Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Garcia v Ramsis, 2022 WL 18028257 (E.D. Texas, 2023)

 

[Spain][Attorneys Fees][Granted in part]

 In Garcia v Ramsis, 2022 WL 18028257 (E.D. Texas, 2023) the district court granted in part and denied in part  Petitioner Francisco Javier Gonzalez Garcia’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Garcia initiated this Hague Convention case regarding his former partner Ramsis’s refusal to return their minor child S.J.G. to Spain. Garcia v. Ramsis, No. 4:21-CV-650, 2022 WL 287031, at *1–2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2022).

The Court found that Spain was the habitual residence of S.J.G. and ordered the prompt and safe return of S.J.G. to Spain. The Court subsequently held a hearing to enforce its orders. Garcia filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees, court costs, and transportation costs. Ramsis did not respond to the motion. The Court later ordered Garcia to submit documentation supporting the court costs he sought to recover, and Garcia filed a supplemental motion for costs with supporting documentation.

 

The Court pointed out that in the Fifth Circuit, reasonable attorney’s fees are calculated using the lodestar method. La. Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 323–24 (5th Cir. 1995). To determine the lodestar, courts must determine the reasonable number of hours expended by the attorney and the reasonable hourly rate for the attorney and then multiply the number of hours by the hourly rate. There is a strong presumption in favor of the lodestar amount, but it may be adjusted based on the twelve factors set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974). The burden is on the fee applicant to “produce satisfactory evidence ... that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” And the fee applicant must produce contemporaneous billing records or other documents so the Court can determine which hours are compensable. Finally, the fee applicant must show the reasonableness of the hours billed and must prove that he or she exercised billing judgment. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433–34, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.E.2d 40 (1983). “The Court is also an expert on reasonableness of fees and may use its own experience in deciding a fee award.” Tech Pharmacy Servs., LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC, 298 F.Supp.3d 892, 904 (E.D. Tex. 2017). “The essential goal in shifting fees ... is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011).

 

The Court awarded $48,594.00 in attorney’s fees. $910.40 in litigation costs, $2,813.64 in airline expenses; $229.14 for train tickets; $2,763.03 for his lodging costs;  $808.14 for his rideshare expenses, bringing the total amount awarded for travel expenses to $6,613.95.