IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS, § 

§ Vv. § CIVIL ACTION NO, 4:22-CV-343-Y § (Consolidated w/ 4:22-CV-430-Y) ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al, § 

§ EUGENIO VARGAS, § 

§ Vv. § 

§ ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., § 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Application for Attorney’s Fees [doc. 228]. 

Having carefully considered the motion and the evidence presented, the Court concludes that 

Defendants’ motion should be GRANTED. 

On March 1, 2024, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions [doc. 219]. 

Specifically, infer alia, the Court ordered: 

1, Phillips shall pay Defendants’ reasonable costs and attorney’s fees for the February 

1-2, 2024 depositions, filing of this motion, and depositions ordered herein (“Court 

Ordered Depositions”); and 

2. Defendants shall file with the Court an itemized and detailed list for their reasonable 

costs and attorney’s fees, no later than seven days after the completion of the Court 

Ordered Depositions. Plaintiffs shall have seven days to file any objections to the 

reasonableness of those costs and attorney’s fees submitted by Defendants. 

(ECF 219 at 23). 

In compliance with the Court’s order, Defendants filed their application for attorney’s fees, 

on March 22, 2024, requesting that the Court grant them $19,420.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 232 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID 5872
and $8,283.30 in costs. (ECF 228). Plaintiffs’ seven-day objection period has run, and they did 

not file any objections to Defendants’ requested fees or costs. Therefore, the Court will review 

the requested fees and costs in compliance with current Fifth Circuit precedent. 

In the Fifth Circuit, the “lodestar” method is used to calculate attorney’s fees for purposes 

of fee awards, Tollett y. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 367-68 (Sth Cir. 2002); McAfee v. Schneider 

Nat'l Carriers, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-1500-P, 2015 WL 9319178, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2015). 

In calculating a lodestar, the number of hours reasonably expended are multiplied by an 

appropriate hourly rate in the community for such work. Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813, 

829 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Heidtman v. Cty. of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038, 1043 (Sth Cir. 1999)). The 

Court then considers whether the lodestar figure should be adjusted upward or downward based 

on the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717- 

19 (Sth Cir. 1974), overruled on other grounds by Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S, 87 (1989). See 

Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 457 (Sth Cir. 1993). “The lodestar, however, is presumptively 

reasonable and should be modified only in exceptional cases.” Watkins, 7 F.3d at 457; see Black 

y. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492, 496 (Sth Cir. 2013). 

Defendants’ requested costs and fees are as follows: 

1. Reporter, February 1-2, 2024, depositions: $2268.50; 

2. Reporter, Court Ordered Deposition of Mr. Vargas: $964.50; 

3. Videographer, February 1-2, 2024, depositions: $1525.00; 

4, Videographer, Court Ordered Depositions: $1295.00; 

5. Deposition location, February 1-2, 2024, depositions: $1280.00; 

6. Reasonable travel expenses for counsel, February 1-2, 2024, depositions: $950.30; 

7. [Attorney’s fees for the] Filling [sic] of Defendants’ motion: $13,198.75; 

8. [Attorney’s fees for the] February 1-2, 2024, deposition: $3555.00;

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 232 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID 5873
9, [Attorney’s fees for the] Court Ordered Depositions: $2666.25. 

(ECF 228 at 2-3). 

As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ requested costs all comply with this Court’s order 

and are hereby GRANTED. Turning now to attorney’s fees, Defendants’ application and 

appendix in support reveal that Defendants’ counsel billed a total of $19,420.00 for four days of 

depositions and the relevant motion for sanctions. (ECFs 228, 229). The record also reflects that 

Defendants’ counsel billed at a rate between $350.00 and $395.00 which is reasonable in this 

district. See, eg., Cloud v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan, No. 3:20-cv-1277-S, 

2022 WL 2805527 at *13 (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2022). The Court finds that, pursuant to the loadstar 

method, the number of hours billed, and the billing rate are reasonable. Additionally, having 

considered the Johnson factors, the Court finds that the lodestar does not require any modification. ! 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ application is GRANTED with regard to their 

attorney’s fees. 

 

' Specifically, the Court notes the following: (1) the time and labor required is proportional to the number of 

hours expended and the hourly rates charged by Defendants’ counsel; (2) the issues involved were neither novel nor 

particularly difficult and did not require, based on the reasonable hourly rate requested and the amount of hours 

expended, a modification; (3) the hourly rate and amount of hours expended was reasonable in light of the novelty 

and difficulty of the discovery and sanction issues involved; (4) Defendants’ counsel was precluded from doing other 

work, which was taken into consideration in the number of hours expended and the hourly rate; (5) Defendants’ 

counsel sought a reasonable and customary fee based upon their skill, experience, and reputation; (6) the fee sought 

appears to be a fixed fee billed by Defendants’ counsel to Defendants; (7) the number of hours expended and hourly 

fee charged was reasonable in light of the time limitations imposed by the Court; (8) the number of hours expended 

and hourly fee charged was reasonable based on the fact that Defendants were successful in pursuing their motion 

against Plaintiffs and based upon the type of case involved, (9) Defendants’ counsel has considerable experience, a 

good reputation, and a successful law practice as evidenced by the exhibits submitted to the Court; (10) this case is 

not particularly undesirable and, thus, no upward modification is required; (11) there is no information regarding the 

length of Defendants’ counsel’s relationship with Plaintiff; and (12) the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded is not 

excessive based on awards in similar cases, 

 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 232 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID 5874
CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants’ Application should be 

GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendants are entitled to $19,420.00 in reasonable attorney’s 

fees and $8,283.30 in costs. 

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel shall pay Defendants $19,420.00 in 

reasonable attorney’s fees and $8,283.30 in costs for a total of $27,703.30. Payment is due within 

30 days of the date of this order unless the parties and counsel agree to a different payment 

schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

SIGNED April 2, 2024. 

 

 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 232 Filed 04/02/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID 5875