United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
ABBY ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A NEW ENGLAND CONTRACTORS, LLC PLAINTIFF
v.
BRIDGEWATER OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., MIKE ROSENTHAL AND JOHN / JANE DOES 1-5 DEFENDANTS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
F.
KEITH BALL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before
the Court is Defendants' Motion for Sanctions [62], filed
September 6, 2017. After being given an extension to respond,
Robinson filed her response on December 10, 2017 [70]. After
considering the motion and Robinson's response, the Court
finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in
part.
On
August 8, 2017, the Court entered an order [49] granting
Defendants' motion to compel [24] and ordering that
Robinson provide certain discovery responses to Defendants by
August 18, 2017.[1] Robinson, an attorney, entered an
appearance on her own behalf on August 14, 2017, the same day
that her counsel sought to withdraw from the case. [52],
[53]. Robinson failed to provide Defendants the court-ordered
discovery, leading Defendants to file their motion for
sanctions [62] on September 6, 2017. The Court granted
Robinson's counsel's motion to withdraw on September
11, 2017. [65]. Because her counsel withdrew over her
objections, the Court gave Robinson sixty days to find new
counsel. [65] at 1. Once Robinson obtained new counsel, the
Court permitted her thirty days to respond to any currently
pending motions, including the motion for sanctions [62].
Id.
New
counsel for Robinson, Mr. Willie Abston, entered his
appearance on November 2, 2017, meaning that Robinson had
until December 4, 2017, to file a response to the motion for
sanctions [62]. Compare [65] with [68]. As
of December 5, 2017, the Court still had not received a
response from Robinson to the motion for sanctions, despite
the deadline having passed. The Court, sua sponte,
entered a text-only order extending the deadline for Robinson
to respond to the motion for sanctions [62] to December 15,
2017.
Robinson
filed her response to Defendants' motion for sanctions
[62] on December 10, 2017. See [70]. Despite having
counsel, Robinson filed the response and signed it herself.
Id. Robinson's response does not address the
Court's Order [49] granting Defendants' motion to
compel [24]. Her response does not discuss the discovery at
issue, nor does it explain her reasons for failing to provide
the court-ordered discovery nearly four months after the
deadline had passed. See [70].[2]
As of
the date of this order, the docket reflects no service of the
court-ordered discovery responses that were due by August 18,
2017. [49]. Robinson has provided no explanation as to why
she has not provided the court-ordered discovery responses.
Due to
her failure to provide the court-ordered discovery responses,
the Court finds that Abby Robinson - not her counsel - should
be sanctioned by an award to Defendants of attorney's
fees related to the motion for sanctions [62]. The Court does
not find that this case should be dismissed as a sanction, as
requested by Defendants in their December 15, 2017, rebuttal.
[72]. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for sanctions is
granted to the extent that Defendants are awarded reasonable
attorney's fees incurred in drafting and filing this
motion for sanctions. Defendants' motion is denied to the
extent it sought any other relief, including dismissal of
Robinson's complaint.
The
Court also imposes a new deadline by which Robinson must
provide the discovery at issue. Robinson has until April 25,
2018, to provide Defendants full and complete responses to
Defendants' Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 18, as addressed in
Order [49]. Failure to do so will result in additional
sanctions against Robinson.
When
determining a reasonable attorney's fee award, courts
apply the lodestar method. Under this method, the court
multiplies the “number of hours reasonably expended [on
the matter] . . . times a reasonable hourly rate” to
determine the “lodestar” figure. Blum v.
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984). In determining the
amount to be awarded, the court may then adjust the
“lodestar” upward or downward based on
consideration of several factors, for example, the time and
labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions,
and the skill requisite to perform the legal service
properly. See Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express,
Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974). The court
bases the “reasonable hourly rate” awarded on the
“prevailing market rates in the relevant
community.” Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. And the
“hourly fee awarded must be supported by the record;
the district court may not rely on its own experience in the
relevant legal market to set a reasonable hourly billing
rate.” McClain v. Lufkin, 649 F.3d 374, 383
(5th Cir. 2011).
At this
time, Defendants' counsel have not submitted record
evidence of their billing rate or time expended on the motion
for sanctions [62]. Further, no record evidence regarding the
prevailing market rate has yet been submitted. However, in an
attempt to avoid additional time, fees, and effort being
expended by both parties on the sanction issue and to
conserve judicial resources, the undersigned provides the
following analysis to propose a reasonable fee award. Having
reviewed the filings related to the motion for sanctions, the
undersigned proposes a total of 4 hours as a reasonable
expenditure of time on these matters. Further, based on the
hourly rates awarded in other cases in federal court in
Mississippi and considering the Johnson factors, the
undersigned proposes an hourly rate of $200.00 per hour as
reasonable. See Lighthouse Rescue Mission, Inc. v. City
of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, Civil Action No.
2:12-cv-184-KS-MTP, 2014 WL 1653108, n. 4 (S.D.Miss. April
23, 2014)(listing cases awarding rates from $150.00 to
$275.00 per hour). The undersigned proposes this rate based
on consideration of the Johnson factors,
particularly the simplicity of the issues presented.
Accordingly, the undersigned proposes an attorney's fee
award of $800.00.
If the
parties and counsel are willing to accept the
undersigned's proposal on the fee award, they need take
no further action on this motion. If unwilling to accept the
undersigned's proposal as to the fee award, either party
may file a response to this order by April 25, 2018, and any
requisite evidence must be submitted with any such response.
Such a response shall be limited only to the Court's
calculation of the fee award, and shall not address the
Court's decision to award sanctions. If neither party
files a response to this order by the deadline of April 25,
2018, this order will automatically become final without
further order from the undersigned. Abby Robinson, and not
her attorney of record, is responsible for the attorney's
fees awarded to Defendants and shall pay the award to
Defendants' counsel within 21 days of the final order.
IT IS,
THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants' motion for sanctions
[62] is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:
1. Abby
Robinson shall pay $800.00 to Defendants' counsel by May
16, 2018, unless this order is modified by further order of
this Court;
2. Abby
Robinson will provide to Defendants full and complete
responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 18, as addressed by the
Court ...