Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_06-cv-00183/USCOURTS-alnd-5_06-cv-00183-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

Richard Bradford is the sole owner of Bradford Electric Co., Inc. Depo. of Richard

1

Bradford (submitted as Consolidated’s exhibit 4) at 12. 

 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

WESTERN SURETY COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. CV-06-J-183-NE

BRADFORD ELECTRIC CO., INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

In accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties, plaintiff Western

Surety Company (“Western”) and defendants Bradford Electric Co., Inc., and Richard

T. Bradford (collectively “Bradford”) submitted briefs to the court on the issue of 1

indemnification and attorney fees. The court held a hearing on that issue on

December 12, 2006, at which the aforementioned parties were present by and through

their respective counsel of record. Based on the briefs, the arguments of the parties,

the pleadings in the record, and the applicable law, the court finds as follows: 

Western issued performance and payment bonds on behalf of Bradford for

electrical work Consolidated Construction Company (“Consolidated”) subcontracted

to Bradford at the Columbia High School project in Huntsville, Alabama. The

FILED

 2007 Jan-08 PM 02:35

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 33
The court notes that in settlement of this litigation, Western did pay a sum under the 2

performance bond. However, as part of that settlement agreement, Western does not seek

indemnification of this amount. 

2

performance bond was issued in favor of Consolidated for $1,607,756.00, the full

amount of the subcontract. Complaint, ¶ 4; Cross-Claim and Counterclaim, ¶¶ 8-9;

Bradford Cross-Claim, ¶ 3; exhibit A to the Complaint. Bradford issued a General

Agreement of Indemnity (GAI) in favor of Western, by which Bradford agreed to

indemnify plaintiff from any and all loss or anticipated loss which might result from

issuance of the performance bond. Affidavit of Joan Clements, ¶¶ 3-4. Due to

disputes over the timeliness of the work being performed by Bradford, Consolidated

terminated its contract with Bradford in August 2005 and notified Western it sought

payment under the performance bond. 

As of January 4, 2006, Western had paid $24,262.30 under the subcontractor

payment bond based on claims from laborers and material suppliers. Affidavit of

Clements, ¶ 11. No other sums have been paid under the payment bond. No amounts

have been paid under the performance bond. On January 27, 2006, Western filed this 2

action against Bradford, Consolidated, the architect who designed the school, and the

electrical engineering company who designed the electrical plans for the school. All

claims, cross-claims and counterclaims have been settled. The sole issue before the

court is Western’s claim for indemnification on attorney fees and related expenses it

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 33
At the hearing, Bradford asserted that any liability Western had was contingent solely on 3

Bradford’s liability. Bradford both hired construction counsel and had additional counsel from

its insurance company to defend against Western’s suit. Thus, Bradford argues that Western’s

attorney fees were vastly excessive, given the posture of this case. 

3

incurred in this suit. Western seeks a judgment in its favor for the amount paid under

the payment bond as well as all attorney fees and costs incurred in this litigation.

Bradford responds that the amount claimed by Western is simply not reasonable. 

3

The General Agreement of Indemnity (“GAI”) states in relevant part as

follows:

2. The Indemnitors will indemnify and save the Company harmless

from and against every claim, demand, liability, cost, charge, suit,

judgment and expense which the Company may pay or incur in

consequence of having executed, or procured the execution of such

bonds, or any renewals or continuations thereof or substitutes therefore,

including, but not limited, to fees of attorneys, whether on salary,

retainer or otherwise, and the expense of procuring, or attempting to

procure, release from liability, or in bringing suit to enforce the

obligation of any of the Indemnitors under this Agreement. In the event

the Company deems it necessary to make an independent investigation

of a claim, demand, or suit, the Indemnitors acknowledge and agree that

all expense attendant to such investigation is included as an indemnified

expense. In the event of payments by the Company, the Indemnitors

agree to accept the voucher or other evidence of such payments as prima

facie evidence of the propriety thereof, and of the Indemnitors’ liability

therefore to the Company. 

Plaintiff’s exhibit C to theComplaint, ¶ 2. Defendant Bradford, through its president,

Richard T. Bradford, signed this agreement on January 31, 2003. Defendant Richard

T. Bradford also signed this agreement as an individual indemnitor on this same date.

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 33
Bradford actually agreed to pay the amount of $23,403.40 on this claim, because it 4

disputed $889.00 of it. See exhibits A and B to Exhibit 1 to Bradford’s opposition to Western

Surety’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 107). 

The attorney fee and expense records provided to the court show a “Billed to Date” 5

amount of $251, 620.65. Adding the $24,262.30 paid under the payment bond, the court finds

the total sum to be $275,882.95. This is $48,978.16 less than the amount sought by Western. 

These requests for collateralization were in spite of the Consent Order restraining 6

Bradford from disposing of any assets worth more than $2,500.00 (doc. 11). Had Bradford

deposited with Western $1,500,000.00, the restraints of the Consent Order would have

terminated. Id. 

4

Western seeks indemnification for its attorney fees and the sole payment made

under the payment bond pursuant to this agreement. The parties do not dispute that

the only sum Western paid prior to filing this action was the Automatic Control

Devices, Inc., claim of $24,262.30. Western seeks reimbursement for fees and 4

expenses in the total amount of $324,861.11. Despite Western’s repeated demands 5

that Bradford provide collateralization based on potential claims under the two bonds,

Western has not paid any sums other than the $24,262.30. Thus, the court is troubled 6

by the open season on billing which thereafter apparently occurred. 

Western cites Frontier Insurance Company v. International, Inc., 124

F.Supp.2d 1211 (N.D.Ala.2000), for the proposition that Western is entitled to

“reimbursement from defendants, separately and severally, of all losses, costs,

attorney’s fees and expenses incurred as a result of the Consolidated claim.” Brief

of Western Surety (doc. 146) at 8. Frontier Insurance states “a surety is entitled to

reimbursement pursuant to an indemnity contract for any payments made by it in a

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 4 of 33
5

good faith belief that it was required to pay, regardless of whether any liability

actually existed.” Id., at 1213 (citations omitted). 

However, pursuant to a contract of indemnity for attorney fees, the concept of

good faith must be applied. In every contract “there exists an implied covenant of

good faith and fair dealing.” See Hunter v. Wilshire Credit Corporation, 927 So.2d

810, 813 (Ala.2005) (quoting Sellers v. Head, 261 Ala.212, 73 So.2d 747, 751

(1954); Lloyd Nolan Foundation, Inc. v. City of Fairfield Healthcare Authority, 837

So.2d 253, 267 (Ala.2002). An indemnitor can defeat a surety’s right to recover

under indemnity provisions by demonstrating lack of good faith on the part of the

surety in discharging its obligations under the bond. Frontier Insurance Co., 124

F.Supp.2d at 1214; citing Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Bristol Steel and

Iron Works, Inc., 722 F.2d 1160, 1163 (4 Cir.1983). th

Thus, although not explicitly stated by the GAI, the court finds that the concept

of “reasonableness” must be applied to any claimfor indemnification of attorney fees.

