Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Fugett, No. 3:2016cv04962 - Document 29 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 28 MOTION by Branch Banking and Trust Company for Attorney's Fees in the amount of $21,240.76. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 12/20/2016. (cc: counsel of record and Defendant Ralph F. Fugett, Jr.) (mkw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Fugett Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina Banking Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-4962 RALPH F. FUGETT, JR. Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINON AND ORDER This action was brought by Plaintiff Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB&T) to collect on three Promissory Notes executed by Ralph F. Fugett, Jr. and Lisa Fugett. As Mr. Fugett never answered nor appeared in this matter, the Court entered default against him on July 22, 2016. ECF No. 13.1 Upon motion of BB&T, the Court thereafter entered default judgment against Mr. Fugett on September 2, 2016. ECF No. 23. However, the Court denied without prejudice BB&T’s request for an award of $18,317.48 in attorneys’ fees2 because the information in support of BB&T’s motion was insufficient. Id. 1 BB&T and Ms. Fugett stipulated that the action against her be voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 27. Contractual provisions in each Promissory Note provide that “[i]f this Note is placed with an attorney for collection, the undersigned agrees to pay, in addition to principal and interest, all costs of collection, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the Bank, if permitted by law.” ECF No. 1-1, at 3; 1-5, at 3; and 1-8, at 3. The Promissory Notes indicate they were obtained for business and commercial purposes. Id. at 1. 2 Dockets.Justia.com On October 10, 2016, BB&T renewed its Motion for Attorney’s Fees against Mr. Fugett and attached an affidavit by counsel and an itemized bill. ECF No. 28. In this motion, it requests a total of $21,240.76 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Upon review of the itemized billing statement and the affidavit, the Court finds that the costs and the lodestar calculation—the number of hours spent and the hourly rate charged—are reasonable. See Beattie v. CMH Homes, Inc., Civ. Act. No. 3:12-2528, 2015 WL 4163337, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. July 9, 2015) (stating “the Court must calculate the lodestar by multiplying the ‘hours reasonably expended on the litigation . . . by a reasonable hourly rate’” (quoting Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS BB&T’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and costs in the amount of $21,240.76. ECF No. 28. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and Defendant Ralph F. Fugett, Jr. ENTER: -2- December 20, 2016
]]>
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.
