Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROTOWORKS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 07-5009

GRASSWORKS USA, LLC;

GRASSWORKS!!! L.L.C.;

ROBERT D. UMBERSON a/k/a/BOBBY 

UMBERSON; LINDA K. REED; and

METAL WORKS, L.L.C DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 27th day of September, 2007, comes on for

consideration Plaintiff's Second Bill Of Costs (document #101),

and defendants' response thereto, and from the submissions of the

parties, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. On September 4, 2007, this Court entered an Order

finding that defendants and their attorney were in violation of

F.R.C.P. 11 by virtue of the filing of a Counterclaim in this

matter, and imposing -- as one sanction for that violation -- the

requirement that defendants pay reasonable attorney's fees and

costs incurred by plaintiff in addressing the Counterclaim.

Plaintiff has now filed its Bill Of Costs, seeking recovery

of $17,648.00 in attorney's fees, and $1,563.00 in costs, all said

to be associated with the Counterclaim.

Defendants object to numerous items in plaintiff's Bill Of

Costs, and the Court has reviewed the Bill Of Costs both in light

of defendants' objections thereto, and with its own perspective on

what hours and what hourly rates are reasonable under the

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 117 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

circumstances.

2. The Counterclaim was filed on May 29, 2007, and -- as

defendants point out -- plaintiff's Bill Of Costs includes entries

that pre-date that filing. While these entries may represent work

that was useful to plaintiff in connection with its response to

the Counterclaim, the Court does not believe it can fairly be said

that such work was occasioned by the Counterclaim. The Court

will, therefore, disallow all claims for time spent on this matter

before May 29, 2007.

3. An entry dated May 30, 2007, for three hours, is said to

represent -- at least in part -- "research other cases in which

opposing counsel filed motions for sanctions against Mr. Speed to

demonstrate pattern of conduct." Because conduct in other cases

does not bear directly on conduct in this case, the Court will

disallow one-half of the three-hour claim on this date.

4. Defendants object that time spent in preparing for and

taking the depositions of Bobby Umberson, Linda Reed, and Michelle

Thomas "would have been incurred anyway and is not primarily

related to the motion for sanctions." While the Court agrees that

depositions of these individuals would probably have been taken in

this case regardless of the filing of the Counterclaim,

plaintiff's submissions to date (related both to this and other

pending motions) indicate that the depositions of Umberson, Reed,

and Thomas in June, 2007, were taken at least in part to determine

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 117 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

whether there was any factual basis for the Counterclaim. For

example, in Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Take Second

Depositions Of Defendants (document #102), plaintiff asserts that

the depositions of Umberson, Reed, and Thomas were "directed

towards determining what documents Defendants were withholding

during discovery and what factual and legal basis Defendants had

to assert a counterclaim for tortious interference with business

expectancy." The Court, therefore, deems it reasonable to charge

defendants with one-half the time incurred in connection with the

depositions of Umberson, Reed and Thomas, and one-half the court

reporter's fee for the transcripts of those depositions.

5. A charge on August 2, 2007, for 1.25 hours, is described

as "[r]eview and respond to Mr. Speed's email requesting an

extension of time to file sur-replies. Respond to motion for

additional time on the basis that there is no rule which permits

a sur-reply." While plaintiff would necessarily have had to

review the email in question, the Court believes such review would

have taken no more than .25 hours. The remaining hour, expended

in objecting to the filing of a sur-reply, will be disallowed.

Such skirmishing over whether the Court should allow parties to

file documents is to be discouraged, unless there is a very good

reason for the objections.

6. Plaintiff claims 5.5 hours preparing for and defending

the depositions of Steve Mankin and Rafe Essary, stating that half

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 117 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

of the deposition time was directed towards the Counterclaim. It

also claims 2.5 hours spent preparing for and defending the

deposition of Kimberly Essary, which is said to have been entirely

directed to the Counterclaim. The Court will disallow one-half of

the 5.5 hours for Mankin and Rafe Essary, to account for the fact

that half of those depositions were apparently related to

legitimate issues in the case. The Court will allow plaintiff the

full time for the deposition of Kimberly Essary.

7. Defendant objects that the time spent preparing the Bill

Of Costs (6.25 hours) is excessive. The Court agrees, and will

disallow one half of that amount. The Court also finds that the

time spent preparing the Motion For Sanctions (a total of 32.89

hours) and plaintiff's Reply to defendants' Response thereto (a

total of 14.23 hours) is excessive and emblematic of the overlawyering that has characterized this case from the beginning.

Half that amount of time should, in the Court's view, have been

sufficient for the research and drafting of these documents, and

only half of it will be allowed.

8. The Affidavit Of Mark Murphey Henry offered in support

of the Bill Of Costs recites that "[m]y contract for legal

services with Rotoworks provides that my firm's rate for this

litigation is $200 per hour," and that "the fees charged are

reasonable and customary." 

The Court finds these assertions merit further scrutiny.

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 117 Filed 09/27/07 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

Although defendants do not specifically object to the hourly rate,

they do object that the total fees sought are unreasonable.

Plaintiff and its attorneys may agree to any hourly rate they

choose, but when fees are shifted to the opposing party under Rule

11, the Court has an obligation to determine what constitutes a

reasonable hourly rate. In fixing hourly rates, the Court may draw

on its own knowledge of prevailing market rates, Warnock v.

Archer, 397 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2005), and it has chosen to do so

here.

Hours are charged for work by three different attorneys, with

very different levels of experience. According to their profiles

on the Arkansas Judiciary website, www.courts.state.ar.us, Mark

Henry, plaintiff's lead counsel, has been licensed for ten years;

Nathan Chaney for three; and Adam Hopkins only for one. The Court

agrees that a fee of $200/hour is reasonable for Henry. However,

given their lesser degrees of experience, the Court finds that a

fee of $150/hour is reasonable for Chaney, and $100/hour is

reasonable for Hopkins. 

9. When the hours disallowed by the Court are deducted from

the Bill Of Costs, and the hourly rate is adjusted as outlined

above, the total amount allowed for attorney services comes to

$7,319.00. When the costs disallowed by the Court are deducted,

the remaining costs total $993.25. The Court will, therefore,

award plaintiff $8,312.25 in attorney's fees and costs as a

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 117 Filed 09/27/07 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

sanction against defendants and their attorney for violating

F.R.C.P. 11 in connection with the filing of their Counterclaim.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants pay to plaintiff the

sum of Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twelve and 25/100 Dollars

($8,312.25) as a sanction for violating F.R.C.P. 11 in connection

with the filing of their Counterclaim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 117 Filed 09/27/07 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>