See e.g., Ideal Electronic Security Co., Inc. v. International Fidelity Insurance

Company, 129 F.3d 143, 148-149 (D.C.Cir.1997)(courts in other jurisdictions have

indicated that, as a general matter, a surety must show something akin to reasonable

necessity when seeking attorney fees under an indemnity agreement (emphasis in

original)); Neustrom v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 156 F.3d 1057, 1068 (10th

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 5 of 33
In Perkins, the Court adopted the principles set forth by the Alabama Supreme Court in 7

Kilgore. The Mississippi Supreme Court then concluded, “here the surety is entitled to

reimbursement for legal costs only if it is necessary for the surety to retain separate legal counsel,

if the amount of the fees claimed is reasonable, and if the surety has acted in good faith toward

the principal.” Id., at 210. After remand, the Court stated that “in Perkins I, we affirmed that the

indemnity agreement was enforceable but held that it did not represent a blank check which

6

Cir.1998) (“a duty to act reasonably must be read into every contract, including the

terms of indemnification clauses). Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co., 23 F.3d 1345,

1348 (8 Cir.1994) citing Quinto v.Legal Times of Washington, Inc., 506 F.Supp. th

554, 562 (D.D.C.1981)(good faith entails both honesty in fact and reasonableness).

The Alabama Supreme Court dealt with this issue directly, many years ago,

stating:

In construing indemnity covenants like that before us, it is everywhere

recognized that the indemnitee must act in good faith. He cannot

needlessly, in utter disregard of the burdens he is imposing on his

indemnitor, incur attorney’s fees, and in no case such as are excessive

and unreasonable in amount. 

The rule is otherwise stated as requiring good faith and the exercise of

a reasonable discretion....

Good faith in such cases is that which obtains between persons standing

in confidential or fiduciary relations; a good faith which carries a duty

to have regard for the interests of his associate, an application of the

principles of the golden rule.

Good faith implies the exercise of a reasonable discretion in the

circumstances.

Kilgore v. Union Indemnity Co., 222 Ala.375, 132 So. 901 (1931). See also Perkins

v. Thompson, 551 So.2d 204, 209 (Miss.1989). Following these principles, the Fifth 7

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 6 of 33
enabled [Western] Surety to incur any expense and send the bill to [the indemnitor].” Perkins v.

Thompson, 609 So.2d 390, 399 (Miss.1992). The Court concluded that “[Western] Surety is

entitled to recover only fees and expenses incurred ‘by reason of having been surety on this

bond.’ Such fees and expenses and the reasonableness and necessity of same are thus function’s

of Western Surety’s interest in the case and the risks to which it was exposed.” Id., at 400. 

7

Circuit Court of Appeals held:

In sum, an indemnity agreement is not a blank check; it does not entitle

the surety company to reimbursement for legal expenses which are

unreasonable or unnecessary. To hold otherwise would allow bonding

companies to retain counsel and to charge attorneys' fees against the

indemnitor even when the surety company does not require a separate

legal defense to protect its interests. The indemnity contract cannot

reasonably be construed as requiring the indemnitee to bear the cost of

such redundant representation. Thus, the weight of authority allows

reimbursement for legal costs under the terms of an indemnity contract

only if it is necessary for the surety to retain separate counsel, if the

amount of the fees claimed is reasonable, and if the surety has acted in

good faith toward the bond principal.

Jackson v. Hollowell, 685 F.2d 961, 966 (5 Cir.1982). Western has repeatedly th

represented to this court that retention of separate counsel by Western was both

necessary and reasonable. See e.g., Brief of Western Surety Company (doc. 146) at

2. In fact, Western assertsthat “Western, BECI and Richard T. Bradford have always

been adverse in this case.” Id.

With these legal tenets in mind, the court considers the reasonableness of the

attorney fees and expenses claimed by Western. The court has also considered that,

with the exception of a bad faith claim against Western by Consolidated, all other

claims against Western were contingent on liability being found against Bradford.

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 7 of 33
This time claim actually includes other activities, all of which were billed by other 8

counsel as well. Therefore, the court deducts the entire amount.

8

Without that, Western could have no liability. However, unlike many surety

situations, Western was not content to rely on Bradford’s defense counsel to protect

its interests as well. 

The court also considers the basic caveats set forth by the Eleventh Circuit for

reasonableness of attorneys fees, such as that time billed must not be “excessive,

redundant, or otherwise unnecessary ...” ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11th

Cir.1999). Similarly, hours spent on purely clerical work or secretarial tasks are

unrecoverable overhead expenses. Allen v. U.S. Steel Corp., 665 F.2d 689, 697 (5th

Cir.1982). Paralegal expenses are recoverable only to the extent that the paralegal

performs work traditionally done by an attorney. Otherwise, paralegal expenses are

unrecoverable overhead expenses. Id. 

During the hearing held on this claim, counsel admitted the following sums

were erroneously included in this claim, and are therefore withdrawn:

7/25/2006 LGS Preparation for hearing on Temporary Restraining 2.80 560.00

Order request and response to inquiry from

Judge Bowen.

11/28/2006 BAD ... preparation of motion for summary judgment 4.40 814.00 8

11/29/2006 BAD Preparation and revision of Memorandum supporting 4.20 777.00

Motion for Summary Judgment2

11/29/2006 LGS Review of correspondence from mediator ... review 3.40 680.00

and revision of summary judgment motion (indemnity 

issue)

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 8 of 33
9

11/30/2006 EMF Strategic development with LGS and BAD 3.60 522.00

11/30/2006 BAD Research regarding reasonableness argument 4.10 758.50

in opposition to surety’s rights...

11/30/2006 LGS Review and revision of Memorandum in Support 3.70 740.00

of Motion for Summary Judgment ...

11/30/2006 JTW Researched previous memorandum Opinions in favor of .60 45.00

surety regarding indemnity claims.

Thus, the court deducts $4,896.50 from the amount sought by Western. 

The court finds the following claims for reimbursement unreasonable as

overhead or clerical expenses:

11/22/2005 JKH Retrieval of documents, and assembling same .50 37.50

for review by LGS

11/22/2005 JKH Review and organization of documents from client. 2.80 210.00

12/2/2005 JKH Continued creation of files for materials received 2.30 172.50

from client.

12/5/2005 JKH Creation of index for files produced by client. .70 52.50

12/28/2005 JKH Confirming location of principal’s office; report to .70 52.50

file regarding the same; reviewing contents of 

Bradford Electric Web page ...

1/3/2006 JKH Retrieval of docuements (sic) from file for attorney 2.10 157.70

review...

1/4/2006 JKH Retrieval of documents from file for review by attorney 1.80 135.00

1/6/2006 JKH Creation of file for Summary of Report by Draper & .30 22.50

Associates

1/12/2006 JKH Correspondence to opposing counsel enclosing revised .30 22.50 

copy of Bradford Electric report.

3/7/2006 JKH Conference with Federal Court re: filings and non- .30 22.50

service to counsel for O & S Enterprises...

3/10/2006 JKH Conference with copy service re: status of documents .40 30.00

3/23/2006 JKH Review of scheduling order and report to file ... .50 37.50

4/14/2006 JKH Review and organization of file.... .50 37.50

4/27/2006 JKH Correspondence to copy service enclosing invoice .30 22.50

and payment ...

6/13/2006 JKH Correspondence with client re: invoice for copy of .30 22.50

Architect project file

7/6/2006 JKH Conference with mediator’s office re: invoices and .30 22.50

prior payment...

8/2/2006 JKH Review of scheduling order re: Expert disclosures .30 22.50

deadline; report to file.

8/3/2006 JKH Correspondence with counsel for general contractors .30 22.50

Enclosing payment for Western Surety’s share of 

room rental for mediation

8/9/2006 JKH Conference with court re: Response to Motion to .30 22.50

Intervene; report to file

8/16/2006 JKH Correspondence with client enclosing invoice for .30 22.50 

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 9 of 33
10

mediation services.

