12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1179b
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Amount — Attorney’s fees awarded without application of contingency risk multiplier — Expert witness fee, costs and prejudgment interest awarded
HIALEAH OPEN MRI, INC. a/a/o Robert Cannady, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 02-29472 SP 23 (01). September 7, 2005. Myriam Lehr, Judge. Counsel: Craig H. Blinderman and Mary-Margaret Warren, Mrejen Blinderman, P.L., Ft. Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Lewis Robinson.
ORDER DETERMINING AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Upon review of the Court file and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
1. That counsel for the Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.
2. This Court has considered all the factors enumerated in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based on the testimony of the parties and expert witnesses presented, the reasonable number of hours expended by Craig H. Blinderman, Esquire in this matter is 29.6 hours. The reasonable number of hours expended by Mary-Margaret Warren, Esquire in this matter is 25.4 hours.
3. Pursuant to Rowe and the factors enumerated in the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, this Court finds that Craig H. Blinderman, Esquire is entitled to be compensated at the rate of $325.00 per hour for his time. Mary-Margaret Warren, Esquire is entitled to be compensated at the rate of $250.00 per hour for her time.
4. These findings of $325.00 per hour for Craig H. Blinderman, Esquire and $250.00 per hour for Mary-Margaret Warren, Esquire are based upon evidence presented concerning fees customarily charged in Miami-Dade County by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation for the quality of legal services performed in this case, the nature of the professional relationship between the Plaintiff and its counsel, and the reputation and ability of Craig H. Blinderman, Esquire and Mary-Margaret Warren, Esquire.
5. This Court has also considered all of the factors enumerated in Standard Quality Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990). Specifically, this Court finds that no multiplier shall be awarded and none was sought by the Plaintiff.
6. The Court finds that Kenneth J. Dorchak, Esquire is entitled to recover an expert witness fee for his testimony in this matter. The Court further finds that Mr. Dorchak was required to take time out of his practice to testify before the Court and it was burdensome for him to do so. Mr. Dorchak testified that he expected to be compensated for the time spent preparing and testifying for his hearing. Accordingly, this Court finds that Mr. Dorchak expended a total of 2 hours preparing for and testifying in this matter. He is to be compensated at a rate of $325.00 per hour for his time.
7. This Court further finds there are costs incurred by Craig H. Blinderman, Esquire in connection with this matter in the amount of $794.00.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
8. That Craig H. Blinderman, Esquire is entitled to be compensated at the rate of $325.00 per hour for his time prosecuting this cause. Mary-Margaret Warren, Esquire is entitled to be compensated at the rate of $250.00 for her time prosecuting this cause as well.
9. That counsel for the Plaintiff reasonably expended 55 hours in the prosecution of this lawsuit.
10. That the lodestar (the reasonable hours expended by Plaintiff’s counsel, multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate) is N/A.
11. That no multiplier shall be awarded.
12. That counsel for Plaintiff is entitled to $794.00 in costs.
13. That Kenneth J. Dorchak, Esquire is entitled to $650.00 for his expert testimony.
14. The applicable pre-judgment interest is $281.52.
15. The total attorneys fees, applicable costs and interest yields a total fee award of $17,695.52 for Plaintiff’s counsel; for which sum let execution issue.
16. This Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce this Order as well as issue any further relief it deems appropriate and just.
* * *
