because that court accepts service by mail. We agree that the expense was unnecessary to the

removal and therefore exclude it from our final calculation of costs.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons listed above, we find that the defendants are entitled to a fee award in the
amount of $1,724.88. Specifically, we award 1) $1,296.25 in attorney’s fees (8.0 hours spent by
Zeglis at an hourly rate of $150 per hour and 0.25 hours spent by Blocker at a rate of $385.00 per
hour); 2) $50 for paralegal costs (1 hour spent filing at a rate of $50 per hour); 3) $25 for the time
that the defendants’ docket personnel spent filing on September 15, 2003; 4) $203.63 for the cost of
computerized legal research; and 5) the $150 filing and appearance fee paid to remove the action to

federal court. It is so ordered.

MARVIN E. ASPEN —
United States District Judge

Dated uf iafo4



ne

hourly rate for time spent filing Filing documents with a court is the type of activity that can be
done by a paralegal and therefore should be billed at a paralegal’s rate. Zeglis billed 0.5 hours for
filing on August 18, 2003 and 0.25 hours for filing on September 15, 2003. On August 15, 2003, Zeglis
billed 4.0 hours for “[d]rafting and filing notice of removal.” She did not break down how much of that
time was spent for filing and how much was spent for drafting. We thus estimate that she spent 0.5 hours
filing that day and subtract 0.5 hours from the total 4.0 hours that she billed. In calculating the amount
of hours that may be billed at her hourly rate, we accordingly subtract a total of 1.25 hours that
Zeglis billed for filing. Instead, we will allow that time to be billed at the paralegal rate of $50 per
hour. See Holland v. Barnhart, No. 02-c-8398, 2004 WL 419871, *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2004)
(finding $50 per hour to be a reasonable rate for billing paralegal services). Having said that, we
also note that on September 15, 2003, Zeglis billed 0.25 hours for filing and, in her affidavit, she
submitted a statement for $25 for her docket clerk’s time spent filing. This is duplicative, so we will
allow the $25 charge for the docket clerk’s time but will not include the 0.25 hours billed by Zeglis
for filing on that day. We thus subtract 0.25 hours from the 1.25 hours that will be billed at the
paralegal rate (leaving a total of 1.00 hour spent for filing by Zeglis, billed at a rate of $50 per hour).

O’Shea’s next argument is that the $175.00 per hour rate charged for work performed by
Zeglis, a 2002 law school graduate, was too high. We agree that a rate of $150.00 per hour is a more
reasonable rate for an attorney with only one year of experience.

Finally, O’Shea argues that the defendants should not be able to recoup $80.00 that they paid

to a court filing service for filing their notice of removal in the Circuit Court of DuPage County

We do not know exactly what Zeglis meant when she used the word “filing.” We assume that
she meant filing with the court. However, even if she used the word to mean that she spent time
organizing her files, we still believe that this is the type of work that should be billed at a paralegal’s
hourly rate.



Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

Name of Assigned Judge Marvin Aspen Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 5746 DATE 4/14/2004
CASE Tara B. O’Shea vs. Walt Disney World Co., et al
TITLE

of the motion being presented. ]

MOTION:

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e-g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

DOCKET ENTRY:

OFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 CIFRCP41(a)(1) [2 FRCP41(a)(2).

entitled to a fee award in the amount of $1,724.88.

(il) @f [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. ]

qd) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

Q) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon set for_— at

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on___set for___—_at

(6) oO Pretrial conference{held/continued to} [set for/re-set for]on__ssetfor_ at
(7) i] Trial[set for/re-set for]}on_ at.

(8) im) [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__—_at

(9) Qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

en! (Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order: We find that the defendants are

No notices required, advised in open court

No notices required. ter of

Document
Number

av | Notices mailed by judge’s staff, APR 1 5 2004

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. docketingisbuly initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
a/i472008

date mailed novice
courtroom

GL deputy’s
initials

ou

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office ailing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

TARA B. O’SHEA,
Plaintiff,
Vv.

WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., a Florida
Corporation, d/b/a WALT DISNEY WORLD and
DISNEY’S OLD KEY WEST RESORT, DISNEY
REALTY, INC., a Florida Corporation, and WALT
DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, DISNEY VACATION
CLUB MANAGEMENT CORP., a Florida
Corporation, and DISNEY VACATION
DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida Corporation,

No. 03 C 5746

DACKETED

APR 15 2004

we SS SS SS SSS SS

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge.

In our order of November 5, 2003, we remanded the present action and ordered that
Plaintiff's attorney, Patrick J. O’Shea, pay the defendants’ reasonable costs and expenses associated
with the removal and subsequent remand of the case. Defendants filed an affidavit which lists their
costs associated with the removal and remand, and Mr. O’Shea has filed his objections. For the
reasons set forth below, we award fees and costs in the amount of $1,724.88.

ANALYSIS

Defendants submitted a request for $2,242.38 in fees and costs. One of their attorneys, Julie
K. Zeglis, filed an affidavit in which she described the work that she and another attorney, Mark
Blocker, performed on the case. Zeglis is a junior-level associate with the firm Sidley, Austin,

Brown & Wood who bills at an hourly rate of $175 per hour. She states that she spent 9.50 hours



working on the removal and remand. Blocker is a partner who bills at an hourly rate of $385.00. He

spent 0.25 hours working on the case. In the fee affidavit, Zeglis also requests: 1) $50 for the time of
Sidley’s docket personnel; 2) $203.63 for the cost of computerized legal research; 3) a $150 filing
and appearance fee incurred in removing the action to federal court; and 4) an $80 service fee paid to
an outside service for filing the defendants’ notice of removal in the Circuit Court of DuPage
County.

Plaintiff's attorney makes several objections to these charges.' First, he argues that the
defendants’ attorneys spent an unreasonable amount of time preparing the notice of removal and
response to the motion to remand, Zeglis avers that she spent 4.0 hours preparing and filing the
notice of removal, which is a four-page document, and 4.5 hours preparing the response to the
remand motion, which is also a four-page document. We find that it is reasonable for an attorney to
spend four to five hours researching and drafting a four-page document, and therefore reject
O’Shea’s request to reduce the number of hours billed for those tasks.

We do agree with O’Shea’s argument that he should not have to pay for time spent preparing
and filing a motion for an extension of time in which to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. We
therefore deduct 0.25 hours for the amount of time charged by Zeglis for that motion, as well as the
$25 charge billed by Sidley’s docketing personnel for filing the motion.

We also agree with O’Shea’s argument that Zeglis should not have billed at an attorney’s

'One of the listed objections to Zeglis’ affidavit is that it does not specify that the information
contained therein was made under oath, nor does it include an explicit statement that the information is
true. However, Zeglis has signed her affidavit, and, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, her
signature constitutes a certification that the allegations have factual support. Thus, we assume that the
affidavit and all of the exhibits presented along with the affidavit were submitted in good faith. We
accordingly reject the plaintiff's arguments that we should ignore some of the billing statements attached
as exhibits to Zeglis’ affidavit because they do not specify that the charges were related to the present
case