Marc Kieler v. Lend Me It, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARC KIELER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2025-0150-DG ) LEND ME IT, INC., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER GRANTING THE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL A. O’BRIEN PURSUANT TO RULE 88

WHEREAS:

A. On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Verified Complaint

Under 8 Del. C. § 220.1

B. Defendant did not appear or otherwise submit a timely response

to the Verified Complaint.2

C. On April 3, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Entry of Default

Judgment Against Defendant.3

1 Dkt. 1. 2 See Ct. Ch. R. 12(a)(1); Dkt. 11 (defense counsel enters appearance on June 23). 3 Dkt. 8. D. On June 6, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, and entered

judgment against Defendant.4 The Court also awarded Plaintiff his

“attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses” incurred in this action.5

E. On June 24, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the Affidavit of Daniel A.

O’Brien Pursuant to [Court of Chancery] Rule 88 (“Fee Affidavit”).6

F. In the Fee Affidavit, Plaintiff’s counsel sought $262,789.75 in

attorneys’ fees and court costs, reflecting 293.3 hours of work to obtain the

default judgment.7

G. On July 1, Defendant filed its Motion for Relief From Judgment,

seeking to vacate the Court’s June 6 order (“Motion to Vacate”).8

H. On July 18, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to

Vacate.9

I. On October 30, the Court entered an order denying the Motion

to Vacate and denying the Fee Affidavit in part.10

4 Dkt. 9. 5 Id. ¶ 4. 6 Dkt. 13; Ct. Ch. R. 88. 7 Dkt. 13 ¶¶ 4–5, 8 See Dkt. 15. 9 Dkt. 21. 10 See Dkt. 29.

–2– J. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for fees for actions that

“Plaintiff’s counsel would have taken if Defendant litigated this action.

[Including] all services rendered drafting the [demand for books and records],

preparing and filing [Plaintiff’s complaint], and reviewing Defendant’s

interim document productions.”11

K. The Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to submit supplemental

filings to help it assess the reasonableness of the remainder of Plaintiff’s fee

request.12

L. On November 14, Plaintiff filed the Supplemental Affidavit of

Daniel A O’Brien Pursuant to Rule 88 (“Supplemental Fee Affidavit”) and

the additional exhibits responsive to the Court’s October 30 order.13 The

Supplemental Fee Affidavit requested $39,298.70 in fees related to the

Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant and responding to

the Motion to Vacate.14

IT IS ORDERED, this 19th day of November, 2025, that:

1. Plaintiff’s fee request is GRANTED. Defendant shall pay

$39,298.70 to Plaintiff’s attorneys.

11 Dkt. 29 ¶ 26. 12 Id. ¶ 27–28. 13 Dkt. 30. 14 Id. ¶ 8.

–3– 2. “Delaware law dictates that, in fee shifting cases, a judge

determines whether the fees requested are reasonable.”15 In assessing

reasonableness, “[t]he Court has broad discretion in determining the amount

of fees and expenses to award.”16

3. To evaluate reasonableness, the Court considers the factors set

forth in Rule 1.5(a) of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional

Conduct.17

4. While the Court need not “examine individually each time entry

and disbursement,”18 the Court should consider “whether the number of hours

devoted to litigation was “excessive, redundant, duplicative or otherwise

unnecessary.”19

5. The Court is satisfied that the fees requested by Plaintiff are

reasonable, and recommends that Plaintiff be awarded in the amount of

$39,298.70 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

15 Bruckel v. TAUC Hldgs., LLC, 2023 WL 4583575, at *17 (Del. Ch. July 17, 2023) (quoting Mahani v. Edix Media Gp., Inc., 935 A.2d 242, 245 (Del. 2007)). 16 Id. (quoting Black v. Staffieri, 2014 WL 814122, at *4 (Del. Feb. 27, 2014) (TABLE)). 17 See Mahani, 935 A.2d at 245–46 (citing All Pro Maids, Inc. v. Layton, 2004 WL 1878784, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 18, 2020)); Del. Lawyers’ R. Prof’l Conduct 1.5. 18 Danenberg v. Fitracks, Inc., 58 A.3d 991, 997 (Del. Ch. 2012) (citing Aveta Inc. v. Bengoa, 2010 WL 3221823, at *6 (Del. Ch. Aug. 13, 2010)). 19 Mahani, 935 A.2d at 247–48 (quoting All Pro Maids, 2004 WL 3029869, at *5).

–4– 6. Counsel must meet and confer to determine the appropriate

method and schedule for completing payment by December 5, 2025.

7. This is my Final Report under Court of Chancery Rule 144.20

Exceptions may be taken by filing the appropriate notice by November 22.21

Any previous stays on taking Exceptions are hereby lifted.

/s/ Danielle Gibbs Magistrate in Chancery

20 Ct. Ch. R. 144(b)(2). 21 See Ct. Ch. R. 144(d)(2).

–5–