8/23/2006 JKH Correspondence with court reporters enclosing .20 15.00 

payment for invoice

9/5/2006 JKH Review of scheduling order and report to file re: .90 67.50

compliance with same

9/18/2006 JKH Drafting of bill letters to opposing counsel for cost of .40 30.00

producing documents.

9/19/2006 JKH Converting deposition transcripts to portable document .50 37.50

format; correspondence with electrical engineer for 

review .

9/19/2006 JKH Correspondence with client enclosing deposition .40 30.00

transcript and errata sheet for review .

9/19/2006 JKH Conference with electrical engineering expert re: .30 22.50

deposition transcripts for review .

10/9/2006 JKH Correspondence with court reporter enclosing executed .30 22.50

Errata sheet for distribution to counsel.

10/13/2006 JKH Preparation of documents for transmittal to counsel for .50 37.50

defendants.

10/16/2006 JKH Correspondence with Preferred Title enclosing payment .30 22.50

for title search.

10/17/2006 JKH Correspondence with William Sealy enclosing documents .60 45.00

for review. 

10/17/2006 JKH Correspondence with Ken McLaughlin re: documents for .50 37.50

review .

10/30/2006 JKH Correspondence with client enclosing invoice from .40 30.00

court reporter for payment.

11/9/2006 JKH Correspondence with Ken McLaughlin enclosing code .30 22.50 

of professional conduct from Board of Registration of

Architects.

11/9/2006 JKH Review of mail. 1.00 75.00

11/22/2006 JKH Correspondence with court reporter enclosing payment .30 22.50

for deposition transcript. 

Thus the court shall remove the amount of $1,665.20 from Western’s claim.

The court finds the following claims for reimbursement duplicative:

1/4/2006 BAD Preparation of Complaint for Exoneration of Surety 5.80 928.00

1/4/2006 LGS Continued preparation of declaratory judgment... 6.50 1,300.00

1/4/2006 TLS Continued evaluation of grounds for termination.... 1.80 360.00

initial preparation of Declaratory Judgment/Exoneration 

action.

1/5/2006 BAD Revision of Complaint; Application for Injunctive 1.10 176.00

Relief...

1/5/2006 LGS Further review and revision of proposed declaratory 1.80 360.00

exoneration.

1/6/2006 LGS Further review and revision of proposed declaratory 3.70 740.00

action...

1/13/06 LGS Conference with Joan Clements and Ken McLaughlin; 3.30 660.00

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 10 of 33
This habit of “grouping” activities pervades the entire billing record, creating difficulties 3

in determining the reasonableness of all charges. The court has considered each of the activities

claimed in each “group” and, where possible, allowed time for clearly compensable activities. 

The court has arrived at this amount by averaging the rates charged by counsel. As two 4

attorneys bill at $200.00 per hour, and a third at $185.00 per hour, the court has added these rates

($200.00 + $200.00 + $185.00), divided by 3 and arrived at the sum of $195.00 per hour for each

hour reduced. 

11

review and revision of suit papers ...

1/14/2006 TLS Confirmation of plans for site visit... further 1.60 320.00

preparation of complaint

1/16/06 LGS Further review and revision of exoneration/ 2.60 520.00

declaratory judgment action....

1/17/06 LGS Confirmation of plans for inspection/observation... 1.80 360.00

further review and revision of revised declaratory 

judgment complaint... 

1/24/2006 LGS Conference with Joan Clements and Ken McLaughlin; 5.50 1,100.00

final review and revision of Complaint for Declaratory

Relief...

1/24/06 TLS Conference with Mr. McLauglin... revised complaint 3.80 760.00

for Declaratory Relief ...

1/26/2006 BAD Final preparation of Complaint ... 1.90 351.50

Because each of the attorneys involved in drafting the complaint “grouped” his

hours, listing numerous activities in blocks, the court cannot ascertain with specificity

how much of the above claimed time was actually spent drafting the complaint.

3

Giving the attorneys the benefit of the doubt, the court deems one-third the claimed

time to have been spent on other activities besides the drafting of the complaint. As

the above hours total 41.20, the court deems 13.73 hours spent on other activities,

leaving 27.47 hours drafting a complaint. The court finds 20.00 hours more than

reasonable, and hence reduces the attorney fees recoverable under the GAI by 7.47

hours, which equals $1,456.65. 

4

The court also finds that review of the contracts in question by multiple

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 11 of 33
12

attorneys was duplicative and unnecessary. The following work by the fourth

attorney to review those contracts is found unreasonably redundant:

1/9/2006 EMF Strategic Development with LGS re: status and .20 32.00 

research issues and review contracts re: same.

1/10/2006 EMF Continue review of contracts. 3.0 480.00

1/12/2006 EMF Continue review of contracts and research re: 3.0 480.00

issues concerning wrongful termination

1/16/2006 EMF Research and prepare memorandum re: termination 5.0 800.00

issues and strategic development with LGS ...

1/19/2006 EMF Continue research ... review contracts re: latent 3.30 528.00

defects...

1/23/2006 EMF Strategic development with LGS re: research memo... 4.20 672.00

1/24/2006 EMF Strategic development with LGS re: termination .70 112.00

memo and revise memo...

The court therefore deducts the amount of $3,104.00.

1/27/2006 BAD Final preparation for hearing on Application of 3.90 721.50

Temporary Restraining Order; attendance in 

Court for hearing...

1/31/2006 BAD Preparation for hearing on preliminary injunction, 1.10 203.50

conference with counsel for Bradford Electric Company 

regarding same.

The court finds these two claims, taken together, are redundant. The court did

not have a hearing in this case on January 27, 2006, thus the attorney could not have

spent time attending one. However, having prepared for the hearing on January 27,

2006, the court would hope he was still prepared on January 31, 2006, when the

hearing was rescheduled for February 7, 2006. As other activities are claimed, the

court finds reasonable one-half the time claimed, or 2.50 of the 5.0 hours claimed, a

reduction in the amount recoverable of $426.50. 

2/6/2006 TLS Review of complaint; initial preparation of 2.30 460.00

Preliminary Injunction Order

2/7/2006 TLS Review of complaint; initial preparation of 2.30 460.00

Preliminary Injunction Order

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 12 of 33
13

The court finds that the second identical entry Thomas L. Seldon, dated

2/7/2006, is surely in error, as the exact same entry was made the previous day,

although the same appeared on the previous month’s bill to Western. The court shall

reduce the amount sought by $460.00.

1/20/2006 LGS Travel to and lodging expense in Mobile, AL for 334.20

meeting with new client lawyer

The court is unable to decipher this expense claim. No lawyer in this case is in

Mobile, nor does this case involve a lawyer-party. On this same date, Western’s

expert, Kenneth McLaughlin,submitted a charge, infra, for his expenses in traveling

to Huntsville to meet with Attorney Stiff. In fact, on this same date, Attorney Stiff

has billed $240.00 for meeting with Ken McLaughlin and Joan Clements. As Mr.

McLaughlin claimed to be in Huntsville, and Attorney Stiff claimed to meet with him,

the court concludesthat the travel and lodging expenses for “meeting with new client

lawyer” were erroneous, and deducts $334.20 from the amount sought. 

