Home/D. Puerto Rico/Oriental Federal Savings & Loan Association of Puerto Rico v. Cardona

Oriental Federal Savings & Loan Association of Puerto Rico v. Cardona

580 F. Supp. 784, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19191
District Court, D. Puerto Rico·Decided February 24, 1984·No. Civ. Nos. 81-0243(PG), 81-0266(PG)·Published

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

PEREZ-GIMENEZ, District Judge.

This matter is before us for purposes of determining a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees awarded to the prevailing party in Civil No. 81-0243. See generally White v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982); Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973). The procedural history of this case is well outlined in the unpublished opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, dated January 7, 1983, at pp. 3-4. On March 1, 1983, plaintiff’s attorneys submitted an attested account of time actually spent and duties performed in conjunction with the representation of Oriental Federal Savings and Loan. Plaintiff’s attorneys estimate they spent 410 hours in successfully prosecuting this action. Defendants opposed the awarding of attorney’s fees on jurisdictional grounds. The opposition was denied on April 18, 1983. No further opposition has been filed and no request for a hearing on the matter has been filed by either party.

We undertake the task of determining a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees implementing the “lodestar” method pioneered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and approved by the First Circuit in Furtado v. Bishop, 635 F.2d 915 (1st Cir.1980); see Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 540 F.2d 102 (3rd Cir.1976) (en banc).

In general terms, the amount of attorney’s fees awarded “should be based on the work performed on the issues in which they [the prevailing parties] were successful.” Miles v. Sampson, 675 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir.1982); Nadeau v. Helgemore, 581 F.2d 275, 279 (1st Cir.1978). Also see Hensley v. Eckerhart, — U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). Furthermore, while counsel has noted 410 hours of work, we must analyze the type of service rendered by counsel since services which constitute legal work, in a strict sense, should be compensated at a higher level than other types of work. King v. Greenblatt, 560 F.2d 1024, 1027 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916, 98 S.Ct. 3146, 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978); Wuori v. Concannon, 551 F.Supp. 185, 195 (D.Me.1982).

We thus exclude preparation for a hearing that was not scheduled (February 26,1981), and research regarding plaintiff’s attempt to remand the action (March 2, 3, 4, 1981). We take into account apparent duplication of efforts (March 10, 1982)1 [786]*786and amounts of time which in our estimation were in excess of reasonable.2

We eliminated some items completely. The reasons for doing are in our estimation readily apparent.

Both attorneys have been in the private practice of law for over twenty years. Neither attorney has noted what hourly rate he customarily charges for work performed. We will allow $75 an hour for in court time and $25 to $50 an hour for work performed out of court depending upon the nature of the work. See Maceira, et al. v. Pagan, 698 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.1983). For example, travel time is compensated at $25 an hour. Meetings with clients is compensated at $50 an hour while intra office meetings, study and analysis of motions and memoranda, and drafting of pleadings is compensated at $35 an hour. With this broad scale in mind, and taking into account the vagueries which are apparent in much of attorneys’ affidavit, we proceed to grant the following fees for the concomitant effort. We will make reference to each page and item of counsel’s motion of March 1, 1983.

43

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Oriental Federal Savings & Loan Association of Puerto Rico v. Cardona, 580 F. Supp. 784, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19191 (prd 1984).

580 F. Supp. 784 (Oriental Federal Savings & Loan Association of Puerto Rico v. Cardona) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hall v. Cole
412 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1973)
White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security
455 U.S. 445 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Mitchell G. King, Jr. v. Milton Greenblatt
560 F.2d 1024 (First Circuit, 1977)
Anthony Souza v. Bradford Southworth
564 F.2d 609 (First Circuit, 1977)
Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison
581 F.2d 275 (First Circuit, 1978)
Miguel Perez v. University of Puerto Rico
600 F.2d 1 (First Circuit, 1979)
John Furtado v. Harold Bishop
635 F.2d 915 (First Circuit, 1980)
Dolores J. Copeland, Individually and on Behalf of the Class of All Others Similarly Situated v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor
641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Circuit, 1980)
George E. Miles v. George Sampson, Etc.
675 F.2d 5 (First Circuit, 1982)
Efrain MacEira v. Luis Enrique Pagan, Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
698 F.2d 38 (First Circuit, 1983)
Romeo Gabriele v. Bradford Southworth
712 F.2d 1505 (First Circuit, 1983)
William Baird v. Francis X. Bellotti, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, William Baird v. Francis X. Bellotti
724 F.2d 1032 (First Circuit, 1984)
Dana M. Wojtkowski v. Richard K. Cade
725 F.2d 127 (First Circuit, 1984)
Brule v. Southworth
552 F. Supp. 1157 (D. Rhode Island, 1982)
Wuori v. Concannon
551 F. Supp. 185 (D. Maine, 1982)
Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
540 F.2d 102 (Third Circuit, 1976)