UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

) LABORERS ’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ) ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-620 (RMC) ) ) (consolidated w ith Civ. No. 09-1128 (RM C)) BRAND ENERG Y SERVICES L LC, et al ., ) ) Defendan ts. ) )

MEMORAN DUM OP INION I n the construc tion indust ry , work jurisdiction disputes require speedy arbitration due to the fa ct that many

work proje cts are not long ter m. Forc ing c ourt litigation by ref using to comply with an ar

bitration awa

rd is, presumably , intended to be one rous. Refusingto comply with an ar bitration awa

rd ca n have ne g ative conse quence s, as her e whe re the party who re fused to comply with the arbitration awar d lost in court and is contrac tually obligated to pay

the opposing pa

rty ’s fe es and c osts. Seeking to confirm an a

rbitration awa

rd in its favor on a

work jurisdiction dispute, L abore rs’ International Union of North Amer ica ( “L IUNA” ) broug ht this sui t ag ainst the unions whose membe rs had be en aw arde d the work: Pac ific Northwe st Regiona l Council of Carpenter s, United B rotherhood of

Carpente rs and Joiners of Amer ica, Car penter s L ocal 1849, a

nd Millwrights L ocal 1699 ( collectively the “Car penter s”). On August 30, 2010, the Court gr anted

1

L IUNA a lso sued the employ er who failed to a ssign the w ork to L IUNA, B rand Ene rg y 1 Service s L L C (“B rand” ). See L I UNA’ s Resp. to Order of the Court [Dkt. # 35] (setting forthL I UNA’ s Amended Petition to Confirm Arbitration [Dkt. # 3] , confirme d the Marc h 23, 2009

Arbitrator ’s Awa

rd, and g rante d L I UNA’ s reque st for attorne y s’ fe es and c osts. SeeOp. & Orde r [Dkt. ## 33 & 34]. All t hat re mains is for the Court to deter mine the prope r amount of attorney s’ fee s and costs. I. F ACTS

When L I UNA f

iled suit for enfor ceme nt of the ar bitration awa

rd, the Car

penter s filed a se parate counter

suit, Ci vil Case No. 09-1128, a g ainst L IUNA, seekinga dec laratory 2 judgme nt that the Carpente rs ar e not bound by the awa rd. The Ca

rpente rs orig inally

filed Case No. 09-1128 in the Western D istrict of Washington, but the ca se wa s transfe rre d here and consolidated with this one. The Court then stayed the c onsolidated ca ses pendinga dec ision of the National L abor Relations Boar d (“N L RB”) in a par allel ca se, Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Car

penters , 19-CD-499. On June 11, 2010, the NL RB issued its decision in that para llel case , finding that the NL RB did not have jur isdiction over the wor k dispute beca

use all parties we re bound by

a Plan for the Settlement of J urisdictional Disputes in the Construction I ndustry (the “ Plan”). SeeNotice [Dkt. # 26], Ex . A (June 11, 2010 NL RB De cision) at 6; Am. Pet. to Confirm Arbitration [Dkt. # 3] , Ex . A (Plan). “ I n signingthe Participation Ag ree ment, Reg ional Carpente rs was not mer ely actingas an a g ent for its loca ls, but rather obta ined its own rig hts and obligations under that ag ree ment. Acc ording ly , as a pa rty to the Participation

proof of service ). B rand ha s not appea red or filed any pleading s in this case, and L IUNA ha s not pursued Clerk’ s entry

of def ault ag ainst Br and. Thus, simultaneously with this Opini on the Court will is sue an O rder to Show Cause to L IUNA why Br and should not be dismissed for lac k of prose cution. The Car penter s also broug ht suit nom inally ag ainst Br and. 2 -2-Ag ree ment, Reg ional Carpente rs is bound to the Ag ree ment’s re quirement that the Plan be used

to resolve jurisdictional disputes.” NL RB De cision at 6.

