Swivelpole Group Pty Ltd. et al v. Swivelpole USA, Ltd. et al DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED., No. 4:2012cv02527 - Document 27 (S.D. Tex. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 25 Motion for Attorney Fees.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(glyons)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Swivelpole Group Pty Ltd. et al v. Swivelpole USA, Ltd. et al DO NOT DOCK...CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED. Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SWIVELPOLE GROUP PTY LTD., et al, Plaintiffs, VS. SWIVELPOLE USA, LTD., et al, Defendants. § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-2527 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is the Application for Fees (Doc. 25) filed by Plaintiffs Swivelpole Group Pty Ltd. and Swivelpole Patent Pty Ltd. (collectively, Plaintiffs ). Defendants Swivelpole USA, Ltd.; Swivelpole Holdings, LLC; Swivelpole Canada Holdings, Inc.; ILS Products, LLC; ILS Products Holdings, LLC; ILS Manufacturing, LLC; and Andrew Grant (collectively, Defendants ) have not filed a response, which, pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, is taken as a representation of no opposition. In remanding this case, the Court found no objectively reasonable basis for Defendants removal and, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), granted Plaintiffs request for attorneys fees and costs. Op. and Order 4-5, Oct. 9, 2012, Doc. 24. Pursuant to that Order, Plaintiffs submitted their request for $13,746.00 in fees, including affidavits from a partner (Doc. 25-1) and associate (Doc. 25-3), a summary of contemporaneous time records (Doc. 25-2), and proof of average rates for attorneys and paralegals in Houston (Doc. 25-4). The Court finds that this documentation is sufficient to show both that the stated hours are compensable, see Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 111 F.3d 30, 32 (5th Cir. 1997) (concluding that expenses incurred because of the improper removal may be awarded but those that would have been incurred had the 1/2 Dockets.Justia.com action remained in state court may not), and that the hours and rates are reasonable, see La. Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1995) (defining the lodestar as the reasonable hours [times] the reasonable hourly rates ). Finally, the Court sees no reason to deviate from this amount, see id. at 329 n.19 (listing twelve factors considered in upward or downward adjustment), nor do the parties raise any. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Application for Fees (Doc. 25) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs are awarded $13,746.00 in attorneys fees. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 2nd day of August, 2013. ___________________________________ MELINDA HARMON 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.