2/16/2006 JKH ...preparation of Alias Summons to SKT Architects 1.60 120.00

2/17/2006 BAD ...preparation of alias summons to SKT Architects... 1.10 203.50

Preparation of an alias summons simply does not take two people two days to

prepare. This is especially true given that the court docket the summons received

back from the post office and marked “NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED”

until February 21, 2006, four days after Mr. Harred’s claim of time spent preparing

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 13 of 33
14

an alias summons. Thus, the claims of February 16 and 17, 2006, in the total amount

of $323.50, shall be deducted from fees recoverable under the GAI. 

3/9/2006 JKH Initial review of documents received from City of .50 37.50

Huntsville... 

3/9/2006 BAD Review of documents produced by City of Huntsville... .80 148.00

These two claims are clearly redundant. The court finds reasonable one half

of each claim, resulting in a total reduction of $92.75 in the amount sought by

Western. 

4/5/2006 JKH Review of order from court setting hearing on Motion .20 15.00 

to Reconsider...

4/5/2006 BAD Review of order setting Motion to Reconsider for .20 37.00 

hearing ...

These two claims are redundant. The court finds reasonable the time claimed

by Mr. Harred only, resulting in a reduction of $37.00.

4/12/2006 LGS Final Preparation for and attendance in court on all 4.50 900.00

pending motions...

4/12/2006 LGS Preparation for and attendance at argument in Judge 4.80 960.00

Johnson’s court...

As the court held only one hearing on this date, only one of these entries is

correct. As the second claim for the identical activity surely must have been charged

by accident, the court will not allow Western to recover from Bradford the amount

of $960.00. 

4/4/2006 JKH Review of financial information submitted by defendant .50 37.50 

Richard Bradford...

6/27/2006 JKH Initial review of Financial Information from Bradford... .40 30.00

As financial information documents from Bradford were first reviewed by Mr. Harred

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 14 of 33
15

in April, his entry in June of an initial review of these documents must have been in

error. The court reduced the amount recoverable under the GAI by $30.00.

5/11/2006 BAD Review and analysis of SKT Architect’s project file ... 6.60 1,221.00

5/12/2006 JKH Initial review of documents from project file ... 1.40 105.00

5/12/2006 LGS Review of key documents obtained from SKT files ... 2.30 460.00

5/15/2006 JKH Initial review and analysis of documents produced by 1.90 142.50

SKT Architects; report to file.

5/15/2006 JKH Correspondence with counsel for SKT Architects re: .20 15.00 

cd-rom version of documents produced ...

5/17/2006 LGS Further review of documents produced by SKT ... 1.50 300.00

5/26/2006 JKH Review and analysis of pay applications from architects 1.40 105.00

(Sic) project file ...

Counsel and staff for Western spent 15.30 hours reviewing the same documents. The

court finds that Mr. Harred could not have an initial review of the same documents

two times. The court allows only Attorney Dodd’s 6.60 hours reviewing this project

file. The remainder of these charges, $1,127.50, are excessive. 

6/7/2006 LGS Prepare for and attend depositions of CCC reps., 11.50 2,300.00

Halbrooks and Bradford rep.

The court notes that the deposition of the “Bradford rep.” would be Rick Bradford,

whose deposition was attended by Attorney Dodd, but not Attorney Stiff, and which

took place on June 8, 2006, and not June 7, 2006. The court therefore deducts onehalf of the amount claimed, a reduction of $1,150.00. 

7/11/2006 JKH Review and analysis of Motions to Compel filed by .90 67.50

defendant Consolidated...

7/11/2006 BAD Review of Motions to Compel filed by Consolidated... .70 129.50

7/12/2006 BAD Continued evaluation of Consolidated... Motions to .70 129.50

Compel

7/12/2006 JKH Review and revision of Response to Motions to Compel 1.10 82.50 

and electronic filing of same with court.... 

7/12/2006 LGS Review of Motions to Compel filed by CCC; preparation 3.30 660.00

of response...

7/13/2006 LGS Review of Motions to Compel ... 3.50 700.00

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 15 of 33
16

These entries are highly redundant. The court finds the time spent by attorney Stiff

on July 12, 2006, reviewing and responding to the motions to compel, and the time

spent by Mr. Harred on the same date reviewing and revising the response to be

reasonable. The remainder of time spent on this activity is excessive. The court

believes the entry by attorney Stiff on July 13, 2006, the day after Western’s response

to these motions was filed with the court, must have been made in error. The court

therefore is of the opinion the sum of $1,026.50 is excessive and not reasonably

incurred. 

8/10/2006 JKH Correspondence with all counsel confirming .50 37.50 

upcoming deposition schedule.

8/11/2006 JKH Correspondence with counsel for defendants .40 30.00 

confriming (sic) deposition schedule.

The court finds the second charge for this activity redundant and subtracts $30.00.

8/25/2006 BAD Conference with architect for Alabama Department of .70 129.50

Education regarding inspection obligations ...

8/25/2006 LGS ...conference with state architect re procedures and 4.40 880.00

policies for electrical inspections and confirmation of 

status of inspections by State Building Commission ... 

8/28/2006 BAD Conference with Alabama Building Commission re .20 37.00

inspection of projection file for Columbia High School 

project 

These two entries seem to include some of the same activities. The court

reduces the reasonable fee by .70 hours at 200.00/hour, and an additional .20 at

$185.00/hour, for a sum of $177.00.

9/25/2006 JKH Drafting non-party subpoena and deposition notice .70 52.50

for representative of Building Commission

9/25/2006 LGS Preparation of notice of deposition to John Vandiver.... 1.80 360.00

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 16 of 33
17

9/25/2006 BAD ... conference with John Vandiver confirming availability 1.10 203.50

for deposition; review of deposition notice and subpoena; 

correspondence to Mr. Vandiver enclosing same

9/26/2006 JKH Review and revision of deposition subpoena to .80 60.00 

Building Commission official....

Both Mr. Harred and attorney Stiff claim to have prepared the subpoena to

John Vandiver, who was deposed as the representative from the Building

Commission. The court allows the time claimed by Mr. Harred only. The court also

allows the time claimed by attorney Dodd to confirm and mail the subpoena to John

Vandiver on September 25, 2006, but finds Mr. Harred’s claim of reviewing and

revising the same subpoena the following day to be unreasonable. The court deducts

the total amount of $420.00. 

1/13/2006 LGS Preparation for and attendance at deposition of Robert 9.80 1960.00

Walker; meeting with all defense counsel re proposed 

rescheduling of mediation and meeting of defense counsel 

prior thereto; review and revision of mediators statement 

and report to Joan Clements

11/13/2006 LGS Preparation for and attendance at deposition of Robert 9.80 1960.00

Walker; meeting with all defense counsel re proposed 

rescheduling of mediation and meeting of defense counsel 

prior thereto; review and revision of mediators statement 

and report to Joan Clements.

When questioned about the first of these charges during the hearing, attorney Stiff

related that “1/13/2006” was obviously a wrong date and that it was either November

or October 13, 2006. The court notes that the proper date must have been November

13, 2006, as this attorney performed these exact activities again on that date.

Therefore, finding that this entry was erroneously made two times due to the date

being entered improperly the first time, the court deducts the sum of $1,960.00.

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 17 of 33
18

The court finds the following claims for reimbursement excessive for the

reasons set forth thereafter:

12/1/2005 JKH Continued creation of. 1.30 97.50

3/31/2006 TLS Further evaluation fo (sic) arguments advanced by 2.10 420.00

plaintiff in support of “bad faith” claim....

