18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1040a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1810AHER
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Appellate — Amount — Hours requested by attorney are reduced where much of time charged was duplicative of time spent by lead appellate counsel, and case was county court case seeking less than $15,000 in damages — Expert witness fee and prejudgment interest are awarded
HERNANDEZ, ANDRES, HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 02-12604 CC 05. July 17, 2011. Gladys Perez, Judge.
FINAL JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on July 13, 2011 for hearing of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and the Court’s having reviewed the Motion and entire Court file; received evidence; heard argument; and been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Background
The Plaintiff is seeking 10.7 hours, at a rate of $500.00 per hour. The Defendant advised the Court that the Defendant did not object to 4.2 hours of time claimed by Plaintiff’s counsel. It is important to note that Mr. Michael Libman is seeking fees for appellate time, and Mr. Stuart Yanofsky actually drafted the brief and argued the case on appeal. The defense expert believed that Plaintiff’s counsel should be awarded $450.00 an hour, rather than the $500.00 sought.
The Court set the matter for hearing on July 13, 2011. The Plaintiff’s expert, Ms. Sadie Naveo, Esq., agreed to a .8 reduction. The Court has also considered the detailed written submissions of both parties, including the time billed by Mr. Yanofsky, appellate counsel, the argument of the attorneys, and the controlling case law. In addition, the Court is quite familiar with and conducted its own thorough review of all matters of record in this case. This Court has presided over hundreds of PIP cases, and is quite familiar with the issues involving the pleadings, discovery, strategy, motion practice, trials, judgments, and appeals, related to PIP cases litigated in South Florida.
Conclusions of Law. The Court has determined that the number of hours reasonably expended by Plaintiff’s counsel in this case is a total of 4.5 hours.
The Court has also determined based upon the criteria set forth in Disciplinary Rule 4-1.5(b) of the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Responsibility that a reasonable hourly rate for the hours expended by Plaintiff s counsel is $450.00. The Court has considered all testimony presented on this issue, including Plaintiff and its expert.
In making its ruling, the Court specifically considered the following factors in determining the reasonable hourly fee and the reasonable number of hours spent litigating this case:
A. The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the question involved and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
B. The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer.
C. The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.
D. The amount involved and the results obtained,
E. The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.
F. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.
G. The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services.
H. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
In determining an appropriate hourly rate, the issue for the Court is whether the “difficulty of the question involved and the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly” militates in favor of a higher hourly rate for PIP work.
Additionally, based on controlling case law dealing with the issue of awarding of attorney’s fees, the Court notes several guidelines to assist in determining whether a fee is reasonable:
· As a general rule, duplicative time charged by multiple attorneys working on the case is usually not compensable. See Donald Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D1481c](“A party has the right to hire as many attorneys at it desires, but the opposing party is not required to compensate for overlapping efforts . . .”). The Court finds that much of Plaintiff’s counsel’s time is duplicative, as Mr. Yanofsky was lead appellate counsel. Thus, for example, Plaintiff’s counsel should not have spent time reading transcripts or taking notes.
· The Court should also consider the amount of fees sought in relation to the amount in dispute. See Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 948 So.2d 1027, 1032-33 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D548b]. In determining whether the fee sought in this case is reasonable, the Court has therefore considered that this is a County Court case seeking less than $15,000 in damages.
· The Court should further consider whether it has received adequate documentation to support the number of hours claimed. As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, “inadequate documentation may result in a reduction in the number of hours claimed.” Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1150 (Fla. 1985). This is true because “Florida courts have emphasized the importance of keeping accurate and current time records of work done and time spent on a case, particularly when someone other than the client may pay the fee.” Id. The Court finds that the documentation supporting the fee request in the instant was generally adequate, except for counsel’s “notes” which could not be provided as a single or multiple documents, but were located on pleading, files, etc.
· A trial court is not bound by the testimony of an expert, even when no opposing expert testimony is presented. See Baldwin Piano & Organ Co. v. Dote, 740 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D1972a].
The ultimate goal of all the guidelines set forth above is to determine whether a fee is “reasonable.” The Court therefore finds that 4.5 hours for Mr. Libman, Esq. at an hourly rate of $450.00 is reasonable.
Finally, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s expert is entitled to a reasonable fee of $800 (2 hours at $400), which was agreed to by the Defendant. The Court further finds that interest shall accrue from January 7, 2011. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall recover the sum of $2,025.00 (the reasonable attorney fee for the law firm that represented the Plaintiff) from the Defendant, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, [Editor’s Note: Address Omitted], plus interest thereon at 6% per annum from January 7, 2011 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum until paid, for which sums let execution issue.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s attorney fee expert, Ms. Sadie Naveo, Esq., shall recover the sum of $800.00, representing 2 hours at $400.00 per hour that shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum until paid, for which sum let execution issue.