The Plan Arbitrator previously had issued a de cision that the Carpe nters we re improperly

perf orming work that should have been a ssigne d to L IUNA, a nd order ed B rand to assig n the sca ffolding work in question to L IUNA. SeeAm. Pet. [ Dkt. #3], Ex . E (Mar . 23, 2009 Arbitrator ’s Awa

rd) ( “Ar bitrator’s Aw ard” ) at 20. B eca use the NL RB dete rmined that the pa rties

wer e bound by

Plan arbitration and be cause the Arbitrator had de cided the w ork jurisdiction dispute, this C ourt order ed the pa rties to show ca

use why the Arbitrator’s Awa

rd should not be confirme d. I n response , the Carpe nters voluntarily dismiss ed their c ountersuit, Civil Case No. 09-1128, and f

iled notice that they

did not oppose the enfor ceme nt of the Arbitra tor’s Awa rd. See Voluntary

Dismissal [ Dkt. # 28]; Notice of Non-Opposition [Dkt. # 27] . Thus, the Court g rante d L I UNA’ s Amended Petition to Enforce Arbitration as c oncede d. SeeOp. & Orde r [Dkt. ## 33 & 34]. The Court also g rante d L IUNA’ s reque st for attorne y s’ fe es and c ost, pursuant to the Plan. The Plan provides, “ [a] party seekingenfor ceme nt of an Ar bitrator’s de cision . . . due to the failure of anothe r par ty to abide by

the dec ision . . . shall be reimbursed by the par ty failing to abide by

the dec ision . . . for any

attorney s’ fe es, cour

t costs, and expenses incurr ed.” Plan, Art. VI I§ 2(c) . Under

the Plan, beca

use L IUNA soug ht (and won) enfor ceme nt of the Arbitrator ’s Awa

rd due to the f

ailure of the Carpe nters to abide by the Awa rd, the Car

penter s are require d to reimburse L I UNA f or attorne y s’ fe es and c osts for this enforc ement ac tion. L IUNA submitted a De clar ation of F ees a nd Costs seeking r eimbursement f rom the Carpe nters for

leg al servic es re ndere d by L IUNA’ s counsel, Gue rrier i, Clay man, B artos, and

-3-Parce lli, P .C. (“GCB P”), and its local c ounsel in the State of Washing ton, McKay Chadell, PL L C. The primary

attorney s assig ned to this case w ere J oseph Gue rrier i, J r., and Elizabeth Roma. For 331.60 hour s of leg al servic es fr om April 2009 until August 2010, L IUNA se eks $95,480.11 ($91,612.00 in fee s plus $3,868.11 in costs). SeeDec l. of Elizabeth Roma (“Roma Dec l.”) [Dkt. # 37] ¶26. L I UNA a lso seeks an a dditional $9,006.25 for 33.75 hours of le g al service s relatingto the fee application. Id . ¶ 27. The Ca rpente rs object. II. ANALYSIS “The usual method of ca lculating rea sonable attorney s’ fe es is to multi ply the hours re asonably

expended in the litigation by a re asonable hourly

fee , producing

the ‘lodestar ’ 3 amount.” Bd. of Trs. of

Hotel &Restaurant Employee s Local 25 v. JPR, I

nc. , 136 F.3d 794, 801 (D.C. Cir. 1998). While there is a strongpresumption that the lodestar f igur e re prese nts a

rea sonable fe e, the a

mount may

be adjusted by

a multiplier in rare and exceptional ca ses. Id. (quoting Delaware Valley , 478 U.S. at 565). The f ee a pplicant bea

rs the burde n of demonstrating that the claimed r ate a

nd number of hour s are rea sonable. Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984); Covington v. Dist. of Col umbia , 57 F.3d 1101, 1107 ( D.C. Cir. 1995).

A. Rate s “[A]n attorney ’s usual billing rate is presumptively the re asonable rate , provided that this rate is in line with those preva iling in the community for similar ser

vices by lawy ers of

rea sonably

compar able skill, experience and re putation.” Kattan by Thomas v. District of Columbia , 995 F.2d 274, 278 ( D.C. Cir. 1993). A rate deter mined this way

is usually

deeme d to

The “ lodestar” approa ch to fe e aw ards wa s established by the Supreme Court in Hensley 3 v. Ec kerhart , 461 U.S. 424 (1983), and is the a pproac h followed by

the fe dera l courts in most fee awa rd disputes. See G isbrecht v. Barnhart , 535 U.S. 789, 802 (2002). -4-be re asonable and is ref err ed to as the “ preva iling mar ket rate.” Blum , 465 U.S. at 895 n.11. Given the va

riation in attorney s’ skills and experience s, the preva iling mar ket ra te for e stablished prac titioners is higher

than that for young er la

wy ers. See id. Reasonable attorney s’ fe es include c harg es for leg al assistants and law c lerks. Missouri v. Jenk