10/26/2006 JKH Review and analysis of deposition notices for. .40 30.00

The court cannot determine what may have been created for 1.30 hours. This sum

shall be deducted as unreasonable. Unless Western argued in support of the claim

against it, the entry of March 31, 2006, is nonsensical, as Western is the plaintiff.

The entry of October 26, 2006, is unintelligible. The court shall deduct the additional

sum $547.50. 

11/21/05 LGS Lunch meeting with expert 746.78

The court is of the opinion that lunch should never cost this much. If this

disbursement was for something other than the cost of food, this information is not

reflected in Western’s claim of indemnity for attorney fees and expenses. The sum

of $746.78 shall be deducted as unreasonable. 

1/30/06 LGS General preparation for hearing... 5.40 1,080.00

1/31/2006 LGS Conference with Joan Clements and continued 3.80 760.00

preparation for preliminary injunction hearing...

The court finds these two claims to be excessive, given that the preliminary

injunction hearing never occurred. Rather, the surety obtained a consent order against

its principal restraining Bradford from disposal of its assets (doc. 11). The court

therefore finds 4.20 hours of these claims to be excessive, reducing the amount

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 18 of 33
19

recoverable under the GAI by $840.00.

2/14/2006 TLS Review and analysis of counterclaim filed by 2.40 480.00

Consolidated against surety; evaluation of recent case 

law ... and confirmation of plans of seeking early 

dismissal of “bad faith” claim.

2/15/2006 LGS Review and analysis of CCC Counterclaim... 5.50 1,100.00

2/16/2006 LGS ... review of Answer and Counterclaim and 1.80 360.00

confirmation of client instructions re: Motion to Dismiss 

bad faith claim, etc.

2/17/2006 LGS Further evaluation of Counterclaim and defense 2.50 500.00

strategy

2/21/2006 LGS Further review of CCC counterclaim and proposed 3.30 660.00

response thereto ....

3/2/2006 TLS Further review of Counterclaim filed by Consolidated... .80 160.00

A total of 16.3 hours were spent by these attorneys in solely the review of the

counterclaim against Western. This was not a complex or novel counterclaim, but

rather basic contract claims under Alabama law, including a bad faith failure to pay

claim against Western. At most, “review,” “analysis,” “evaluation” and crafting a

proposed response should have taken no more than 4 hours. The court deducts 12.30

hours, for a monetary reduction of $2,460.00.

4/3/2006 BAD ... review and evaluation of Order (denying motion to 1.60 296.00

strike bad faith claim).

4/3/2006 TLS Receipt of Order denying Motion to Dismiss ... .60 120.00

4/4/2006 BAD Continued analysis of Order denying Motion to Strike... 2.70 499.50

The Order in question was one and a half pages and concluded that the law on the

issue was unsettled. The court allows one hour for Attorney Dodd to review and

evaluate this Order, a reduction of $730.50. 

3/8/2006 BAD Review of Order setting briefing schedule on Motion .90 166.50

to Dismiss bad faith count of counterclaim...

3/8/2006 TLS Receipt of Order directing Consolidated to response .80 160.00

(sic) to Motion to Dismiss “bad faith” claim

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 19 of 33
20

This “briefing schedule” was a one page order allowing defendant

Consolidated twenty-one days to respond to Western’s motion to dismiss one of

Consolidated’s counter-claims against it. It should not have taken two attorneys 1.70

hours total time to review a one page order which did not require them to do anything.

The court finds a total of .2 hours for reviewing this Order reasonable, reducing the

attorneys’ time .80 for attorney Dodd and .70 for attorney Seldon. This amounts to

a reduction of $288.00.

3/10/2006 LGS Conference with client... preparation for planning 2.30 460.00

conference.

3/13/2006 BAD Conference with all counsel of record ... preparation 1.90 351.50

of Report of Parties Planning Meeting...

3/13/2006 LGS Preparation for and participation in planning meeting; 2.80 560.00

report to client ...

3/13/2006 TLS General preparation for mandatory parties’ planning 1.10 220.00

meeting...

3/14/2006 BAD Review of revised Report of Parties Planning Meeting; .20 37.00

conference with counsel for Consolidated Construction

Company regarding same.

3/14/2006 LGS Review of final planning meeting report and 1.60 320.00

confirmation of status of document delivery.

3/16/2006 JKH Conferences with opposing counsel re: Report .30 22.50

Parties Planning Meeting and filing of same.

The court is of the opinion that 9.90 hours for preparation of a Report of

Parties’ Planning Meeting is excessive, especially given that it was filed by counsel

for Consolidated Construction Company, and not Western. The court notes that

attorneys use a “fill in the blank form” for such reports. Even given that these

attorneys did not file the report with the court, the court finds a reasonable amount

of time to be 3 hours for preparation of the report and 2 hours for the planning

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 20 of 33
Again, because of the “grouping” of blocks of time, the court has added the total time 5

disallowed and averaged the rate charged for the three attorneys who claimed time for this

activity. Hence $200/hr. + $200/hr. + $185.00/hr. ÷ 3 = 195.00 x 4.90 hours disallowed =

$955.50.

21

meeting itself, a reduction of 4.9 hours, which the court finds to be $955.50. The 5

court finds the claim for filing of the same completely unreasonable, and disallows

its entirety, a reduction of $22.50. 

3/20/2006 LGS ... confirmation of status of document production 2.50 500.00

from parties and non-parties and further evaluation 

of discovery plan.

4/13/2006 LGS Review of status of document production from parties 2.80 560.00

and non-parties; evaluation of discovery plan.

4/19/2006 LGS Further review and evaluation of discovery plan in 1.20 240.00

light of mediation schedule.

5/1/2006 LGS Review of correspondence ... further review and 1.40 280.00

evaluation of discovery plan required before mediation 1.50 300.00

5/10/2006 LGS Report to client ... confirmation of status of documents 

received from all parties; outline of discovery plan. 

The court finds that Attorney Stiff spent 9.4 hours confirming documents produced

and evaluating a discovery plan. The court cannot ascertain what exactly these

activities might entail. Presumably, before the parties submitted a Report of Parties

Planning Meeting to this court, the need for discovery and a plan therefore was

evaluated, analyzed and reviewed. The court allows one hour for confirming the

status of document production, resulting in a deduction of $1,680.00.

3/17/2006 JKH Review and downloading of documents served .30 22.50 

electronically by federal court. 

The court “served” no documents on this date.

4/5/2006 JKH Confirming status of pending motions in assistance .40 30.00

to attorney.

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 21 of 33
22

On April 5, 2006, the sole motion pending in this case was Western’s motion

for reconsideration. Looking at CM/ECF for a ruling on this one motion should not

take anyone 24 minutes. The court allows .10 for this activity, a reduction of $22.50.

6/1/2006 TLS ... evaluation of filing Partial Summary Judgment Motion .80 160.00

re: claims for exoneration

6/26/2006 JKH Review and analysis of Motion for Partial Summary .90 67.50

Judgment....

6/26/2006 BAD ...preparation of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 4.10 758.50

and Supporting Memorandum Brief

6/27/2006 JKH Assisting attorney with drafting Motion for Summary .60 45.00

Judgment

6/27/2006 BAD Continued preparation of revision of Motion for Partial 2.30 425.00

Summary Judgment...preparation of First Amended 

Complaint 

6/27/2006 LGS Review and revision of Motion For Partial Summary 1.80 360.00

Judgment ... preparation of Amended Complaint

6/28/2006 BAD Continued preparation and revision of First Amended 1.30 240.50

Complaint...

