Williane Rodrigues Dos Santos v. Omar Argueta-Ugalde

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: January 4, 2024
• Docket: 23-1691
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0008n.06

No. 23-1691

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 04, 2024 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk WILLIANE RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS ) ARGUETA, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE Petitioner-Appellee, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN v. ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) OMAR ARGUETA-UGALDE, ) ORDER ) Respondent-Appellant. ) )

Before: COLE, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

Respondent-Appellant Omar Argueta-Ugalde (“Omar”) appeals the district court’s partial

grant of attorneys’ fees and costs to Petitioner-Appellee Williane Rodrigues Dos Santos Argueta

(“Williane”). In a prior opinion, we upheld the district court’s grant of Williane’s petition for the

return of her child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child

Abduction. See Rodrigues Dos Santos Argueta v. Argueta-Ugalde, No. 23-1107, 2023 WL

4635901, at *1 (6th Cir. July 20, 2023). Having prevailed on the merits, Williane then moved

before the district court for $85,665 in attorneys’ fees and $871.50 in costs. The district court

granted her motion, but reduced the award of attorneys’ fees to $61,823.50.

We AFFIRM on the district court’s detailed order. The district court properly concluded

that Williane was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. See Adcock-Ladd v. Sec’y of

Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 349 (6th Cir. 2000). Omar’s claim that the reasonableness standard is

inapplicable because the International Child Abduction Remedies Act allows recovery for No. 23-1691, Rodrigues Dos Santos Argueta v. Argueta-Ugalde

“necessary expenses” is unavailing. A legal service is necessary if it is reasonably needed under

the circumstances. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by then concluding that the hours

worked by Attorneys Alvarez and Grauman were reasonable. See Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow, 717

F.3d 498, 505 (6th Cir. 2013) (noting that fees and costs are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Attorney Alvarez reasonably billed for communications with a Brazilian attorney given that this

case required an understanding of Brazilian law pertaining to child custody. Likewise, it was

reasonable for Attorney Grauman to attend the hearing on Williane’s petition, as it is not

uncommon for a second attorney to attend a hearing to take notes and provide support and

assistance for their co-counsel. See Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Husted, 831 F.3d 686, 704

(6th Cir. 2016) (noting that litigation involving multiple lawyers is common).

Based on prevailing market rates and case law, the district court also found it necessary to

reduce the requested hourly rates for Williane’s counsels, but appropriately determined that a

reasonable award for Attorney Alvarez would be $350 per hour and for Attorney Grauman would

be $325 per hour.

Omar’s claims regarding the fees awarded for paralegal services similarly fail. The district

court properly credited the attendance of three paralegals at the hearing, given that they managed

hundreds of exhibits and tracked numerous evidentiary objections. For these paralegal services, it

was reasonable to award fees at a rate of $135 per hour, which is a reduction from what Williane

requested and falls squarely within the range of billing rates previously approved by cases in this

Circuit. See, e.g., Aljahmi v. Ability Recovery Servs., LLC, No. 2:17-CV-13772, 2022 WL 891416,

at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2022) (stating that the Eastern District of Michigan has approved

paralegal hourly rates of between $125 per hour and $140 per hour).

-2- No. 23-1691, Rodrigues Dos Santos Argueta v. Argueta-Ugalde

Finally, based on the billing record for this case, we find Williane’s requests for $871.50

in costs to be reasonable.

The district court’s reasoning for its attorney fee award is set forth in detail in its Order

Granting in Part Petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ECF No. 34), dated June 27,

2023, and need not be repeated here.

We have considered each of Omar’s arguments, and find them all to be without merit.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

____________________________________ Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk

-3-