Cargill, Incorporated v. Clark et al, No. 3:2014cv00233 - Document 36 (M.D. La. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting 33 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiff Cargill, Incorporated is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that the Court is able to find support for the number of hours worked by Plaintiff's counsel and other firm members in the documentation provided by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $36,594.00 and costs in the amount of $4,761.44. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 9/3/2015. (BCL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cargill, Incorporated v. Clark et al Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CARGILL, INCORPORATED CIVIL ACTION VERSUS BRETT ANTHONY CLARK, ET AL. NO.: 14-00233-BAJ-SCR RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is t he Motion for Attorney Fees a nd Costs (Doc. 33) filed by Plaintiff Cargill, Incorporated ("Cargill"). Defendants Bre tt Anthony Clark, Clark Farm # 1, LLC ("Clark Farm"), and Squaw Bayou Farms, LLC ("Squaw Bayou") h ave filed a n opposition. (Doc. 35). Oral argu ment is unnecessary. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For reasons explained herein, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED IN PART. I. BACKGROUND On August 7, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff Cargill's Motion for Summary J udgment and advised Cargill to file a separate motion for attorney's fees and costs. (Doc. 32). The history of this litigation was documented in this Court's ruling granting summary judgment and will not be repeated here except to the extent necessary to address the presen t motion. Between March 2006 a nd September 2007, Cargill a nd Clark Farm entered into four separ ate co ntracts for t he sale and delivery of bushels of wheat. Pursuant to the arbitration agreements in the 1 Dockets.Justia.com contracts, Cargill obtained two separate default judgments against Clark Farm and Brett Anthony Clark, rendered by the National Grain and Feed Association ("NGFA"). The default judgment in Arbitration Case No. 2362, concerning two of the contracts, was confirmed by this Court in favor of Cargill and against Clark Farm only. The default judgment in Arbitration Case No. 2406, concerning the other two contracts, was confirmed by the 27th Judicial District Court of Louisiana, St. Landry Parish in favor of Cargill and against both Clark Farm and Brett Anthony Clark. In this Court's ruling grant ing summary judgment, this Court pierced the corporate veil to find that Clark should be held personally liable for the actions of Clark Farm a nd, fuTther, that Squaw Bayou is liable for the arbitration awards lawfully rendered against Clark Farm by virtue of being a single business enterprise. In the instant motion, Plaintiff Cargill has submitted its records, seeking an order fixing attorney's fees in t he a mount of $36,744.00 and costs in the amount of $4,761.44 to be paid within thirty days . (Doc. 33). Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to recover this a mount because the Purchase Terms of two of the contracts at issue (Purchase Contracts Nos. 26722, 26766) provided for the recovery of such fees in connection with disagTeements or disputes betwee n t he parties arising out of any grain contract between the buyer and seller. 1 1 Those two Purchase Contracts contain a provision specifying that those contracts "and all other grain contracts by and between Buyer a nd Seller" shall be subject to NGFA Trade Rules. (Doc. 1-1 at pp. 2, 5) (emphasis added). In that same clause, the agreement also provides that"[i]n addition to any d a mages otherwise provided by law, Buyer shall be e ntitled to recovery of its attorney's fees and costs." (See id.). Accordingly, although Purchase Contracts Nos. 27399 a nd 29492 do not contain a clause regarding the recovery of attorney's fees and costs, (see Doc. 1-1 at pp . 12, 14), t he Court finds 2 II. DISCUSSION Under Louisiana law, attorney's fees a re only permissible "where a ut horized by statute or contract." State, Dep 't of Transp. & Deu. u. Williamson , 597 So. 2d 439, 441 (La. 1992). Here, because t he Purchase Terms of Purchase Contracts Nos. 26722 a nd 26766 authorize attorney's fees and costs for all gr ain contracts by and between Buyer Cargill and Seller Clark Fa rm, the recovery of attorney's fees and costs is permissible. Whe n considering attorney's fees, the Com't m ust assess whether the fees are reasonable. Comts applying Louisiana law assess reasonability from th e full consideration of the following factor s derived fi·om Rule 1.5(a) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct: (1) t he ultimate result obtained; (2) the responsibility incm-red; (3) the importance of the litigation; (4) amoun t of money involved; (5) extent a nd ch ar acter of the work performed; (6) legal knowledge, attainmen t, a nd skill of the attorneys; (7) number of appeara nces made; (8) intricacies of t he facts involved; (9) diligence a nd skill of counsel; and (10) the court's own knowledge. Id. at 442 & n.9. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit utilizes the "lodestar" me thod for the calculation of attorney's fees: A lodestar is calculated by multip lying the number of hours reason ably expe nded by an appropriate hourly rate in the community for such work. After making this calculation , the district court may decrease or enha nce t he lodestar based on the relative weights of t he twelve factors set forth in Johnson u. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. , 488 F.2d 714, 7 17- 19 (5th Cir. 1974). that any attorney's fees and costs accrued in connection with a dispute of those grain contracts fall within the scope of the relevant paragraph in Ptu·chase Contracts Nos. 26722 a nd 26766. 3 Heidtman u. Cnty. of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038, 1043 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). The Johnson factors, in turn, a re: (1) the t ime and labor requir-ed; (2) the novelty a nd difficulty of t he issues; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, a nd ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the clie nt; and (12) the a ward in similar cases. Id. at 1043 n .5. Throughout this litigation, Plaintiff Cargill has bee n represe nted by the law firm Nalley & Dew, APLC. The Court has reviewed the hourly rates and the time expended by ea ch member of the firm and finds the requested fee to be reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding this litigation. I t does, however, find a slight discrepancy between the time/rate summary provided in Plaintiffs memorandum, (see Doc. 33-1 at p. 8), and the invoices attached, (see Doc. 33-2). The Court has scoured the invoices from Nalley & Dew, APLC which reflect the fees and cost s incurred in connection with the instant ma tter. It only finds support for the billing of 38.0 hours by fir·m member Bridget Nalley, 2 as opposed to the 39.0 hours presented in Pla intiffs memorandum summa ry. The Court finds that all other firm members' hours and costs are properly a ccounted for in P la intiffs documentation. According to the invoices, Bridget Nalley billed for 2.50 hours in Invoice Statement No. 34 and 35.50 how·s in Invoice Statement No. 42, for a total of 38.00 hours . (See Doc. 33-2 at pp. 15, 30). This total number of hours for Ms. Nalley is inconsistent with the s umm ary table provided by Plaintiff in Page 8 of Doc. 33- 1. 2 4 Accordingly, the Cou1t finds that the proper total for attorney's fees in t his matter is $36,594.3 The Court does not find the arguments raised by defense counsel to be persu asive or meritorious, 4 but the Court does not find a lodestar enh a ncement appropriate for this particular matter. Using the billing rates provided by Plaintifffor Nalley & Dew firm members, which the Court finds to be reasonable, the proper calculation of attorney's fees is as follow s: 3 F irm Member George Nalley Rachel Smith Bridget Na lley ChTistine Abadie J essica Adams Time and Rate 12.3 hours at $235/hour 137.5 hours at $200/hour 38.0 hours at S1501hour 1.2 hours at $95/hom 4.1 hours at $95/hour GRAND TOTAL Total $2,890.50 $27,500.00 $5.700.00 $114.00 $389.50 $36,594.00 Defe nda nts note that attorney's fees and costs were awa rded by trus Cow-t in the amount of $22,179.13 in Civil Action No. 08-00456-JJB-RLB, a judgment which underlies part of the ins tant matter . The Cow·t, however, does not find that Plaintiff has double-counted any attorney's fees or costs incurred in pw·s uing the instant litigation. Further , the Court is not convinced by Defendants' argument that "a ll of Cargill's claims could have been combined in one lawsuit and finished quickly," nor does it find a ny re levance in Defendants' representations of se ttle ment attempts. (See Doc. 35 at 4 pp. 3-4). 5 III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (Doc. 33) filed by Plaintiff Cargill, Incorpor ated is GRANTED IN PART, to th e extent that the Court is able to find support for the number of hours worked by Plaintiffs counsel a nd other firm members in the documentation provided by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to a n award of attorney's fees in the a mount of $36,594.00 and costs in the a mount of $4, 761.44. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this of September , 2015. BRIAN A. JAC N, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 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.
