UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2172
CITICORP U.S.A., INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CHARLES C. EDWARDS; FIRST EQUITABLE REALTY
III, L.P.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
TOURE JANTOR, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge; Paul
W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-696-PWG)
Argued: September 30, 2004 Decided: December 17, 2004
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Gregory wrote an
opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
ARGUED: Michael Joshua Lichtenstein, SWIDLER, BERLIN, SHEREFF,
FRIEDMAN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Robert Alvin
Gordon, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Roger Frankel, SWIDLER, BERLIN, SHEREFF, FRIEDMAN,
L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Toyja E. Kelley, TYDINGS
& ROSENBERG, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Citicorp U.S.A., Incorporated appeals from the magistrate
judge’s partial denial of its post-trial motion for attorneys’ fees
and expenses. We affirm.
I
We review a district court’s decision awarding or denying
attorneys’ fees and expenses for abuse of discretion. American
Reliable Ins. Co. v. Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311, 320 (4th Cir. 2003).
“Reversal for abuse of discretion is reserved for those instances
in which the court is clearly wrong; an award within the discretion
of the court should be affirmed even though we might have exercised
that discretion quite differently.” Brodziak v. Runyon, 145 F.3d
194, 196 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).1
The parties agree that New York substantive law governs this
appeal. Under New York law, when a contractual fee-shifting
arrangement provides for payment by one party of another party’s
attorneys’ fees and expenses, courts should order payment so long
as the amount claimed is not unreasonable. F.H. Krear & Co. v.
Nineteen Named Trustees, 810 F.2d 1250, 1263 (2nd Cir. 1987).
However, “[t]o compute a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees in a
1
Generally, we will find that a district court has abused its
discretion if its conclusion “is guided by erroneous legal
principles” or “rests upon a clearly erroneous factual finding.”
Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 1999).
3
particular case requires more than simply a report of the number of
hours spent and the hourly rate.” McGuire v. Russell Miller, Inc.,
1 F.3d 1306, 1315 (2nd Cir. 1993). Rather, courts must consider a
variety of factors in determining the reasonableness of an
attorneys’ fee request, including the difficulty of the legal
issues involved; the skill required to handle the issues; the time
and labor required; the experience, ability, and reputation of the
attorney; the customary fee charged by attorneys for similar
services; the burdensomeness of the fees; the fairness to the
parties; and the amount involved. See McGuire, 1 F.3d at 1315;
F.H. Krear, 810 F.2d at 1263.
II
The litigation underlying this appeal arises from a series of
commercial lending transactions between the parties that began in
1996. It culminated in 2003 with a bench trial before a magistrate
judge, who entered judgment for Citicorp on its claim against
Appellees for default interest in the amount of $469,735. Because
the parties’ loan documents entitle Citicorp to seek its reasonable
attorneys’ fees and expenses associated with a default or
collection of its loans to Appellees, Citicorp also sought judgment
for fees and expenses it incurred during its business relationship
with Appellees. These fees and expenses were generated by seven
law firms which represented Citicorp both before and during this
4
litigation, and they are documented in “several thousand pages of
invoices.” Brief of Appellant, at 15. The parties agreed before
trial that the magistrate judge would resolve Citicorp’s request
for fees and expenses by way of motion after the bench trial.
Initially, the magistrate judge denied Citicorp’s request
without prejudice “for lack of particularity.” J.A. 3017. The
magistrate judge noted that although Citicorp’s right under the
parties’ agreements to recover some fees and expenses related to
any default or collection of the loans is undisputed, from the
materials presented he was “unable to make a principled decision
regarding reasonableness, or even to apply the factors in an
informed manner.” J.A. 3017. The magistrate judge specifically
observed that although Appellees had “raised significant issues
regarding the number of law firms that provided services to
Citicorp, the reasonableness of the work performed, the number of
attorneys staffing the case, the possibility of duplication of
effort between attorneys and firms, and the reasonableness of the
rates charged,” Citicorp had responded “in a conclusory way,
without support of any affidavits or other information” that would
allow him to properly resolve the dispute. J.A. 3017. The
magistrate judge also noted that “the format of the fee invoices
presented, amounting to a mere chronological recitation of services
provided, makes meaningful analysis nearly impossible, and any
attempt to make sense out of the invoices would consume an
5
inappropriately large amount of court time.” J.A. 3017.
