Rob Penders v. Main Street Renewal, LLC and The Amherst Group, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

ROB PENDERS, § No. 1:23-CV-900-DAE Plaintiff, § § vs. § § MAIN STREET RENEWAL, LLC and § THE AMHERST GROUP, LLC, § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are two Report and Recommendations (“the Reports”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane. (Dkts. ## 183; 185.) None of the parties have objected to the Reports. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After reviewing the Reports, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lane’s recommendations and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (Dkts. ## 171; 172; 181.) BACKGROUND The Court recites the background facts as stated by the Magistrate Judge. (Dkts. ## 183; 185.) On August 27, 2025, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, Rob Penders (“Penders”), on his claim of retaliation in violation of Title 42, United States Code § 1981. (Dkt. # 161.) The Motion for Fees is premised on Penders’s status as a prevailing party in relation to litigation involving civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (Dkt. # 171.) In support, Penders submitted

detailed time records and declarations by attorneys involved in the litigation. (Id.) Penders seeks an award of $279,650.00 in attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. # 171-7.) Penders also seeks $12,424.30 in costs. (Dkt. # 172 at 9.) Defendants, Amherst Holdings

and Main Street Renewal (collectively, “Amherst”), maintain that Penders’s fee request is far and above what is reasonable under the circumstances. (Dkt. # 173 at 1.) While conceding that Penders may have prevailed on his retaliation claim, Amherst argues that Penders’s degree of success was marginal in light of Penders’s

initial claims and the amount of damages awarded. (Id.) Specifically, the jury’s $28,755.00 damages determination was significantly less than what Penders demanded during pre-trial efforts to resolve the matter. (Id. at 2.) Amherst argues

that a fee award “should be limited to reasonable and necessary fees of around $30,000, but in no case, no more than $147,208.00.” (Id. at 1.) Similarly, Amherst maintains that Penders’s Motion for Costs is overstated and unjustified. (Dkt. # 174.) First, Amherst argues that many of the

requested costs are not allowable under the “narrow” scope of recoverable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Id.) Second, Amherst argues that Penders fails to meet his burden to establish that the costs were actually necessary. (Id.) Third, Amherst

argues that the total costs awarded should reflect Penders’s limited success and minimal damages obtained. (Id.) Lastly, Amherst has lodged an objection to a number of individual fee and cost entries. (Id.)

Subsequent to the above, Penders seeks to supplement his initial requests for attorney’s fees and costs in light of additional work related to the preservation of the jury’s award in Penders’s favor. (Dkt. # 181.) Since filing

Penders’s original fee request in late December 2025, Penders has continued to expend time, effort and resources to address a post-trial motion filed by Amherst. (Id.) Specifically, Amherst filed Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Under Rule 50(b) or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial Under Rule

59(a) or Remittitur Under Rule 59(e). (Dkt. # 175.) That 22-page motion was quite comprehensive and included over 350 additional pages of exhibits. (Dkt. # 181.) Penders responded, and Amherst replied. (Dkts. ## 178; 179.) On April

15, the District Court denied Amherst’s motion for JMOL/Remittitur. (Dkt. # 180.) Penders now seeks an additional $13,500 in fees and $1,108.15 in costs. (Dkt. # 181.) In support of the supplemental fee request, Penders submitted a detailed Declaration of Tom Nesbitt (“Nesbitt”), counsel for Penders. (Dkt. # 181-1.)

Nesbitt’s declaration “is a document organized chronologically by activity, listing attorney name, date, and hours expended on the particular activity listed (the “Fee Report”) relating to Amherst’s Renewed Motion for JMOL.” (Dkt. # 181-1.) In Response to Penders’s supplemental requests for fees and costs, Amherst objects to the amount of time Penders’s counsel spent preparing his

response to the JMOL motion and contends that a $6,000 fee is more appropriate. (Dkt. # 182.) Amherst does not object to Nesbitt’s hourly rate of $600, nor does Amherst object to Penders’s recovery of the additional costs. (Id.) Penders’s reply

brief sets forth the reasons Amherst’s JMOL motion demanded a significant effort by Penders’s counsel—an effort that resulted in an overwhelmingly successful defense of the jury’s verdict. (Dkt. # 184; see Dkt. # 180.) On December 29, 2025, the Court referred Penders’s initial requests

for attorney’s fees and costs to Magistrate Judge Lane. Both Motions were fully briefed. (Dkts. ## 173; 174.) On January 13 and 20, 2026, Penders filed his Replies. (Dkts. ## 176; 177.) On April 24, 2026, Magistrate Judge Lane entered a

Report and Recommendation related to Penders request for attorney’s fees and costs recommending that Penders recover $220,473 in attorney’s fees and an additional $10,286.15 in costs. (Dkt. # 183.) On April 17, 2026, the Court referred Penders’ Supplemental Requests

for Fees and Costs to Magistrate Judge Lane. On April 23, 2026, Amherst filed their Response. (Dkt. # 182.) On April 28, 2026, Penders filed his Reply. (Dkt. # 184.) On May 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge Lane entered a Report and

Recommendation related to Penders’s request for supplemental fees and costs recommending that Penders recover an additional $13,500 in attorney’s fees and $1,108.15 in additional costs. (Dkt. # 185.) Neither Penders nor Amherst have

filed objections to either of the Reports by Magistrate Judge Lane. DISCUSSION Where, as here, none of the parties objected to the Magistrate Judge’s

findings, the Court reviews the Reports for clear error. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After careful consideration, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Penders be awarded $233,973 in attorney’s fees and $11,394.30 in costs is

reasonable and absent of clear error. Having presided over this lengthy case (trial and pre-trial) the Court is carefully aware of the time and resources expended on Plaintiff’s behalf. Therefore, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusions and recommendations are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS both of the Reports by the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the Court. (Dkts. ## 183; 185.) Further, the

Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, GRANTING Plaintiff $233,973 in attorney’s fees and $11,394.30 in costs. (Dkts. ## 171; 172; 181.) IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: Austin, Texas, May 29, 2026.

FI

David Alan Ezra Senior United States District Judge