United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Attorney's Fees and Costs [ECF 25]
(“Motion”). The Motion is fully briefed.
See ECFs 26-28. After careful consideration of the
pertinent law and the briefing, the Court will
GRANT the Motion and award Plaintiff fees
and costs in the amount of $23, 134.67.
3, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff summary judgment on its
breach of contract claim against Defendant. See Mem.
Op. and Order, ECF 23. The Settlement Agreement at the center
of this lawsuit expressly contemplated the award of
attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party in any
litigation arising out that agreement. Id. 1 n.1
(citing Compl., ECF 1, Ex. A ¶ 16). Consequently, in
addition to awarding summary judgment to Plaintiff, the Court
also ordered Plaintiff to file a separate “motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2).”
Id. ECF 23 n.1. Plaintiff complied by filing the
instant Motion, in which it seeks attorney's fees ($22,
734.67, including gross receipts tax) and costs ($400.00) in
the combined amount of $23, 134.67.
by this Court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order,
“Florida law governs the Agreement, ” a
proposition with which neither party disagrees. ECF 23 at 5;
see also Compl. Ex. A ¶ 14 (Choice of Law and
Venue Provision); see generally, Resp. Mot. Summ.
J.; Resp. Mot. Att'ys Fees.
courts employ the federal lodestar method in determining
reasonable attorney's fees. Fla. Patient's Comp.
Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1150 n.5 (Fla. 1985)
(“These factors are essentially the same as those
considered by the federal courts in setting reasonable
attorneys' fees.”). Once a “contract triggers
a court-awarded fee, the trial court is constrained by
Rowe and its progeny in setting a fee that must be
reasonable.” First Baptist Church of Cape Coral,
Florida, Inc. v. Compass Construction, Inc., 115 So.3d
978, 980-985 (Fla. 2013)).
lodestar method requires a court to multiply the number of
hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable
hourly rate for the services of the prevailing party's
attorney. Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1150-1. In addition,
the product of that multiplication, otherwise known as the
“lodestar figure, ” may be enhanced where
necessary by an appropriate multiplier. Id. Courts
must consider the following factors to arrive at the lodestar
(1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty
of the question(s) involved, and the skill requisite to
properly perform the legal service(s).
(2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the
acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other
employment by the lawyer.
(3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar
(4) The amount involved and the results obtained.
(5) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the
(6) The nature and length of the professional relationship