1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

FRESH AMERICA CORP., §

 §

Plaintiff, § Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-1299-M

v. §

 §

ALLEN LUND COMPANY §

 §

Defendant, §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are Defendant Allen Lund Company’s (“Lund”) Objections to Order on

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s (“Wal-Mart”) Partial Objection to Order

on Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, each filed on August 8, 2005. For the reasons stated below, the

Objections are OVERRULED.

This case involves a dispute between Fresh America Corporation (“Fresh America”) and

Wal-Mart for unpaid produce charges, and claims by Lund against Fresh America and Wal-Mart

for unpaid shipping charges for that produce. On August 4, 2003, Wal-Mart filed an interpleader

complaint, disclaiming any interest in the $165,000 at issue, and seeking to have the Court

determine which of the claimants, Fresh America or Lund, was entitled to the fund. On March

31, 2005, the Court determined that this was a proper case for statutory interpleader, and WalMart was dismissed from the case. Shortly thereafter, Wal-Mart filed a Motion for Attorneys’

Fees, seeking an award of $48,000. On June 2, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01299-M Document 147 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1006
2

referred Wal-Mart’s Motion to Magistrate Judge Irma C. Ramirez for hearing, if necessary, and

determination. See Gregg v. Linder, No. 02-1429, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3518, at *7 (E.D. La.

Mar. 8, 2004) (finding that a motion for attorneys’ fees is a nondispositive matter for which a

magistrate judge may issue an order, and not merely a report and recommendation). In a detailed

opinion (“July 25 Opinion”), Magistrate Judge Ramirez awarded Wal-Mart $23,982 in attorneys’

fees and costs. 

Lund challenges this award, arguing that (1) the July 25 Opinion was based on a record

erroneously supplemented contrary to the Court’s March 31 Opinion; (2) the July 25 Opinion

fails to detail the factual basis upon which the award was calculated; and (3) the July 25 Opinion

is contrary to precedent. Wal-Mart objects to Magistrate Judge Ramirez’s calculation of what

sum of attorneys’ fees to award.

A Magistrate Judge’s “ruling on a nondispositive matter is effective immediately, and

immediately appealable to the district court.” Id. at *7 (citing Sunview Condo. Ass'n v. Flexel

Int'l, Ltd., 116 F.3d 962, 964 (1st Cir. 1997)). A district court may reconsider a Magistrate

Judge’s determination of a non-dispositive matter where it has been shown that the Magistrate

Judge’s order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Guidry v. Jen Marine L.L.C., No. 03-

0018, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18930, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A)). “The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard is quite deferential to the Magistrate and

requires the District Court to have a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed.’” Estate of J. Edgar Monroe v. Bottle Rock Power Corp., No. 03-2682, 2005 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 760, at *10 (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2005) (citing Concrete Pipes & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v.

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01299-M Document 147 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 1007
3

Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993)). The Court reviews the

Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo, and her factual findings for clear error. See Lahr

v. Fulbright & Jaworski, 164 F.R.D. 204, 209 (N.D. Tex. 1996). 

Lund argues that Magistrate Judge Ramirez exceeded her authority by requiring WalMart to supplement its Motion with detailed billing records. Lund classifies this supplement as a

reply, and argues that this Court’s March 31, 2005, Opinion prohibited Wal-Mart from filing a

reply to its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. While it is true that the Order of Referral did not purport

to modify this Court’s March 31 Opinion, Magistrate Judge Ramirez did not order Wal-Mart to

file a reply. Instead, she required Wal-Mart to file billing statements. Wal-Mart’s supplement

contained no arguments or authority. It merely compiled the bills that had been submitted by its

attorneys. Lund and Fresh America were permitted to respond to Wal-Mart’s supplement, and

thus suffered no prejudice from this supplement. In any case, by the Court’s Order of Referral,

Magistrate Judge Ramirez was empowered to direct the submission of any and all evidence she

found was necessary for her determination of the Motion. Magistrate Judge Ramirez clearly did

not exceed her authority in permitting the supplement. The Court overrules Lund’s Objection on

this point.

Lund also objects that the July 25 Opinion fails to detail the factual basis upon which the

award was calculated. This Objection is without merit. The July 25 Opinion used the lodestar

method to determine the proper award. A chart in the July 25 Opinion lists Wal-Mart’s

attorneys, the hours they spent, and their billing rates. July 25 Op. at 9. The Opinion describes

the hours deducted from the amounts listed in the chart and how Magistrate Judge Ramirez

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01299-M Document 147 Filed 09/01/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 1008
4

arrived at the $23,982 award. The Court finds that the factual basis for the award was

sufficiently described and thus the Court overrules Lund’s Objection on this point.