ins , 491 U.S. 274, 285 (1989) (“ Thus, the fe e must take into ac count the wor k not only of attorne y s, but also of secr etar ies, messeng ers, libra rians, janitors, and othe rs whose labor c ontributes to the work produc t for which a n attorney bills her client; and it must also take

acc ount of other e x penses a nd profit.”) . Var ious forms of litigation ex penses that a re not fe es for attorney s’ time — such as c opying c harg es, cour t reporte r fe es, and tra

vel costs — may

also be included in the aw ard if suc h expenses are routinely billed by the attorne y

to his or her c lient. See Ne w Y

ork v. M icrosoft Corp. , 297 F. Supp. 2d 15, 47-48 (D .D.C. 2003). The LaffeyMatrix was de veloped by the United States Attorney ’s Off ice f or the 4 District of Columbia to track pre vailing attorney s’ hourly rate s for c omplex fede ral litigation. I t “cr eate s one axis for a lawyer’ s y ear s of experienc e in complicate d fede ral litigation and a sec ond [ax is] for r ates of c ompensation.” Griffin v. W ash. Convention Ctr. , 172 F. Supp. 2d 193, 197 (D.D.C. 2001). The LaffeyMatrix provides the preva iling mar ket ra tes for c omplex fede ral litigation in the District of Columbia. Covington , 57 F.3d a t 1109. This suit was not “complex,” but most of the rates cha rg ed we re lowe r than the L aff ey rate s. The L aff

ey Matrix l ists the rate for

attorney s having more than 20 y ear s of

See Laffey v . Northw est Airlines, Inc. , 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D .C. 1983), aff’d in part, 4 rev’d in part on other grounds , 74 F.2d 4 ( D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. de nied , 472 U.S. 1021 (1985), as modified by Save O ur Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. H odel , 857 F.2d 1516, 1524 ( D.C. Cir. 1988). -5-experience as $465 fr om J une 2008 throug h May 2010, and subseque ntly

highe r. SeeRoma Dec l., Ex . B ( L aff

ey Matrix). Mr. Guerr ieri, who ha s more than 30 y ear s of experienc e repr esentinglabor org anizations in st ate a nd fede ral c ourt, billed L IUNA at the rate of $350 per hour. The pa

rale g al who assisted the attorney s, Whi tney McGuire , was c harg ed out at a r ate of $125 per hour , and the L aff ey Matrix s ets forth a

threshold for a

para leg al rate at $130 per hour from June 2008 to May

2010 and more there afte r. 5 Only cer tain hourly

rate s char g ed for

the servic es of Ms. Roma excee ded the L aff ey rate s. The L aff

ey Matrix l ists the rate for

attorney s who have four to seve n y ear s of experience as $270 fr om J une 2008 to May 2010 and $275 fr om J une 2010 to May 2011. Ms. Roma, who has more than six y ear s of experienc e, billed L IUNA at the rate of $250 per hour befor e De cembe r 2009, a r ate be low the L aff ey threshold. Ms. Roma char g ed $275 per hour afte r De cembe r 2009. This cha rg e excee ded the L aff

ey threshold, and then when the L aff ey rate

was ra ised, met the threshold.

I n sum, the hourly

rate s set forth in the fe e af fidavit and attached bills that wer e below pre vailing ma

rket ra tes for this ar ea f

or complex feder al litigation ar e appr opriate, a s this

case was not complex. Ms. Rom a’s r ate that met or exceede d the L aff

ey threshold for c omplex

case s was excessive. Ac cording ly , Ms. Roma’s rate w ill be reduc ed to $250 per hour for the entire bill.

McKa y Chadwell provided 23.40 hour s of leg al servic es. I ts attorney s, David Wilson 5 and Thomas B renna

n, wer e billed at prope r rates based on the ir experience . Mr. Wils on has 35 y ear s of experienc e and billed at the rate of $325 per hour. Mr. B renna

n has 10 y ear s of experience and billed at $280 per hour. SeeRoma Dec l. ¶ 25.

