Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nehme v. Khoury

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

November 17, 2017

INSAF NEHME, Plaintiff,
v.
WALID EL KHOURY, EDWARD EL KHOURY, and HOPE COMERCIO E INDUSTRIA LIMITADA, Defendants.[1]

          ORDER

          LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the court upon defendants' notice of reasonable expenses caused by plaintiffs' discovery non-compliance, (DE 145), and defendants' notice of fees and costs pursuant to order dated September 5, 2017. (DE 206). The court twice awarded attorneys' fees in defendants' favor without deciding amount due. With benefit now of the parties' briefing germane to that issue, issues raised are ripe for ruling.

         BACKGROUND

         The court proceeds here immediately to its discussion of the issues where the case background is a matter of record.[2] In response to the court's order awarding sanctions, defendants filed a “notice of reasonable expenses caused by plaintiffs' discovery non-compliance” seeking attorneys' fees in the amount of $21, 797.50, for 75.3 hours worked by counsel at rates between $250/hr and $465/hr. (DE 146, 147). Defendants' counsel submitted declarations describing their credentials and involvement in the case. (Id.). Plaintiff and non-party NOA filed a brief in opposition to defendants' request seeking to reduce any attorneys' fees award to $3, 793.62. (DE 148).

         The court also awarded sanctions in its more recent order granting partial summary judgment in defendants' favor, (DE 205), and defendants' counsel filed a notice of fees and costs seeking attorneys' fees in the amount of $32, 223.19. Defendants' counsel submitted declarations in support of the same. (DE 207, 208). NOA responded that it does not contest the award defendants seek. (DE 220). Plaintiff Nehme made no response to the pending notices of expenses, fees, and costs, and the deadline to do so has elapsed.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Sealed Order

         Because the parties' briefing pertinent to summary judgment relied, in part, upon documents filed under seal, the court sealed its order granting partial summary judgment and allowed the parties 14 days to inform of any perceived necessary redactions. Where that deadline now has passed with no requests for redactions having been received, the clerk is directed to make DE 205 part of the public docket.

         B. Attorneys' Fees

         To determine the proper amount of attorneys' fees, the court must apply a three-step process. McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81, 88 (4th Cir. 2013). “First, the court must determine the loadstar figure by multiplying the number of reasonable hours expended times a reasonable rate.” Id. (citations omitted). “To ascertain what is reasonable in terms of hours charged and the rate charged, the court is bound to apply the factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974).” The Johnson factors consist of:

(1) The time and labor required to litigate the action;
(2) The novelty and difficulty of the questions presented by the action;
(3) The skill required to properly perform the legal service;
(4) The preclusion of other employment opportunities for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.