1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)

FREDERICK JOINER and ELEANOR )

JOINER, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0429-GB-B

)

BAYROCK MORTGAGE CORP., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs’ application for award of costs and

attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 39). After a review of the plaintiffs’ motion and the file in general, the

court finds that the requested costs are reasonable. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ application for costs

and fees is GRANTED, and the plaintiff will be awarded a total of $14,400.00 for attorneys’ fees

and $437.21 for costs. 

On April 7, 2009, this court entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their

claims that Bayrock Mortgage Corp. (“Bayrock”) violated the Truth-in-Lending-Act (“TILA”),

15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq, and that Bayrock, 1st Continental Mortgage, Inc. (“Continental”), and

Pleska & Douglas, LLC (“Pleska”) violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (Doc. 37). Civil damages were awarded jointly and

severally in the amount of $42,412.50 against Bayrock and Continental for the RESPA claims,

and statutory damages were awarded in the amount of $4,000 against Bayrock for the TILA

claim and $4,735.50 against Pleska for RESPA violations. This court also awarded attorneys’

Case 1:08-cv-00429-CG-B Document 45 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 3
1

 In their motion for an award of costs and attorneys’ fees, the plaintiffs asserted Mr.

Underwood incurred 36.5 hours of time in connection with this case. (Doc. 39). However, in the

later submitted itemized time sheet, the total hours connected with this case was 39.13. (Doc.

43).

2

fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3) and 12 U.S.C. § 2607(d)(5) which provide

respectively for the recovery of “the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee

as determined by the court” and also for the retrieval of “the court costs of the action together

with reasonable attorneys’ fees.” 

In Hensley v. Eckerhart, the Supreme Court explained that the starting point for

determining a “reasonable” fee is the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation

multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” The applicant bears the burden of establishing

entitlement and documenting the reasonable hours expended and reasonable hourly rates. 461

U.S. 424, 433 (1983); see also Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 427

(11th Cir. 1999). However, where the rates or hours claimed seem excessive or lack the

appropriate documentation, a court may calculate the award based on its own experience,

knowledge, and observations. Norman v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d

1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 1988)(citing Davis v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs of Mobile County, 526 F.2d

865, 868 (5th Cir. 1976)).

The plaintiffs filed a motion for an award of costs and attorneys’ fees on April 20, 2009.

(Doc. 39). On May 20, 2009, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit by Max Cassady, a licensed

attorney, who stated a rate of $300.00 per hour was reasonable in these types of statutory federal

actions, and also submitted two time sheets for Kenneth Riemer and Earl P. Underwood, Jr., who

incurred 11.5 hours of time and 39.13 hours of time respectively in connection with this case.1

 

Case 1:08-cv-00429-CG-B Document 45 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 3
3

This court concludes that a rate of $300.00 per hour is appropriate.

A district court should exclude from the fee calculation hours that were not “reasonably

expended.” In other words, a plaintiff cannot recover fees related to “excessive, redundant, or

otherwise unnecessary” hours that his lawyers worked. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. “Redundant

hours generally occur where more than one attorney represents a client.” Norman, 836 F.2d at

1301-1302. The plaintiffs are requesting an award of attorneys fees for two attorneys. Although

“[t]here is nothing inherently unreasonable about a client having multiple attorneys”, (Id. at

1302), the hours of multiple attorneys are only recoverable if the fee applicant “satisfies his

burden of showing that the time spent by those attorneys reflects the distinct contribution of each

lawyer to the case and is the customary practice of multiple-lawyer litigation.” Am. Civil

Liberties Union of Ga., 168 F.3d at 432; see Johnson v. Univ. Coll. of Univ. of Ala. in

Birmingham, 706 F.2d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 1983). The court finds that the plaintiffs have met

this burden. As a result, the court finds that the fees requested are reasonable.

CONCLUSION

For the above stated reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to retax costs and fees is GRANTED to

the extent that plaintiffs are awarded a total of $14,400.00 for attorney’s fees and $437.21 for

costs. 

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00429-CG-B Document 45 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 3