-6-B. Numberof H ours Bill ed and S uf fi ciency of Inf

orm ation Pr ovided Fe e applications must “include c ontemporane ous time recor ds of hours wor ked and rates claimed, plus a de tailed desc ription of the subject matter of the wor

k with supporting documents, if any .” In re Donov an , 877 F.2d 982, 994 ( D.C. Cir. 1989). A fe e applica nt may satisfy its burden of de monstrating that its t ime was re asonably spent by submitt ing “ ‘suffic iently detailed infor

mation about the hours log g ed and the work done ’ that per mits t he district cour

t to ‘make an indepe ndent deter mination whether or

not the hours claimed a

re justified.’” Cobell v. Norton , 231 F. Supp. 2d 295, 306 (D.D .C. 2002) (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Ve terans v. Sec’ y of Def. , 675 F.2d 1319, 1327 ( D.C. Cir. 1982)). The a pplication need not, howe ver, “pre sent the exact number of minutes spent nor the pre cise a ctivity to which ea ch hour w as devoted nor

the spec ific attainments of e ach attorney .” Cobell , 231 F. Supp. 2d at 306

. The number

of billable hours in a f

ee a pplication may

be re duced f

or fa ilure to allocate tasks eff

iciently among attorney s based on their experience , i.e ., wher e re sear ch tasks ar e perf ormed by relatively senior attorne y s more fr equently than see ms justi fiable, or wher e some attorney s’ ef

forts have been duplica

ted by others. Davis County Solid W aste Mgmt. &Rec overy Special Serv . Dist. v. EPA , 169 F.3d 355, 761 (D.C. Cir. 1999). F urther, “ [h] ours may also be reje cted whe n work de scriptions are so g ener al that a c ourt ca nnot asce rtain the re asonable ness of the time claimed.” Id. I f a c ourt deter mines that duplication or waste of ef fort has oc curr ed, it has the discr etion to simpl y reduc e the pr oposed fe e by a re asonable amount without an item-by -item ac counting

. LaPrade v. Kidder Peabody &Co. , 146 F.3d 899, 906 ( D.C. Cir. 1998). Outrig ht denial of a fee reque st or an item within the reque st is appropriate where a cour t finds that particula

r fe e re quest “outra g eously unrea sonable.” Id.

-7-GCBP kee ps appropr iate conte mporane ous time recor ds ref lectingthe date, hour s spent, and the nature of the work done , in quarter -hour incr ements. Roma Dec l. ¶ 9. The rele vant itemized bill ing statements are attache d as Exhibi ts to Ms. R oma’s De clar ation. The Carpente rs claim that these billing statements set for th vag ue desc riptions and contain “bloc k billing” whic h inappropriately lumps dist inct tasks toge ther. The Court disag ree s. The billing statements provide suf

ficient de tail to permit the Court to “make a n independe nt determination whether or not the hours c laimed ar e justified.” Cobell , 231 F. Supp. 2d at 306. The billing descr iptions can be re ad in context, with clarification coming f rom surroundingbilling entrie s as well as the doc ket. Heard v . District of Columbia , Civ. No. 02-296 (CKK), 2006 WL2568013, at *14-15 (D .D.C. Sept. 5, 2006). Fur ther, the c ase w as prope rly staffe d; the majority

of the work wa s done by

one assoc iate, Ms. Roma. The f ee f or ser vices fr om April 2009 to Aug ust 2010 alre ady

was a ppropriate ly

reduc ed for

service s relatingonly

to the litigation ag ainst Br and, for c erta in travel c osts (for District of Columbia counse l to travel to Washington), a nd for c erta in service s rende red by

local counse l (to avoid duplicate billing ). SeeRoma Dec l. ¶¶ 21-23, 25. Even so, the Court does f ind that the 33.75 hours billed for the w ork re lated to the fee petition is ex cessive. T he pre para tion of the fee application consisted of g ather ing bills, draf ting a n aff idavit, and dra fting a re ply to the Carpente rs’ objec tions. These straig ht-forw ard tasks could have been a ccomplished in half the time. Accor dingly , L IUNA’ s reque st for fe es and costs associate d with the fee petition will be reduce d by 50%. Thus, the Car

penter s will reimburse L I UNA f

or fe es and c osts related to the f ee a pplication in the amount of $4,503.13, and not in the amount of $9,006.25 a s L IUNA r equeste d.

-8-III. CONCLUSION Acc ording ly , L I UNA’ s application for attorney s’ fe es and c osts [ Dkt. # 37] wil l be g rante d in part and de nied in part a s set forth above . For leg al servic es re lated to the fe e application, the Car

penter s shall pay

L IUNA $4,503.13 in fe es and c osts. For leg al servic es fr om April 2009 until August 2010, L I UNA sha ll reca lculate the attorney s’ fe es and c osts to account for the r eduction in Ms. Roma’s hourly rate and shall submit a proposed or der c onsistent with this Opinion.

Date: Oc tober 25, 2010 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER United States District J udg e

-9-