To resolve the matter on the merits, the magistrate judge
directed Citicorp to “provide a restatement of each of the bills in
the format identified in Appendix B to the [district court’s] local
rules.” J.A. 3017. The magistrate judge recognized that Appendix
B -- which applies to fee requests in civil rights and
discrimination cases -- was “technically inapplicable to this
contract dispute,” but he believed that the requirements of
Appendix B regarding the organization of fee invoices into
specified categories would insure “the presentation of the
information in a manner that facilitates efficient review and
analysis by the court.” J.A. 3017 n.1. The magistrate judge
further instructed Citicorp:
Any explanation of underlying facts needed to address the
evaluative factors set forth in the New York case law
will be in the form of affidavits prepared by persons
with personal knowledge and under penalty of perjury. As
it is Citicorp’s burden of proof to establish
reasonableness, any memorandum filed needs to discuss
each of the factors and clearly explain Citicorp’s
position with respect to each.
J.A. 3017-18.
In response to the magistrate judge’s order, Citicorp
submitted a revised motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses, to
which Appellees objected. The magistrate judge ruled on Citicorp’s
revised motion in a twenty-nine page order.
The magistrate judge began by noting that of the $786,573.94
in fees and expenses requested by Citicorp, approximately 55%
6
pertains to Citicorp’s actions related to Appellees’ alleged loan
defaults prior to filing the underlying lawsuit, such as
renegotiating the loan documents between the parties and monitoring
the collateral used to secure the loans. After recognizing the
factors pertinent to calculation of a reasonable fee award, the
magistrate judge stated:
Having reviewed the parties [sic] contracts, and keeping
in mind that Citicorp bears the burden of demonstrating
its entitlement to reasonable fees, see Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983), I conclude that
Citicorp has not persuasively demonstrated that it would
be reasonable to award it all fees generated as a result
of [Appellees’] alleged defaults that date back to 1997.
Under the facts of this case, it is reasonable to award
attorneys’ fees related to reasonable efforts to enforce
the agreements by filing suit and prosecuting it. To
also award substantial fees for multiple amendments to
the contract documents that [Citicorp] successfully re-
negotiated would be excessive, in the absence of evidence
that the earlier negotiations were undertaken by
[Appellees] in bad faith, facts that are not patent here.
J.A. 3111-12. The magistrate judge further observed that “many of
the fees sought by Citicorp prelitigation have not convincingly
been related to proven defaults by [Appellees].” J.A. 3112.
The magistrate judge next turned to consideration of
Citicorp’s evidentiary presentation and concluded that Citicorp
failed to comply with his prior order that the fee request be
resubmitted under the Appendix B format. The magistrate judge
noted that Citicorp had instead “submitted, as it had done
previously, a mass of invoices from the various law firms it
engaged accompanied by a general description as to the work done
7
with a total amount of fees and expenses generated.” J.A. 3114.
The magistrate judge continued:
Citicorp is relying on . . . a mass of unorganized
invoices, billing records, and letters, presumably
consisting of all information regarding the attorneys’
fees and expenses in this case. The revised request now
also lists each law firm, the dates that it was involved
in [Appellees’] loan arrangements, and the type of work
done. Each law firm’s entry also lists the total amount
of fees generated, hours worked, and expenses billed,
which is further broken down into fees and expenses.
There are no affidavits from the attorneys of the law
firms attesting to the work performed and the hourly
rates of the lawyers and paralegals involved in such
work. In addition, Citicorp does not provide any
worksheet breaking down each law firm by the amount
billed, the work done, by whom, and at what hourly rate.
Instead, Citicorp has offered the affidavits of [two
Citicorp employees], who each attest to the law firms’
roles in connection with [Appellees’] loans.
J.A. 3114-15. In light of the foregoing, the magistrate judge
ruled:
It is not the Court’s burden to sift through literally
hundreds of pages of invoices relating to legal work
performed over a six-year period in an effort to
determine whether the fees sought are reasonable and not
excessive. If a reviewing court is to conduct a review
that is meaningful, the party seeking the fee award must
do its part to facilitate this review. Where, as here,
this was not done, even though specifically requested by
the Court, it is appropriate to take this failure into
consideration in determining a reasonable fee. Given the
sheer volume of the invoices and the lack of specific
details offered by Citicorp, I conclude that any fee
award must be reduced by thirty-five percent to reflect
the fact that a full accounting of each and every fee
generated is impossible in this case.