Lund’s third argument is that the July 25 Opinion was contrary to precedent. The Court

agrees in the typical case, an award of this size would not be made in an interpleader action. See

Noeller v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 190 F.R.D. 202, 208 (E.D. Tex. 1999) ( “[T]ypically an attorney's

fee in an interpleader case will be modest.”). However, this was a particularly complicated

interpleader action. See Lund Obj. at 4 (“A fair evaluation of the record reveals this is no

ordinary case involving a simple, statutory interpleader.”). Magistrate Judge Ramirez properly

considered the complexity of this case when she determined the propriety of awarding attorneys’

fees in this case. The court in Noeller listed five factors that should be examined in determining

whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded in an interpleader case. Id. at 207. Magistrate Judge

Ramirez examined each factor and specifically commented as to how each factor weighed in her

decision. The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Ramirez’s analysis was not contrary to law or

clearly erroneous. Therefore, the Court overrules Lund’s Objection on this point.

Wal-Mart objects to the July 25 Opinion as to the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded. 

Wal-Mart sought $48,000 in fees and costs, and was awarded $23,982. Magistrate Judge

Ramirez found that Wal-Mart’s request should be reduced by $24,018. Wal-Mart mentions that

the amounts deducted by Magistrate Judge Ramirez were already taken into account when it

reduced its fee request from the $96,500 it actually billed to the $48,000 it sought. Therefore, it

argues that it should have been awarded the entire $48,000 which it requested. The evidence

before Magistrate Judge Ramirez did not clearly indicate what reduction had been made, the fee

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01299-M Document 147 Filed 09/01/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 1009
5

requested, or why. “In an interpleader action, the broad rule [for determining an award of

attorneys’ fees] is reasonableness.” Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Estate of Chan, No. C-03-2205,

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16943, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2003) (citing Trs. of Dirs. Guild of

Am. Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 426 (9th Cir. 2000)). Magistrate

Judge Ramirez exercised her discretion in determining the reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees

to be paid and in determining that the evidence before her did not demonstrate that proper

adjustments would yield more than $23,982 in fees. There is no evidence that she abused her

discretion in determining this award. 

It should also be noted that the amount awarded is large compared to many other

interpleader cases. While it is true that the amount requested was significantly more than the

amount awarded, often attorneys’ fees awards in interpleader actions are substantially less than

the amount requested. See e.g., Sternitzke v. Pruco Life Ins. Co., 64 Fed. Appx. 582, 583 (7th

Cir. 2003) (upholding a district court’s decision to grant half of the attorneys’ fees requested in

an interpleader action); Trs. of the Dirs. Guild of Am. Producer Pension Benefits Plans, 255

F.3d at 662 (upholding district court’s decision to award $3,000 in attorneys’ fees rather than the

more than $97,000 requested); Goat, Inc. v. Four Finger Art Factory, No. 01-Civ-10079, 2002

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22800 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2002) (awarding $7,000 in attorneys’ fees instead of

the requested award of $27,583.10); Johnson v. Electrolux Corp., 763 F. Supp. 1181, 1189 (D.

Conn. 1991) (awarding $1,000 in fees and costs rather than the $7,422.07 requested); Chem.

Bank v. Richmul Assocs., 666 F. Supp. 616, 619 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (awarding $7,357 in fees and

costs rather than the $26,570.44 requested). The attorneys’ fees awarded reduced the $165,000

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01299-M Document 147 Filed 09/01/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 1010
6

stake by approximately 15 percent. If Magistrate Judge Ramirez had awarded Wal-Mart the

amount of attorneys’ fees it had requested, the stake would have been reduced by nearly a third.

This Court cannot conclude that Magistrate Judge Ramirez’s decision to award attorneys’

fees less that the amount requested was unreasonable. Thus, the Court finds her well-reasoned

July 25 Opinion neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the Court overrules

Wal-Mart’s Objection.

Magistrate Judge Ramirez’s July 25 Opinion is AFFIRMED and the Objections are

OVERRULED.

SO ORDERED.

September 1, 2005.

_________________________________

Barbara M. G. Lynn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01299-M Document 147 Filed 09/01/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 1011