6/28/2006 LGS ... further review and revision of Proposed Amendment 3.40 680.00

to Complaint and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

6/29/2006 JKH Assisting attorney with drafting of Amended Complaint .30 22.50

6/29/2006 BAD Continuing preparation and revision of First Amended .90 166.50

Complaint.

6/29/2006 LGS ...review and continued preparation of First Amended 4.70 940.00

Complaint...

6/30/2006 LGS Final review and revision of First Amended Complaint... 3.30 660.00

7/3/2006 LGS ... evaluation of collateralization needs; continued 3.50 700.00

preparation of Amended Complaint

7/5/2006 JKH Assisting attorney with revisions to amended 1.20 90.00

complaint....

7/5/2006 BAD Review of revised First Amended Complaint. .30 55.50

7/5/2006 LGS ... final review and revision of proposed Amended 3.20 640.00

Complaint...

7/7/2006 JKH Review of Amended Complaint... .90 67.50

7/7/2006 BAD Final review and revision of Motion for Leave to file 1.10 203.50

First Amended Complaint...

7/10/2006 BAD Review of Order granting Motion for leave to file ... .40 74.00 

final preparation of Amended Complaint for filing

7/10/2006 LGS Confirmation of entry of Order granting Motion for 1.70 340.00

Leave to File...conference with all counsel regarding

service of Amended Complaint and compliance with 

Court Order...

8/14/2006 JKH Review and revision of motion and memorandum brief .60 45.00

in assistance to attorney.

8/14/2006 BAD ... revision of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 2.60 481.00

 and supporting Memorandum brief...

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 22 of 33
Joan Clements’ deposition was attended by attorney Stiff, not attorney Seldon. The court

6

notes attorney Stiff spent no less than 20 billed hours preparing for that deposition, which

resulted in a 129 page transcript. 

See infra regarding Western’s fees incurred on the collateralization issue. 7

23

8/15/2006 JKH Continued review and revision of Motion for Summaru .90 67.50

(sic) Judgment in assistance to attorney

8/15/2006 BAD ...continuing preparation and revision of Motion for 4.10 758.50

Partial Summary Judgment and supporting Memorandum

Brief ...

8/15/2006 TLS Conference with Ms. Clements re deposition 1.50 280.00

testimony, etc; review of terms of General Agreement

of Indemnity and finalized Memorandum Brief in 

Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment6

8/18/2006 BAD Conference with client ... execution of affidavit 3.10 573.50

supporting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment...

review of response from Bradford Electric Company to 

collateralization demand.7

10/16/2006 BAD ... Revision of motion for partial summary judgment 5.10 943.50

and supporting memorandum... Review of property 

report prepared by Preferred Title. Revision of demand 

note, mortgage and seculity (sic) agreement. Report to file.

10/18/2006 JKH Assisting attorney with preparation of motion for .40 30.00 

sumary (sic) judgment. 

10/18/2006 LGS Continuing revision of Motion for Partial Summary 3.10 620.00

Judgment and supporting Memorandum Brief; conference 

with counsel for Bradford Electric Company regarding 

execution of demand note, mortgage and security 

agreement .... confirmation of license status of expert 

retained by Bradford Electric Company; report to file

10/18/2006 LGS Review of recent cases of holding surety’s rights of 2.30 460.00

exoneration; revised Memorandum Brief and Evidentiary 

Submission in support of Partial Summary Judgment

10/23/2006 JKH Drafting Notice of Evidentiary Submission for filing .80 60.00 

with court.

10/23/2006 JKH Preparation of Motion and Brief for filing with court and 1.40 105.00

electronic filing of same.

10/23/2006 JKH Assisting attorney with selection of documents for use .50 37.50

as exhibits to Motion.

The only motion for partial summary judgment filed by Western was filed on October

23, 2006. The Amended Complaint was filed July 10, 2006. However, Western’s

counsel managed to lump together billing for both of these activities. The time spent

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 23 of 33
The court notes this calculation is actually low, as there are further hours spent by 8

Western’s counsel on these motions, but grouped with other activities on the collateralization

attempts, and discussed there. 

The court determined each individual’s share of the total time worked based on 9

percentages and multiplied that for each of his proportional share of the 13.1 hour reduction, as

follows:

 Mr. Harred 1.64 hours @ $75/hr = $123.00

Attorney Selden 0.44 hours @ 200/hr= 88.00

Attorney Dodd 5.78 hours @ 185/hr = 1068.30

Attorney Stiff 5.22 hours @ 200/hr = 1044.00

$2,323.30

24

collectively on these two activities is 63.1 hours, which is excessive. The court 8

allows forty hours as reasonable for preparing a motion for summary judgment, and

ten hours for preparation of the amended complaint. The court therefore shall deduct

13.1 hours for the sum of $2,323.30 

9

7/15/2006 WDB Researching caselaw regarding joint attorney-client 1.10 176.00

privilege between principal and surety.

7/17/2006 WDB Drafting report to file regarding research for joint .60 96.00

defense privilege between principal and surety.

7/17/2006 BAD Preparation off (sic) responses to Consolidated 1.40 259.00

Construction Company’s second document request;

research regarding privilege between principal and 

surety in defense of claim.

7/18/2006 WDB Continuing to research law regarding joint attorney- 2.80 448.00

client privilege...

7/18/2006 BAD Continuing research regarding claim of privilege 1.30 240.50

between principal and surety ... 

7/16/2006 Westlaw search 374.58

Western has repeatedly informed this court that it had to bring this litigation

and incur the attorney fees in issue because its position was always adverse to that of

Bradford. As such, the court finds the above research concerning a joint defense

privilege to have been unreasonably undertaken. Western’s claim is reduced by

$1,594.08.

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 24 of 33
For reasons stated infra, the court finds none of these activities reasonable. 10

Additionally, this is a charge by plaintiff’s counsel for sending something to plaintiff’s counsel.

25

4/5/2006 JKH Research of Tennessee Code re: Homestead .50 37.50

Exemption...

4/6/2006 JKH Research of court records re: divorce case of Richard 1.10 82.50

T. Bradford ...

4/6/2006 JKH Purchased of money order to obtain copy of Mr. Bedford’s 5.79

divorce decree 

4/11/2006 JKH Review of request for information from accounting .40 30.00

consultant; report to file re: divorce decree and 

settlement agreement.

4/11/2006 JKH Research Secretary of State website re: real estate .50 37.50

partnerships owned by principal ...

4/13/2006 JKH Review of Settlement Agreement from divorce of 1.80 135.00

Richard and Pamela Bradford...

4/18/2006 LGS Review of mediator’s statement for service... 2.60 520.00

conference...regarding collateralization issues raised 

by divorce decree and property settlement

4/26/2006 JKH Review of memorandum from accounting consultant .30 22.50

... documentation of divorce settlement

5/10/2006 JKH Review of memorandum from accounting consultant... .80 60.00

8/21/2006 LGS Review of collateralization proposal and report to .70 140.00

 Joan Clements.

9/27/2006 LGS Further review and analysis of expert licensure 2.30 460.00

requirement for engineering testimony and 

exceptions thereto ... preparation and transmittal of 

collateral demand to plaintiff’s counsel10

10/6/2006 BAD Preparatoin (sic) of demand note, mortgage and 2.10 388.50

security agreement; correspondence to counsel for 

Bradford Electric Company enclosing same

10/9/2006 BAD ... continuing revision of demand note, mortgage 1.70 314.50

and security agreement; conference with title company 

confirming agreement to perform title search on 

principal’s property.

