|
In Lakeman v Weed, 2011 WL 824588 (D.Minn.) the
matter was before the court on Court on a request for attorney fees and
costs brought by Petitioner Holly Rae Lakeman. On December 13, 2010, the
Court granted Lakeman's Petition for Return of a Child. Section 11607 of
ICARA permits a prevailing petitioner under the Act to recover necessary
expenses, including attorney fees. In its Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Order, the Court reserved ruling on Lakeman's request for
attorney fees pending further submissions by the parties. Lakeman
requested attorney fees and costs totaling $23,078.66 in U .S. dollars
and $16,179.20 in Canadian dollars and expenses totaling $1,000.22 in
U.S. dollars and $3,614.10 in Canadian dollars.
The Court noted that any court ordering the
return of a child pursuant to an action brought under ICARA shall order
the respondent to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the
petitioner, including court costs, legal fees, foster home or other care
during the course of proceedings in the action, and transportation costs
related to the return of the child,unless the respondent establishes
that such order would be clearly inappropriate. 42 U.S.C. 11607(b)(3).
In calculating reasonable attorney fees, the Court begins by calculating
the "lodestar"– the product of the number of hours reasonably expended
on the litigation and the reasonable hourly rate at which those hours
should be billed. (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433
(1983). The reasonableness of a fee depends upon a number of factors,
including "the plaintiff's overall success; the necessity and usefulness
of the plaintiff's activity in the particular matter for which fees are
requested; and the efficiency with which the plaintiff's attorneys
conducted that activity." (Citing Jenkins v. Missouri, 127 F.3d 709, 718
(8th Cir.1997). Lakeman provided the Court with an affidavit documenting
the hours expended in seeking the return of ATW and the billing rates
requested for those services. The Court concludeed that the majority of
the attorney fees and costs requested were reasonable. The hourly
billing rates submitted by Lakeman's Minnesota counsel were reasonable
and commensurate with the rates of other attorneys in the area with
similar knowledge and practice experience. (Citing Warnock v. Archer,
397 F.3d 1024, 1027 (8th Cir.2005) ("when fixing hourly rates, courts
may draw on their own experience and knowledge of prevailing market
rates"). While the Court disagreed with Weed's argument that fees and
costs related to the proceedings in Canada were not necessary to the
return of the child, it reduced the hourly rate to be applied to the
hours expended by Lakeman's Canadian counsel to the $275 rate charged by
Lakeman's Minnesota attorney. The Court also disagreed with Weed's
argument that work done by Lakeman's counsel in the proceedings in
Dakota County was not necessary to the return of ATW. Based on the
record before the Court and the Court's consideration of the experience
of counsel, however, the Court found that the amount of time spent on
certain matters was excessive in light of the tasks completed. The Court
therefore found that a reduction in fees and costs to $32,481.48 was
appropriate and consistent with the submitted billing reports. The Court
observed that recoverable costs under ICARA include "foster home or
other care during the course of proceedings in the action, and
transportation costs related to the return of the child." 42 U.S.C.
11607(b)(3). Lakeman provided the Court with an affidavit documenting
travel and other expenses incurred during the days on which she was in
Minnesota related to the proceedings. These expenses included airfare,
hotel, meals, and activities. The Court concluded that Lakeman's
expenses for airfare and hotel during the proceedings were necessary to
the return of the child. The Court concluded that costs related to meals
and other incidental expenses during Lakeman's time in Minnesota were
not necessary and declined to award such costs. The Court therefore
reduced the requested expenses to $3,930.35. The Court noted that while
a large portion of Lakeman's requested travel expenses were requested in
Canadian dollars, Lakeman did not present an exchange rate for the Court
to apply. The Court's award converted Canadian dollars to U.S. dollars
using a rate of 1:1, which based on current rates represents only a
slight reduction in the award.
The Court observed that ICARA provides that
expenses should not be awarded to a prevailing petitioner when such an
award would be "clearly inappropriate." The Court concluded that a
reduction in the overall award of ten percent (10%) was appropriate. The
Court thus awarded Lakeman $32,770 in attorney fees, costs, and travel
expenses. The Court noted that, based on the submitted affidavits, the
parties appeared to have similar financial circumstances. Beyond a ten
percent reduction, therefore, Weed's financial circumstances did not
render such an award clearly inappropriate.
|
