Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_02-cv-00379/USCOURTS-ared-5_02-cv-00379-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

PAMELA ALLEN PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 5:02CV00379GH

TOBACCO SUPERSTORE, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On June 17, 2005, the Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, finding that

defendants had discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of race in not promoting

her to assistant manager in February, 2002 and to manager in November 2002; and

had retaliated against her in not promoting her to manager in November, 2002. The

Court awarded plaintiff back pay in the amount of $16,116.21 along with

prejudgment interest on this amount to January 15, 2004, compensatory damages in

the amount of $7500.00 and punitive damages in the amount of $75,000.00 along with

attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court found in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s

termination claim. On August 12, 2005, the Court denied defendants’ motion to

amend findings and judgment or alternatively, for new trial or remittitur.

Plaintiff has filed motions for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff requests an award of

$107,750.00 in attorney’s fees for Eugene Hunt (“Hunt”) and $9,540.00 in attorney’s

fees for Sandra Y. Harris (“Harris”). Plaintiff also requests costs in the amount of

$4,122.28.

Defendants object to the amount requested and ask that the Court defer ruling

on plaintiff’s motions for costs and attorney’s fees pending resolution of the appeal

before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion

to defer adjudication. 

The Court will not defer adjudication of the attorney’s fees issue. The Eighth

Case 5:02-cv-00379-GH Document 198 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 4
-2-

Circuit has cautioned against piecemeal appeals and has urged that motions for fees

be resolved promptly so that an appeal on the attorney’s fee issue can be considered

by the appellate court together with any appeal taken from a final judgment on the

merits. Obin v. Dist. No. 9 of Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 651

F.2d 574, 583 (8th Cir. 1981).

As a prevailing party, plaintiff is entitled to fees and costs. See Farrar v.

Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992). Defendants contend that since plaintiff did not prevail

on all claims, the Court should reduce the fees and costs. The Court disagrees. To be

a prevailing party, plaintiff” must “succeed on any significant issue in litigation which

achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.”’ Forest Park II v.

Hadley , 408 F.3d 1052, 1059 (8th Cir. 2005( quoting Farrar, 506 U.S. 103, 109

(1992). Here, plaintiff achieved a high degree of success, obtaining over

$98,000.00 in damages. 

 “The starting point in determining attorney fees is the lodestar, which is

calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable

hourly rates.” Fish v. St. Cloud State Univ., 295 F.3d 849, 851 (8th Cir.2002). The

Court may adjust the lodestar amount in light of the twelve (12) factors first

pronounced in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th

Cir.1974), that is : (1) The time and labor required; (2) The novelty and difficulty of

the questions; (3) The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) The

preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) The

customary fee; (6) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) Time limitations imposed

by the client or the circumstances; (8) The amount involved and the results obtained;

(9) The experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys; (10) The undesirability of

the case; (11) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;

and (12) Awards in similar cases. See Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 92 n. 5

(1989). 

Case 5:02-cv-00379-GH Document 198 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 4
-3-

Plaintiff claims an hourly rate of $200.00 for Harris and $250.00 for Hunt.

They have submitted an affidavit from Jesse L. Kearney, an attorney in private

practice in the Pine Bluff area, who avers that the hourly rate for those attorneys with

experience and skill similar to that of Hunt and Harris is $200.00 to $250.00. Neither

Harris nor Hunt have submitted an affidavit outlining their experience. It is clear,

however, from their bar association numbers as well as this Court’s familiarity with

them, that their experience is different. Hunt has been a licensed attorney since 1972;

Harris since 1992. The Court finds that $250.00 an hour is a reasonable rate for Hunt

while $175.00 is a reasonable rate for Harris.

Harris claims to have expended 47.7. hours while Hunt claims to have expended

431 hours. Defendants contend that the hours claims by Hunt are excessive. The

Court agrees.

The Court notes that numerous entries are claimed for telephone calls. Indeed,

about $7,925.00 is claimed for telephone calls to or from plaintiff. This is in addition

to the many hours claimed for client conferences. In addition, Hunt claims 8.1 hours

for preparation of the fee petition. The petition and brief are not particularly involved

- two cases are cited and the petition contains a listing of date, work performed, hours

expended and amount claimed. There is no unique legal skill required to compile the

billing statement.

Hunt also claims time for administrative or clerical tasks such as “Filed

Complaint, Copying, Summons, & Cover Sheet” - 10/15/02 8/10 of an hour; “Filing -

12/20/02 - 5/10 of an hour; “fax to Photopulos - 1/15/05; 1/10 of an hour; “fax to

Photopulos” - 3/10/03 ; 2/10 of an hour; “Paralegal” - 6/29/03; 3/10 of an hour; “Filing” -

8/8/03; 5/10 of an hour; preparing subpoenas - 2/28/03 ; 2 1⁄2 hours; subpoenas -

5/19/04;1.2 hours; Subpoenas - 5/20/04; 4.5 hours; Filing - 6/3/04; 6/10 hour; subpoena -

6/9/04; 2/10 hour. 

The Court is persuaded , after a review of the record as well as considering

Case 5:02-cv-00379-GH Document 198 Filed 10/06/05 Page 3 of 4
-4-

Hunt’s over 30 years of experience, that 160 hours must be disallowed as not

reasonably expended. The Court therefore finds plaintiff is entitled to $67,750.00 in

attorney’s fees for Hunt.

Much of the time claimed by Harris is for the trial. The Court finds that the

time claimed by Harris was reasonably expended and plaintiff is entitled to an

attorney’s fee for Harris in the amount of $7,155.00. 

The Court does not find any basis for adjusting the lodestar. 

Plaintiff also claims costs in the amount of $4,122.28. Defendants have not

objected to any of the costs, and the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to recover

costs in the amount of $4,122.28.

Thus, plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of

$79,027.28. 

Accordingly, the motions for attorneys fees and costs are granted to the extent

set forth above. The motion to defer adjudication is denied. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2005.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:02-cv-00379-GH Document 198 Filed 10/06/05 Page 4 of 4