Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CITIZENS STATE BANK, 

a Florida corporation, f/k/a

THE CITIZENS BANK OF 

PERRY, a Florida corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-224-SPM-GRJ

DIXIE COUNTY, a political 

subdivision of the State of Florida,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Dixie County’s Notice of Filing

Affidavit Of Gail C. Bradford. (Doc. 69.) On August 29, 2011 the Court entered an

order (Doc. 68) granting Defendant’s Motion To Compel Answers To Interrogatories

And Responses To Requests To Produce From The Plaintiff (Doc. 60). In that order,

the Court directed Defendant within ten days to file an affidavit detailing its attorney’s

fees and costs incurred in filing the motion to compel. (Doc. 68.) Defendant’s counsel

filed her affidavit on September 6, 2011, within the ten day period, requesting an award

of $1,118.00 for attorney’s fees for time spent preparing the motion to compel and

communicating with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the outstanding discovery requests.

Plaintiff was given ten days after the filing of any such affidavit to file a response to the

amount of requested fees. To date Plaintiff has not responded and the time period for

doing so has long since passed. Accordingly, the Court will award Defendant’s counsel

attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,118.00. 

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 78 Filed 10/03/11 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

 DISCUSSION

Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery prescribes the law in the

Eleventh Circuit for determining the appropriate award of attorney’s fees. Under

1

Norman, the Court must multiply the number of hours reasonably expended by a

reasonable hourly rate under what is known as the “lodestar” approach. After the

2

Court has determined the “lodestar,” the Court may adjust the amount depending upon

a number of factors, including the quality of the results and complexity of the litigation.3

As a starting point, the party seeking attorney’s fees begins by submitting evidence of

the hours worked. The Court should then exclude (1) excessive or otherwise

unnecessary hours, (2) redundant hours, and (3) hours spent on discrete and

unsuccessful claims. 

4

Under Norman, “[t]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement

and documenting the appropriate hours and hourly rates.” The applicant must submit 5

to the court evidence of the hours reasonably expended on the litigation and if an

applicant presents inadequate documentation of the hours expended, then the court

may reduce the attorney’s fee award accordingly.

6

Fee opponents also have a role to play in assisting the court in determining the

appropriate amount of hours to be included in an award of attorney’s fees. Fee

836 F.2d 1292 (11 Cir. 1988).

1 th

Id. at 1299, 1302.

2

Id. at 1302.

3

Id. at 1301-02.

4

Id. at 1303.

5

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).

6

Case No: 1:10-cv-224-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 78 Filed 10/03/11 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

opponents must point to hours that should be excluded because they are unnecessary,

duplicative or redundant. In addition, “a fee opponent’s failure to explain exactly which 7

hours he views as unnecessary or duplicative is generally viewed as fatal.” Objections

8

and proof to the unreasonableness of requested hours must also be reasonably precise

and specific, as the Eleventh Circuit has noted that “[g]eneralized statements that the

time spent was reasonable or unreasonable are not particularly helpful and are not

entitled to much weight.” 

9

The second part of the lodestar analysis is to determine the reasonable hourly

rates for the hours for which the fee applicant is seeking attorney’s fees. The fee

applicant must “supply[] the court with specific and detailed evidence from which the

court can determine the reasonable hourly rate.” The Eleventh Circuit has stated that

10

“[a] reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community

for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and

reputation.” The prevailing party bears the burden of establishing through satisfactory 11

ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11 Cir. 1999) (quoting Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301) (“Those

7 th

opposing fee applications have obligations, too. In order to carry out their duties in this area, ‘objections

and proof from fee opponents’ concerning hours that should be excluded must be specific and ‘reasonably

precise.’”).

Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc., 203 F.Supp. 2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 2002); see

8

also Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 125 F.3d 1387, 1389 (11 Cir. 1997)(noting that mere

th

conclusory objections to hours submitted by the applicant will not suffice to justify exclusion of the hours

by the court).

Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1301 (11 Cir. 1988)(“As the district

9 th

court must be reasonably precise in excluding hours thought to be unreasonable or unnecessary, so

should be the objections and proof from fee opponents.”). See also Nitram, Inc. v. Indus. Risk Insurers,

154 F.R.D. 274, 277 (M.D. Fla. 1994)(“However, the fee opponent has the burden of pointing out with

specificity attorney hours that are allegedly redundant.”); Rivera Santiago v. W . G. Roe & Sons, Inc., Case

No. 8:07-cv-1786-T-27MAP, 2010 W L 2985697, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2010) (“Therefore, the hours that

Defendants did not raise specific objections to will be accepted.”).

Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303.

10

Id. at 1299.

11

Case No: 1:10-cv-224-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 78 Filed 10/03/11 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

evidence that the applicant’s requested hourly rate is in line with the prevailing market

rates in the relevant community. The relevant community is the place where the case 12

was filed. Because Plaintiff failed to file a response in opposition to the amount

13

requested, the Court lacks the benefit of the scrutiny and analysis from the opposing

party. Nonetheless, even in the absence of a response from Plaintiff, the Court has a 14

duty to ensure that the Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is reasonable.15

The Court, of course, is itself an expert with regard to the hourly rates charged in the

local community.16

Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of attorney’s fees and expenses in the total

amount of $1,118.00 is comprised exclusively of services performed by Gail C.

Bradford, an associate at the law firm representing Defendant in this case. Ms.

Bradford does not specify how long she has been admitted to practice in Florida, but a

review of her entry on The Florida Bar’s website reflects she has been admitted to

practice law in Florida since 2000.

With regard to the services performed by Ms. Bradford, Plaintiff requests

Id.

12

ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 437 (11 Cir. 1999) (citing Cullens v. Georgia Dep’t of Transp.,

13 th

29 F.3d 1489, 1494 (11 Cir. 1994)) (“The general rule is that the ‘relevant market’ for purposes of

th

determining the reasonable hourly rate for an attorney’s services is ‘the place where the case is filed.’”).

See, e.g., Godoy v. New River Pizza, Inc., 565 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (noting

14

that the adversarial process normally aids the Court in determining whether the amount of attorney’s fees

requested is “reasonable.”).

Id.(citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983)).

15

Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303 (quoting Campbell v. Green, 112 F.2d 143, 144 (5 Cir. 1940))(“‘The

16 th

court, either trial or appellate, is itself an expert on the question and may consider its own knowledge and

experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an independent judgment either with or

without the aid of witnesses as to value.’”).

Case No: 1:10-cv-224-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 78 Filed 10/03/11 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

reimbursement of $1,118.00 for 8.6 hours of work at the rate of $130.00 per hour. Ms.

Bradford expended time drafting and revising Defendant’s Motion To Compel Answers

To Interrogatories And Responses To Requests To Produce From The Plaintiff. (Doc.

60.) She also requests time for communicating on the telephone with Plaintiff’s counsel

regarding outstanding discovery requests and drafting email correspondence to

Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the outstanding discovery requests and responses.

Although Plaintiff did not respond to Ms. Bradford’s affidavit – and has thus not

challenged any of the requested hours as unnecessary, duplicative or redundant or

specified any hours that the Court should exclude from the requested fees – the Court,

nonetheless, has made an independent review of the services performed by Ms.

Bradford. Ms. Bradford expended 8.6 hours of time preparing, editing and filing the

motion to compel and preparing email correspondence to opposing counsel in an effort

to obtain the outstanding discovery. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the 8.6 hours of time expended by Ms. Bradford

were reasonable and represent legal services which were necessary to resolve

successfully the issues caused by Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery

requests.

The Court also concludes that the hourly rate requested by Ms. Bradford is

reasonable and represents an hourly rate at the low end of the hourly rates generally

charged by lawyers of comparable skill and experience in the North Central Florida

legal market. The Court’s assessment of the reasonable hourly rate is based upon the

information contained in Ms. Bradford’s affidavit as well as the Court’s own experience.

Case No: 1:10-cv-224-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 78 Filed 10/03/11 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

The Court in the final analysis is itself an expert as to the prevailing hourly rate in the

relevant legal market. 

 In sum, the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to the sum of $1,118.00

for attorney’s fees, representing 8.6 hours of attorney time at the rate of $130.00 per

hour. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Defendant Dixie County is awarded attorney’s fees in the sum of $1,118.00

pursuant to the Court’s August 29, 2011 Order awarding attorney’s fees to Defendant.

(Doc. 68.) Plaintiff is directed to submit payment for the attorney’s fees to counsel for

the Defendant within ten (10) days of the date of this Order

 DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of October, 2011. rd

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-224-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 78 Filed 10/03/11 Page 6 of 6