1

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 37), filed March 31, 

2023. The Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 31). In the 

Order, the Court determined that Plaintiff was entitled to the $7,297.06 he claimed in attorney fees. 

Id. at 4. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to provide documentation of supplemental attorney 

fees, for fees incurred after the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. See Order, ECF 

No. 36. Plaintiff provided this motion for supplemental attorney fees on March 31, 2023. See Mot., 

ECF No. 37. 

To determine the propriety of an award of attorneys’ fees, district courts follow a two-step 

process. Alexander v. City of Jackson Miss., 456 F. App’x 397, 399–400 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing 

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). At step one, the court makes its “lodestar” 

calculation in which it determines the reasonable number of hours expended on the litigation and 

the reasonable hourly rate to be charged and multiplies the hours expended by the hourly rate. Id.

In determining the reasonable hours expended, courts may accept the attorneys’ adequately 

documented billing records but must exclude any time deemed excessive, duplicative, or 

inadequately descriptive. Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 1993). At step two, the 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

 

LUIS ENRIQUE JUAREZ, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00169-O-BP

 § 

H & K STEEL ERECTORS §

ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., §

§ 

Defendants. §

Case 4:22-cv-00169-O Document 38 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 203
2

court exercises its broad discretion to determine whether the lodestar should be adjusted upward 

or downward, taking into consideration the factors set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 

Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th 1974). See Alexander, 456 F. App’x at 399–400. Those factors include:

(1) the time and labor required for the litigation; (2) the novelty and difficulty of

the questions presented; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly;

(4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney by acceptance of the case;

(5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations

imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the result

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.

Johnson, 488 F.2d at 718. 

Though the district court has broad discretion to weigh these factors, “[t]he lodestar may 

not be adjusted due to a Johnson factor that was already taken into account during the initial 

calculation of the lodestar.” Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492, 502 (5th Cir. 2013). 

Importantly, there is a strong presumption that the requested lodestar amount is reasonable, 

meaning it should only be modified if exceptional circumstances warrant an adjustment. Watkins,

7 F.3d at 457. 

Plaintiff’s counsel claims he spend 6.10 hours litigating this case since filing the Motion 

for Default Judgment. See Mot. 2, ECF No. 37. The Court finds these hours to be reasonable. 

Plaintiff’s counsel charged $400 per hour. Id. The Court finds this rate to be reasonable. 

Therefore, the lodestar amount totals $2,440. Plaintiff does not contend that the lodestar 

amount should be adjusted upwards or downwards. The Court finds that a reduction or 

enhancement is not called for. Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff supplemental attorney fees in 

the amount of $2,440. When added to the $7,297.06 determined reasonable in the Court’s prior 

Order, Plaintiff’s total attorney fees award is $9,737.06. 

SO ORDERED on this 26th day of June, 2023.

Case 4:22-cv-00169-O Document 38 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 204