10/9/2006 LGS ... review and revision of Note and Mortgage Security 3.50 700.00

Agreement; response to Tyndal/Zulanas re collateral 

security issues

10/10/2006 JKH Review of documents from counsel for Bradford; .60 45.00

conference with Preffered (sic) Title re: title search of 

Winchester Road property 

10/10/2006 JKH Review and revision of Promissory Note and Mortgage .70 52.50

Agreement.

10/10/2006 JKH Correspondence with counsel for principal re: Promissory .40 30.00

Note and Mortgage Agreement.

10/10/2006 BAD Final revision of demand note mortgage and security .90 166.50

agreement; confirmation of status of title search on 

commercial property; report to file

10/13/2006 JKH Correspondence with title company re: Title search of .40 30.00

property owned by principal.

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 25 of 33
26

10/13/2006 JKH Correspondence with title company enclosing legal .30 22.50

Description of property for completion of title search.

10/13/2006 BAD Continuing conference with Preferred Title regarding 1.70 314.50

Status of title search....

10/16/2006 JKH Assisting attorney with selection of exhibits for .70 52.50 

enclosure with letter to counsel for principal.

10/16/2006 JKH Review and revision of mortgage and security .30 22.50

agreement

10/17/2006 JKH Review and analysis of title search; report to file. .30 22.50

10/17/2006 BAD Continuing conference with counsel for Bradford .30 55.50

Electric Company regarding status of execution of note...

10/17/2006 LGS Conference with clients.... review and revision of motion 5.50 1100.00

for deposit for collateral. 

10/20/2006 BAD Revision of note, security, agreement and mortgage; 2.30 425.50

correspondence to client enclosing same; conference with 

counsel for Bradford Electric Company regarding 

10/20/2006 LGS Review and revision of letter to attorneys Zulanas and 

Tyndall re collateral demand and unilateral settlement 4.70 940.00

options; conference with Joan Clements; review of order 

from Judge Johnson on all pending motions and 

repot (sic) to client...execution of note...

10/20/2006 LGS Conference with Ken McLaughlin... confirmation of 4.50 900.00

status of Note and Mortgage Security Agreement...

10/23/2006 BAD Continuing preparation and revision of note, security 5.80 1073.00

agreement and mortgage... final preparation of Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment and supporting Memorandum

Brief ...

10/23/2006 TLS Evaluation of bankruptcy and related issues; report re .50 100.00

same.

10/23/2006 LGS Conference with Joan Clements; review and revision of 5.80 1160.00

Note and Security Agreements.... review and revision of 

Note and Security Agreement as directed by Joan Clements 

and transmittal to opposing counsel

10/24/2006 BAD ..... conference with counsel for Bradford Electric 2.90 536.00

Company regarding status of note and security 

agreement...

10/24/2006 LGS Review of expert reports ... report to Joan Clements re 6.50 1300.00

revised Note and Security Agreement and continued 

negotiation with opposing counsel re execution thereof.

10/25/2006 JKH Assisting attorney with review of documents re: .40 30.00

promissory note and agreement; report to file.

10/25/2006 LGS Continued review and revision of Note and Security 4.30 860.00

Agreement; conference with attorney Tyndall regarding 

same; review and revision of Motion to Compel 

Collateral Deposit ...

10/26/2006 BAD Review of file in preparation for meeting of Scott Cole... 5.20 962.00

conference with counsel for Bradford Electric Company

regarding status of none (sic) security agreement and

mortgage

11/6/2006 BAD Conference with counsel for Bradford Electric Company 4.70 869.50

regarding collateralization demand...

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 26 of 33
Although Western’s counsel reference activities relating to “unilateral settlement 11

options”in numerous entries, the term “unilateral settlement” appears to be an oxymoron. The

court cannot discern what “physician’s summary for pretrial order” attorney Stiff may have

worked on, as no medical claims or issues are in this case. 

27

11/17/2006 LGS Continued review and analysis of effect of mediation 4.50 900.00

and conference ... re unilateral settlement options... and

analysis of collateralization requirements.

11/20/2006 LGS Review and revision of letter to attorneys Zulanas and 4.70 940.00

Tyndall re collateral demand and unilateral settlement 

options ... review of order from Judge Johnson on all 

pending motions and report to client; preparation of 

physician’s summary for pretrial order and confirmation 

of discovery schedule.11

The court finds these activities unnecessary as Western already had a Consent

Restraining Order in place protecting its interest in its principal’s assets. Therefore,

delving into Richard Bradford’s divorce could not assist Western in this litigation.

Similarly, in spite of the vast amounts of time spent obtaining title searches of

Bradford’s property, preparing a mortgage and note and talking about “unilateral

settlements,” Western never paid any amount of money out under the performance

bond. It paid one claim of approximately $24,000.00 under the payment bond. In

exchange, its counsel billed Western the sum of $15,843.79 solely on investigating

and attempting to tie up Bradford’s assets. This too was in spite of the fact that

Bradford had already entered into a consent order preventing either the business or

the individual from disposing of their respective assets. The court finds the entire

sum of $15,843.79 unnecessarily incurred. 

7/30/2006 LGS Review of order on Motion to Compel and Motion 2.70 540.00

to Reconsider by CCC counsel; report to client and 

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 27 of 33
28

preparation for status conference with Judge 

Johnson - confirmation of discovery status.

The court issued an Order granting a motion to compel filed by Consolidated

(CCC) on July 12, 2006. On July 21, 2006, Bradford filed a motion to reconsider.

The court did not enter any Order on this motion to reconsider until July 31, 2006. 

Consolidated did not file any motion to reconsider the court’s granting of

Consolidated’s motion. As the court cannot ascertain what Attorney Stiff actually did

for 2.70 hours, and Attorney Stiff spend at least another 6.80 hours preparing for the

status conference with this court (entries dated 7/25/2006 and 7/31/2006), the court

finds this $540.00 charge unreasonable. 

11/28/2006 JKH review and analysis of court order setting briefing .40 $30.00

schedule for indemnity claim; report to file

The court notes this Order was a grand total of five lines, which should have

taken less than thirty seconds to read. It contained one deadline. It was also issued

November 29, 2006, the day after this review and analysis took place. The court finds

a reasonable amount of time to be .10 hours, reducing the sum allowable by $22.50.

8/18/2006 JKH Confirming state licensure status of electrical expert; .30 22.50

report to file.

8/23/2006 BAD Analysis of recent Alabama case law regarding 1.40 259.00

disqualification of non-licensed engineers from

providing expert testimony; conference with architect

license board confirming status of potential expert;

report to file.

8/24/2006 LGS Conference with possible architectural experts and 2.50 500.00

confirmation of Ken McLaughlin position re

engineering negligence.

9/14/2006 LGS Review of expert issue; conference wiht (sic) Ken 3.30 660.00

McLaughlin re qualifications/licensure issue...

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 28 of 33
29

9/18/2006 BAD Conference with expert regarding availability for 2.10 388.50

deposition; continuing evaluation of effect of recent

Alabama Supreme Court opinion regarding license 

requirements for proposed engineering experts.