J.A. 3115-16.
The magistrate judge then specifically considered and
addressed Citicorp’s request as it pertains to each of the seven
8
law firms.2 With respect to four of these firms, the magistrate
judge denied Citicorp’s requests in their entirety for a variety of
reasons, including the fact that many of the fees and expenses
involve prelitigation services; that Citicorp failed to establish
a connection between some of the fees and expenses and a default by
Appellees; that many of the fees and expenses appear to document
services that are duplicative of work done by other firms; and that
the legitimacy of some of the fees and expenses is questionable.
As for the other three firms, the magistrate judge found that
Citicorp is entitled to an award for fees and expenses. However,
the magistrate judge reduced the request for each of these firms by
20%. The magistrate judge made this reduction for the firms of
Bilzin Sumberg Dunn Basena Price & Axelrod, LLP; and Howrey &
Simon, because of “apparent duplicativeness of . . . effort with
other law firms, the breadth of the fees sought, and the lack of
detail.” J.A. 3121, 3126.3 The magistrate judge made this
reduction for the firm of Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP,
because Citicorp’s request lacks “specificity as to the number of
attorneys, the type of work done, the billing rate, and the hours
2
The magistrate judge noted that Citicorp failed to provide a
breakdown of the lawyers for each firm who worked on the particular
tasks involved and their hourly rates.
3
The magistrate judge also denied part of the request for the
Howrey firm based on his finding that it represents prelitigation
work and, in any event, the prelitigation work done by this firm
appears to overlap with work that was done by other firms.
9
worked, all of which is important information to enable a court to
conduct a meaningful review for reasonableness.” J.A. 3129.4
After making these determinations, the magistrate judge
concluded that Citicorp was entitled to recover $412,660.02 for
work done by three of the seven law firms. However, the magistrate
judge then reduced this award by 35% based on his prior ruling
concerning Citicorp’s failure to comply with his initial order.
The final award to Citicorp is $268,229.02.
III
Citicorp argues on appeal that the magistrate judge acted
arbitrarily in reducing its request for fees and expenses.
Citicorp points specifically to the magistrate judge’s decision to
deny prelitigation fees and expenses and to his decision to reduce
the award by 35% (and then make additional reductions) “without
even considering the reasonableness of the fees and expenses.”
Brief of Appellant, at 8.
Having had the benefit of the parties’ briefs and oral
argument, and after careful consideration of the applicable law, we
are not persuaded that the magistrate judge abused his discretion
in making the fee and expenses award. The record shows that under
4
The magistrate judge denied Citicorp’s request for $22,277.50
in additional expenses based on his determination that “[n]o
detailed explanation was provided as to why these services were
performed.” (J.A. 3130).
10
the circumstances the magistrate judge conducted a thorough review
of Citicorp’s motion, and we do not find that his factual rulings
are clearly erroneous or that his legal rulings are incorrect. See
generally Trimper v. City of Norfolk, Va., 58 F.3d 68, 77 (4th Cir.
1995) (holding that “the district court acted well within its
discretion in disallowing those costs which were insufficiently
documented” and noting that the ruling “is exactly the type of
factual determination which should not be disturbed on appeal”);
Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington v. Landow, 999 F.2d 92,
98 (4th Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that “the district court
has the burden to identify which hours in a fee applicant’s time
sheets are recoverable”); In re Conklin, 946 F.2d 306, 316 (4th
Cir. 1991) (affirming district court’s reduction of fee and expense
request to account for “duplicative and repetitive work” and for
“incomplete, inaccurate and irregular records”); Daly v. Hill, 790
F.2d 1071, 1079-80 (4th Cir. 1986) (finding no abuse of discretion
in substantial reductions in fee requests based on lack of detailed
affidavits supporting request and duplicativeness); Jane L. v.
Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1510 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding that 35%
reduction based on inadequate fee request was within district
court’s discretion).5
5
Concerning the denial of prelitigation fees, we note that the
magistrate judge -- sitting as the factfinder -- concluded based on
the record presented to him that Citicorp failed to “persuasively
demonstrate” its entitlement to prelitigation fees or that an award
of such fees would be reasonable under the circumstances of this
11
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED
case. See J.A. 3108, 3111-13. In light of the record presented
below, we are not prepared to say that these determinations
constitute an abuse of discretion.
