Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Soulier v Matsumoto, 2022 WL 17250549 (D. New Jersey, 2022)

 

[Belgium][Necessary Expenses] [Granted] 

In Soulier v Matsumoto, 2022 WL 17250549 (D. New Jersey, 2022) on July 8, 2022, the district court granted Petitioner’s application, and ordered that the Children be returned to Belgium, and also granted Petitioner leave to file this motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The Court granted the Petitioners motion for Counsel fees and Costs but reduced the amount requested. The  district court pointed out that in an action brought under section 9003 ... shall order the respondent to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner, including court costs, legal fees, foster home or other care during the course of proceedings in the action, and transportation costs related to the return of the child, unless the respondent establishes that such order would be clearly inappropriate. 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3); see also Cillikova v. Cillik, Civ. No. 15-2823, 2016 WL 541134, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2016). Therefore, it is presumed that a prevailing ICARA petitioner will be awarded fees, unless the respondent establishes that the award would be clearly inappropriate. To determine whether the award demanded by the prevailing party would be clearly inappropriate, courts assess the opposing party’s financial circumstances, and whether such an award would significantly impair that party’s ability to provide for the child. See id. at *5;³ Hirts v. Hirts, 152 F. App’x 137, 139 (3d Cir. 2005); Whallon v. Lynn, 356 F.3d 138, 140 (1st Cir. 2004). Courts also consider a respondent’s basis for removing and/or retaining the child. See, e.g., Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F.3d 355, 375 (2d Cir. 2013); Clarke v. Clarke, Civ. No. 08-690, 2008 WL 5191682, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2008) District courts also may apply equitable principles in determining such fees. See Ozaltin, 708 F.3d at 375. The Court reduces the block-billed entries for use of the vague “review of file” description, but otherwise concludes that the block-billed entries were  reasonable in terms of the time expended on the tasks performed. It also agreed with  Respondent that Petitioner’s counsel should not be allowed to charge his partner rate for tasks that non-lawyers could have performed.. “A claim by a lawyer for maximum rates for ... tasks [that can be] performed by administrative assistants, paralegals, or secretaries” is unreasonable. Loughner v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 260 F.3d 173, 180 (3d Cir. 2001). After accounting for the reductions via the lodestar analysis above, the Petitioner’s attorney’s fees were reduced to $76,620.00. The court rejected respondents argument that she had a reasonable basis for retaining the Children. However, it reduced the attorney’s fees by 20% because while Respondent was employed and lived with her parents through the litigation, she has few assets. Second, taking care of the Children may require that Respondent travel to Europe, or the Children visit the United States. Also, it was not apparent to the Court whether Respondent will have any financial obligations related to the Children after the parties resolve their custody dispute. A reduction was warranted in the amount of $15,324.00 (20% of the Court’s reduced total from its analysis. The Court granted Petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs in the reduced amount of $65,821.54, consisting of: $61,296.00 in attorney’s fees; $2,406.75 in travel expenses; and $2,118.79 in costs.