Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00216/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00216-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
First United Methodist Church
Defendant
Darlene Maye
Defendant
Monica Perryman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

MONICA PERRYMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv216-MHT

) (WO) 

FIRST UNITED METHODIST )

CHURCH and DARLENE MAYE, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND SANCTIONS ORDER

This case is currently before the court for a

determination of the appropriate amount of sanctions to

be entered against Norman Hurst, Jr., counsel for

plaintiff Monica Perryman, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(f).

Perryman sued defendants First United Methodist

Church and Darlene Maye for race and gender

discrimination in employment. Perryman based her

lawsuit on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 6
2

U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3); the Equal Pay Act of

1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206; and Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a,

2000e through 2000e-17; she invoked the jurisdiction of

the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (§§ 1981, 1983

and 1985(3) claims), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (Title VII

claims), and 29 U.S.C. § 217 (Equal Pay Act claim). In

an opinion and judgment entered on March 5, 2007, the

court entered summary judgment in favor of First United

and Maye and against Perryman. Perryman v. First

United Methodist Church, 2007 WL 703604 (M.D. Ala.

2007). 

This court retained jurisdiction, however, on the

question whether Perryman’s attorney, Norman Hurst,

Jr., should be sanctioned, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(f), for failing to comply with a court order that

required him to (1) cooperate with defense counsel in

drafting a pretrial order and (2) attend a pretrial

hearing. In an order and opinion entered on March 12,

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 6
3

2007, this court found that Hurst should be sanctioned,

and directed the defendants to submit their fees and

costs “in attempting to secure Hurst's cooperation in

the preparation of a pretrial order, ... in attending

the pretrial, and ... relating to the instant sanctions

issue,” with the fees and expenses “to be paid by Hurst

personally, and not by his client, Perryman.” Perryman

v. First United Methodist Church, ___ F.R.D. ____,

____, 2007 WL 738501 *4 (M.D. Ala. 2007); see also

Perryman v. First United Methodist Church, 2007 WL

891155 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (denying motion for

reconsideration). 

Having already found, in the March 12 order and

opinion, that Hurst should be sanctioned, this court

now turns to the amount of those sanctions. Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) provides that, “in lieu

of or in addition to any other sanction, the judge

shall require the party or the attorney representing

the party or both to pay the reasonable expenses

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 3 of 6
4

incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule,

including attorney's fees.” 

As an initial matter, while First United and Maye’s

attorneys worked on the case pro bono, Hurst is still

responsible for their fees. The question, on a

sanctions issue, is not whether the opposing party’s

attorneys were paid, but rather what the reasonable

amount of their fees was. An attorney cannot avoid

Rule 16(f) sanctions merely because opposing counsel

worked pro bono for their clients; a sanctioned

attorney cannot exploit, that is, benefit from, the

generosity of opposing counsel.

First United and Maye’s attorneys seek

reimbursement for fees incurred through the work of two

attorneys, in an amount between $ 2,882.50 and

$ 3,455.00. This range represents the range that the

involved attorneys normally bill a client in a case

like this one. One attorney, Robert A. Huffaker,

billed a total of six hours on the matters in question;

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 4 of 6
5

his hourly rate is between $ 250 to $ 300. R. Brett

Garrett, another of the defendants’ attorneys, billed

10.9 hours; his hourly rate is between $ 125 and $ 150

an hour. The amount of reimbursement they seek

includes $ 20 in photocopying fees. 

This court finds that $ 2,882.50 is a reasonable

amount, both as to time spent and rate, with the amount

calculated as follows:

Huffaker 6 hours $ 250/hour = $ 1,500.00

Garrett 10.9 hours $ 125/hour = 1,362.50

Copying = 20.00

TOTAL $ 2882.50

Hurst’s actions wasted substantial time (1) in

preparing for and attending the pretrial conference,

(2) in attempting to secure Hurst’s cooperation in

preparing a proposed pretrial order and (3) in

preparing for the matters relating to the issue of

sanctions. The court notes that it could have imposed

sanctions in the higher amount sought by First United

and Maye’s attorneys. 

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 5 of 6
***

Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE

of the court as follows:

(1) Defense counsel are to have and recover from

Norman Hurst, Jr., personally, fees and expenses in the

amount of $ 2,882.50.

(2) By no later than April 18, 2007, Hurst is to

pay this full sum to defense counsel.

(3) On April 20, 2007, defense counsel are to file

a statement with the court indicating whether or not

they received the full amount from Hurst on April 18,

2007.

DONE, this the 4th day of April, 2007.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00216-MHT-CSC Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 6 of 6