9/19/2006 BAD Conference with counsel regarding status of proposed 1.70 314.50

mediation... continuing evaluation of recent case law

regarding qualifications of non-licensed experts.

9/28/2006 JKH Preparation of documents re; Qualification of Expert .40 30.00 

Witnesses in Alabama ...

9/28/2006 JKH Correspondence with engineering consultant re: .40 30.00

Supreme Court decision and advisory opinion

9/28/2006 LGS Conference with Ken McLaughlin re licensure issue; 3.80 760.00

conference with Joan Clements; further evaluation of

exceptions/applicability to licensure requirement as 

condition precedent to expert testimony ...

10/27/2006 JKH Review and analysis of Motion to Strike Expert Witness .50 37.50

by counsel for architect.

10/27/2006 BAD Review and analysis of Motion to Strik (sic) ... 2.20 407.00

10/30/2006 TLS Review of Motion to Strike Expert Designation and Brief .80 160.00

filed in support thereof; review of case law and 

confirmation of deadline for responding to same.

11/6/2006 WDB Researching law regarding admissibility of expert 5.40 864.00

testimony in federal court and whether state law applies 

to such admissibility; researching the Alabama 

disciplinary rules for architects...

11/6/2006 LGS Preparation and repsonse (sic) to SKT Motion to Strike 5.60 1120.00

McLaughlin... comprehensive discussion with attorneys 

Zulanas and Tyndall re indemnity issues and collateral 

issues...

As this wasthe expert of Western’s choosing, Bradford should not be liable for

Western’s decision to select an expertfromoutside the state of Alabama, who was not

licensed in the state of Alabama. The sum of $5,553.00 is excessive.

9/6/2006 BAD Conference with counsel for all parties regarding 1.60 296.00

... proposed extension of discovery deadline .... 

preparation of draft unopposed Motion to Extend 

Discovery.

9/7/2006 JKH Assisting attorney with drafting of Motion for Extension .80 60.00

of time.

9/7/2006 BAD Final revision of unopposed Motion to Extend Discovery; 2.10 388.50

correspondence to counsel enclosing same for review... .50 37.50

9/8/2006 JKH Preparation of document and electronic filing of same 

with Federal Court.

The motion to extend discovery was one page plus one line long. Any attorney

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 29 of 33
30

should have been able to prepare the motion, proofread the motion, discuss the

motion and file the motion in under one and a half hours. The court deducts 3.50

hours from the 5.0 hours claimed. Hence, the court finds a reasonable sum for this

activity to be $185.00 (1 hour) for attorney Dodd, and $37.50 (1/2 hour) for Mr.

Harred, a reduction of $559.50. 

9/26/2006 LGS Preparation for meeting with expert Bill Sealy; general 2.40 480.00

preparation for deposition of John Vandiver....

9/29/2006 LGS Outline of areas for coverage for Vandiver deposition. 1.60 320.00

The deposition of John Vandiver reflects that it was attended by attorney Dodd. The

court can find no reasonable basis for an attorney to charge for 4 hours work to

prepare for a deposition he was not going to attend. The sum of $800.00 is

subtracted.

10/30/2006 JKH Review and analysis of court order on briefing schedule .40 30.00

for Motion; report to file

This court order was four lines long. It could not have required more than thirty

seconds to read. The court finds charging 24 minutes to read a four line order is

excessive. Billing .10 hour for this activity would have been reasonable. The court

eliminates .30 hours, for a reduction of $22.50. 

11/20/06 JKH Review and analysis of order denying motion for .40 30.00

partial summary judgment

This Order was one and a half pages long. It may have taken two minutes to read.

Billing .10 for this activity would have been reasonable. The court eliminates .30

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 30 of 33
This invoice includes a $250.00 charge for Western’s accounting expert from 12

Connecticut to review Mr. Bradford’s divorce documents.

31

hours, for a reduction of $22.50. 

Counsel for Western also billed thousands of dollarsin expenses. Considering

the reasonableness of these charges, the court finds as follows:

Ikon Invoice of 3/9/2006: $791.83 for office supplies.

Ikon Invoice of 5/14/2006: 658.68 for office supplies.

Office supplies are out of pocket expenses that are simply law firm overhead. The

items purchased include folders, labels and binders. The court will deduct the sum

of $1,450.51.

Dominick, Fletcher Invoice of 6/29/2006: $584.00

This amount was incurred by Western because all of the parties agreed to attempt

mediation in an effort to resolve this case. Each party to the mediation was to pay an

equal share of the cost of the mediation. The court is of the opinion that Western is

not entitled to recoup this expense from Bradford, as Bradford has already paid its

fair share for the cost of this mediation, necessitated by Western’s filing of this

lawsuit. The court shall deduct this amount. 

Cypress Consulting Invoice of 3/31/2006 $2,263.12

Bradford Electric Invoice of 3/27/2006 224.06

Allied Photocopy Invoice of 3/10/2006 217.30

Cypress Consulting Invoice of 5/31/2006 812.5012

These amounts were incurred by Western in its review of Bradford’s financial

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 31 of 33
32

condition. Bradford’s financial condition was never an issue in this lawsuit. No

evidence, argument, letter, statement or thought that Bradford might enter bankruptcy

over the issues in this lawsuit has ever been brought up by any party to this litigation,

other than by Western in trying to justify why it spent tens of thousands of dollars

researching Bradford’s financial condition. The court finds the amount of $3,516.98

unreasonably incurred. 

McLaughlin invoices from 9/25/2005 through 9/8/2006 include the following:

9/25/2005 Travel to Huntsville $1,040.00

9/25/2006 Milage 465.60

9/25/2006 Hotel 388.50

9/28/2005 Travel from Huntsville 1,040.00

9/28/2005 Travel Expense Reimbursement 465.60

10/24/2005 Travel to Huntsville 1,040.00

10/24/2005 Travel Expense Reimbursement 933.09 

10/26/2005 Travel from Huntsville 1,040.00

1/20/2006 Trip to Huntsville 1,560.00

1/20/2006 Airfare 521.20 

6/25/2006 Arbitration Meeting- Huntsville (Travel & Meet) 1,040.00

6/25/2006 Hotel 191.21

6/26/2006 Mileage 358.90

6/27/2006 Arbitration Meeting- Huntsville (Travel Day) 780.00

Western hired an engineering consultant from Louisiana. This individual was not

qualified to give expert testimony under Alabama law. While Western was entitled

to hire the expert of its choosing, Bradford should not have to pay for that expert to

travel to Alabama. Western could have retained experts within the State of Alabama,

as there has been no showing that a qualified engineering expert already licensed in

this state was unobtainable, or that all engineering consultants in Alabama were

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 32 of 33
33

unqualified. The court subtracts the amount of $10,864.10. Similarly, the court

deducts the amount of $1,546.63, which attorney Stiff claimed for travel expenses on

October 17, 2006, to New Orleans, Louisiana, for the deposition of Mr. McLaughlin.

In sum, the court finds the amount of $73,236.47 not reasonably incurred.

Because it was not reasonably incurred, it is not recoverable under the surety

agreement. Therefore, the amount of fees and expenses reasonably recoverable by

Western from Bradford under the GAI is $178,384.18. The amount paid under the

payment bond, $24,262.30 is also due to Western from Bradford. The court shall so

rule by separate Order.

DONE and ORDERED this the 8 day of January, 2007. th

 

INGE PRYTZ JOHNSON

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:06-cv-00183-IPJ Document 153 Filed 01/08/07 Page 33 of 33