Benavidez et al v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Co., No. 2:2019cv00232 - Document 8 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 MOTION to Abate Case. Case is abated until 12/16/2019 at which time the case will be reinstated. ( An Advisory stating the amount of fees claimed and whether they were calculated as required by statute is due by 10/25/2019. Initial Pretrial Conference is reset for 12/18/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos.)(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(jalvarez, 2)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Benavidez et al v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. Doc. 8 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ELIAZAR BENAVIDEZ, et al, Plaintiffs, VS. UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § October 18, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-232 ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s Plea in Abatement (D.E. 6) and Plaintiffs’ response (D.E. 7). After due consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees does not comply with Texas Insurance Code § 542A.003(b)(3) in that it does not state that the amount claimed is “calculated by multiplying the number of hours actually worked by the claimant’s attorney, as of the date the notice is given and as reflected in contemporaneously kept time records, by an hourly rate that is customary for similar legal services.” While the amount claimed for attorney’s fees need not set out the calculation in detail and need not quote the statute, it must be accompanied by an averment that the amount was arrived at through a customary hourly rate for time recorded. While Plaintiff’s letter can be read as having arrived at the fees through an hourly rate, the language accompanying the claim creates an ambiguity by its reference to a contingency fee contract. And the reduction in the fee amount from a prior notice letter only adds to the confusion. 1/2 Dockets.Justia.com Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion (D.E. 6) and ORDERS Plaintiff to clarify this matter by filing with the Court on or before October 25, 2019, an advisory stating the amount of the fees claimed and whether they were calculated as required by statute. Failure to file this advisory by the deadline set may be taken as a failure to prosecute this case. The Court ABATES the case until December 16, 2019, at which time the case will be reinstated without further order. The initial pretrial conference previously set for November 14, 2019, is RESET to December 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2019. ___________________________________ NELVA GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2
]]>
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.
