Butler v. MBNA Technology Inc. , 140 F. App'x 542 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 25, 2005
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10728
FIROOZEH H. BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
GARY WILLIAMS PARENTI FINNEY LEWIS McMANUS WATSON & SPERANDO,
P.L.,
Appellant,
versus
MBNA TECHNOLOGY INC., formerly known as MBNA Hallmark Information
Services, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:02-CV-1715)
Before KING, Chief Judge, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gary, Williams, Parenti, Finney, Lewis, McManus, Watson &
Sperando, P.L. (the Gary Firm) challenges the $265,205.07 award to
MBNA Technology, Inc., for attorney’s fees.
The Gary Firm filed this action for Firoozeh Butler, a woman
of Iranian descent, against MBNA, presenting nine claims for
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
employment discrimination under federal and Texas law. MBNA was
awarded summary judgment on all but two claims - hostile work
environment and retaliation, under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
During a jury trial, the § 1981 claims were dismissed for
failure to state a claim, and MBNA was granted judgment as a matter
of law on the hostile work environment and retaliation claims
premised on poor performance evaluations. Accordingly, only the
retaliation claim based on Butler’s reclassification was submitted
to the jury; it found for MBNA.
Our court upheld the judgment as a matter of law and held the
jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence; therefore, the
judgment was affirmed. Butler v. MBNA Tech., Inc., 2004 WL
2244203, at *5 (5th Cir. 24 Sept. 2004) (unpublished), cert.
denied, 125 S. Ct. 1737 (2005).
MBNA moved in district court for costs and, except for the one
claim submitted to the jury, sought attorney’s fees incurred from
the end of discovery through trial ($268,860.15). (The Gary Firm
does not contest the costs award.) The district court found the
attorney’s hourly rates reasonable; denied the fee request for
defending against Butler’s hostile work environment claim; and
instructed MBNA to reduce its fee request in the light of that
disallowed claim.
MBNA submitted a supplemental request for $236,218.65 (the
previous request, less the calculated amount for the disallowed
2
claim) and $28,986.42 (additional fees incurred for its costs and
fees motion). MBNA’s supplemental request was supported by time
records showing the reductions for the disallowed claim and by
affidavits of the billing attorneys. The Gary Firm filed
objections, claiming, inter alia: MBNA’s fee request was not
supported by adequate documentation; and the rates applied to hours
billed were not reasonable.
After reviewing the supplemental request and supporting
material, as well as the Gary Firm’s objections, the district court
overruled the objections and awarded fees of $265,205.07 (the
reduced amount of $236,218.65 and the $28,986.42 for the costs and
fees motion). The district court found: MBNA had reasonably
expended 713.2 hours on claims for which fees were allowed; and the
applied hourly rates, between $261 to $355, were reasonable, as
previously found.
We review the district court’s award of attorney’s fees for
abuse of discretion; its factual findings, for clear error. See
Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell v. Metal Sales Mfg. Corp., 236
F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 2000); Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 457
(5th Cir. 1993). Based on our review of the record, and
essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s 1 March
and 10 May 2004 Memorandum Opinions and Orders, we conclude that
the district court neither abused its discretion nor clearly erred
in its attorney’s-fees award to MBNA.
3
AFFIRMED
4