbrell's Inc. Kimbrell's Inc.. These Kimbrell 577 F.2d 216, Id.; see also Barber v. 226 n.28 (4th Cir. 1978). factors are: (1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney's opportunity costs in pressing the instant liti before this Court was performed by Redmon, Braswell, the Court. Peyton & including handling all the oral arguments before Therefore, Kimbrell factor, the Court finds that under the first the defendants have failed to establish that the time and labor expended by Lerch, Early & Brewer and Dingman Labowitz were necessary and reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will only award fees for the work billed by Redmon, Peyton & Braswell, which total $112,992.50. 2 The only hourly rate that falls outside of the matrix provided in Grissom is that of Mr. Dingham, which is $400.00. However, this rate is slightly above the $380.00 hourly rate approved in Grissom for an attorney with 18-19 years of experience and Mr. Dingham has 36 years of experience. Moreover, for the reasons stated infra, the Court need not reach the issue of whether such a rate is reasonable. The plaintiff argues that the attorneys' fee award should be further reduced because the petition includes fees for hours spent litigating Count II of defendants' counterclaim, on which the defendants did not prevail because they did not move for summary judgment on that claim. degree to which a party has prevailed, or the amount in controversy compared with the results obtained, the most important of the Kimbrell factors. Eckerhart. The is considered In Hensley v. the United States Supreme Court held that where a party "has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee." 461 U.S. addition, an attorneys' 114 (1992) (1983). In fee should bear some reasonable relationship to the recovery. 103, 424,440 See Farrar v. Hobby. (tt'[T]he most critical factor' 506 U.S. in determining the reasonableness of a fee award 'is the degree of success obtained.'"). BP argues that the defendants did not distinguish the hours expended on their prevailing claims and defenses from hours spent on Count II of the counterclaim and that the defendants' failure on Count II should be factored into their relative success. The defendants respond that Count II of their counterclaim was intertwined with Count I and their defenses to the complaint, and that the ultimate outcome, invalidation of the deed restriction, sought. Moreover, was the entire relief of their 14-page Answer and Counterclaim, Count II comprised only one and a half pages, and the defendants did not even address Count II of their counterclaim in opposing the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, which moved for judgment on that count. ruling in the defendants' counterclaim, in favor on Count I of their there was no further need for the Court to reach Count II. However, development of facts, pricing, Indeed, Count II did require some additional regarding the nature of Eastern's and of legal theories, regarding reasonable pricing models under the Uniform Commercial Code. Given that the defendants ultimately obtained the full relief sought, only a slight reduction for time spent on alternative theories is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court will further reduce the fee award by five percent for the work performed with respect to these issues. None of the other Kimbrell factors warrant an increase or any further reduction of the attorneys' fee award, nor does the plaintiff object to the petition based on any of those Kimbrell factors. The questions raised in the lawsuit were essentially issues of contract and trade, particularly novel or difficult issues, 8 which were not although they did require some special knowledge and understanding of the petroleum market. The defendants ultimately prevailed on an argument that involved some creative legal thinking. mentioned supra. the lead defense counsel, had over 30 years of experience, John E. As Coffey, which was properly reflected in his hourly rate. There was nothing particularly desirable or undesirable about this type of case within the Northern Virginia legal community and the Court has no knowledge of the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client. The opportunity costs in pursuing the litigation, the attorneys' outset of the litigation, client or circumstances, expectations at the the time limitations imposed by the and attorneys' fees awards in similar cases also do not weigh heavily on one side or the other. For these reasons, attorneys' the Court determines that a total fee award of $107,342.88 for defense counsel's invoiced work is reasonable. C. Costs The defendants also request that they be awarded $1,483.71 in costs. BP objects to $1,000.00 of these costs, which was for a report from "Oil Price Information Service" of gasoline retail prices within a three mile radius of defendants' service station. The purpose of this report was "to evaluate the reasonableness of gasoline prices charged by BP's assignee, Att'ys' Eastern Petroleum Corporation," Fees at 7-8), (Pet. for which BP correctly argues was not relevant to the defendants' prevailing claims but only to Count II of the defendants' counterclaim. That cost will not be awarded because the defendants did not ultimately prevail on Count II. For these reasons, only $483.71 in invoiced costs will be awarded. D. Finally, Fees and Costs for Attorneys' Fee Petition the defendants request that the Court award an additional $12,205.00 in fees and costs incurred in the preparation of their petition for attorneys' fees. A court has discretion to award fees and costs for preparation of a petition for attorneys' fees. Flexible Compensation v. at 15-16 (E.D.Va. F.2d 1071, 1080 Feltman. January 13, (4th Cir. See Employers Council on No. l:08-cv-371, 2010)(citing Dalv v. slip op. Hill. 790 1986)). Although the defendants have not provided invoices for the fees and costs incurred in preparation of the fee petition, the affidavits attached to the petition establish the amount of fees and costs. In his declaration, associate Daniel Mauler states that he spent at least 14.6 hours of work preparing the fee petition, $225.00 per hour, which, totals $3,285.00 10 at an hourly rate of in attorney's fees. Principal John Coffey, spent 11.2 hours preparing hourly rate of fees. in his declaration, $350.00, The defendants reasonableness of fee petition, totals $3,920.00 which, for his James S. Kurz, at an attorney's who states in his fee for research and the preparation of his declaration was $5,000.00. Therefore, of the petition for attorneys' fees, a total of $12,205.00, fees and $5,000.00 that he also hired an expert on the fees, declaration that his the states the defendants incurred consisting of in costs. As in the preparation $7,205.00 in attorneys' these fees and costs are reasonable and the plaintiff has not objected to them, they will be awarded. Ill. For all award of these reasons, $120,031.59, fees and $5,483.71 by an Order to be Entered this Alexandria, Conclusion the Court consisting of in costs is finds that a $114,547.88 total in attorneys' reasonable and will be awarded issued with this Memorandum Opinion. l_ day of September, 2010. Virginia hL Leonie M. Brinkema United States District Judge li \ '
]]>
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.
