Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Preferred Investments, Inc. v. T&H Bail Bonds

Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle

March 25, 2014

Preferred Investments, Inc.
v.
T&H Bail Bonds, et al.

Date Submitted: December 15, 2013

Date Revised: March 28, 2014

Dear Counsel:

This matter is before me on objections by Plaintiff, Preferred Investment Services, Inc. (''PISI''), to the affidavit setting out the claimed reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses filed by counsel for Defendants on December 2, 2013 (the ''Affidavit''). For the reasons that follow, I grant Defendants $287, 339.99 in attorneys' fees and expenses, with up to an additional $19, 914.77 for Defendants' expenditures relating to expert testimony, subject to my instructions set forth below.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In its July 24, 2013 Memorandum Opinion, the Court, among other rulings, ordered PISI to pay to Defendants 80% of the attorneys' fees and expenses that Defendants reasonably had incurred in this litigation.[1] Then, on July 31, PISI filed a motion for reargument or clarification of the Memorandum Opinion under Court of Chancery Rules 59(e) and 59(f). In a Letter Opinion entered on November 21, the Court denied that motion and directed counsel for Defendants to file, within ten days, an affidavit "setting forth, in detail, the basis for their claimed reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses."[2] In addition, the Court permitted PISI to file thereafter a letter setting forth, in detail, any objections to Defendants' claimed attorneys' fees and expenses.

Defendants' counsel filed their Affidavit on December 2. PISI then filed objections to various aspects of the Affidavit on December 16. Both Defendants' counsel and PISI filed responsive letters on December 17 and 18, respectively. This Letter Opinion addresses the Affidavit and PISI's objections to it.

A. The Affidavit

In all, Defendants' counsel seek $484, 011.82 in attorneys' fees and expenses (the "Proposed Fee Award-). They broke down that amount as follows:

Fees incurred by Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, P.C. (''EG&S'')

$148, 980.00

Fees incurred by Gordon Fournaris & Mammarella, PA (''GF&M'')

190, 739.00

Expenses incurred by EG&S

6, 961.33

Expenses incurred by GF&M

11, 185.54

Expenses incurred by Defendants personally

5, 309.12[3]

Expenses incurred by Defendants related to expert

24, 893.46

Fees that have accrued on loan taken out by Defendants from a "litigation lending service, ' which loan is now in default

221, 946.32

Gross Proposed Fee Award

610, 014.77

Less 20%, accounting for the Court’s award of 80% of fees and expenses

-122, 002.95

Adjusted Gross Proposed Fee Award

488, 011.82

Less this Court’s previous award of $4, 000 in “attorneys’ fees and costs” to Defendants (the “August 7, 2012 Award”) [4]

-4, 000.00

Net Proposed Fee Award [5]

$484, 011.82

In addition, as discussed infra, Section III, Defendants' counsel provided a breakdown of hours, tasks, and billable rates for all the individuals whose time comprised the Proposed Fee Award.

II. PISI'S OBJECTIONS

Primarily, PISI objects to three aspects of the Affidavit.[6] PISI first contends that the Affidavit is not supported sufficiently for it or the Court to assess the reasonableness of the Proposed Fee Award. Specifically, on December 6, PISI had requested from Defendants' counsel: (1) timesheets; (2) the fee agreements with the two firms that represented Defendants; (3) "the financing agreement with whoever financed the [attorneys' fees]-; (4) the payment status of the attorneys' fees; and (5) "any attorney fee arrangements related to the success of the attorney fee application."[7] PISI asserts that it cannot object in detail to the Affidavit, as the Letter Opinion requires, because Defendants' counsel did not attach this information to the Affidavit and also refused to produce it. In addition, PISI has cited to this Court's decision in Weichert Co. v. Young[8] for the proposition that "a determination that attorneys' fees are reasonable requires an analysis of specific time entries as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.