12
GREGORY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the district
court’s award of litigation attorney’s fees. I disagree, however,
with the majority’s decision to affirm the district court’s ruling
summarily denying pre-litigation attorney’s fees in this case.
Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent in part.
Appellant argues that the district court erred in denying all
pre-litigation attorney’s fees. Citicorp seeks fees and expenses
in the amount of $786,573.94. Approximately 55% of the fees sought
pertain to actions taken by Citicorp prior to filing suit in this
case, such as renegotiating loan documents between Citicorp and Dr.
Edwards. The remainder of fees and expenses claimed by Appellant
relate to litigating this action from March 10, 1999 when the suit
was filed, until March 12, 2003 the date the district court found
in favor of Citicorp.
The parties do not dispute that in various loan documents Dr.
Edwards agreed to pay Appellant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees,
whether or not legal proceedings may have been instituted. In
addition, the district court “determined that the contracts
generally do refer to the ability of Citicorp to collect legal fees
in its attempt to enforce its rights under the contract.” J.A. at
3107. The district court also found that “under basic principles
of contract law, a contractual fee-shifting provision may be
enforced according to its terms.” J.A. at 3108. However, the
13
district court concludes that while litigation-related fees are
clearly recoverable under New York law, other fees related to
Citicorp’s attempt to renegotiate the loan documents as well as
monitoring the collateral used to secure such documents should not
automatically be awarded.
I agree with the majority that the district court has the
discretion to determine the appropriateness of the fee award
pursuant to factors delineated by New York cases under a standard
of “reasonableness.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)
(“the district court has discretion in determining the amount of a
fee award. This is appropriate in view of the district court’s
superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of
avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual
matters.”). However, the majority does not address the district
court’s erroneous conclusion that “it is reasonable to award
attorneys’ fees related to reasonable efforts to enforce the
agreements by filing suit and prosecuting it. [However,] [t]o also
award substantial fees for multiple amendments to the contract
documents that the Bank successfully re-negotiated would be
excessive, in the absence of evidence that the earlier negotiations
were undertaken by Dr. Edwards in bad faith.” J.A. at 3111-12.
There is no citation to case law or a contract provision that
requires Citicorp to prove or demonstrate Appellee’s bad faith in
order to seek or be granted attorneys’ fees for negotiation of the
14
loan agreements or in connection with the collection or attempted
collection of any collateral. Consequently, the district court has
no support for its assertion that Appellant must show bad faith on
the part of Dr. Edwards in order to collect pre-litigation
attorneys’ fees. Moreover, the district court’s conclusion
virtually strips the meaning from the attorney’s fee provision in
the loan agreements, and the New York case law that supports it.
While a determination of reasonableness is always required when a
court decides whether or not to grant attorneys’ fees, bad faith is
not.
In this case, the loan agreements provide in relevant part:
Borrower agrees to pay to the Lender all fees and costs
incurred or to be incurred by the Lender, including all
legal expenses, in connection with the negotiation,
documentation and closing of the First Amendment and/or
any documents and instruments executed in connection with
the First Amendment.
J.A. at 840.
Borrower agrees to pay to the Lender all fees and costs
incurred or to be incurred by the Lender relating to the
matters described herein, including all reasonable legal
expenses . . . in connection with the negotiation . . .
of this Second Amendment and/or any of the documents and
instruments executed in connection with this Second
Amendment.
J.A. at 857.
Borrower agrees to pay all costs incurred by any holder
hereof, including reasonable attorneys’ fees (including
appellate proceedings), incurred in connection with any
Event of Default . . . or in connection with the
collection or attempted collection of enforcement hereof,
or in connection with the protection of any collateral
given as security for the payment hereof, whether or not
15
legal proceedings may have been instituted.
J.A. at 878-79 (emphasis added).
All of these provisions were included in loan agreements that
were negotiated by the parties and signed by Dr. Edwards.
Presumably these provisions were bargained for by the parties,
therefore neither the district court nor this court is at liberty
to disregard them. The December 8, 2000 settlement agreement,
which the parties executed but failed to implement, contained an
admission from Dr. Edwards stating that he was in “default in the
payment of certain monetary obligations . . . .” J.A. at 3112. The
district court disregarded that admission and concluded that
because the only default that was before the court and adjudicated
was the December 8, 2000 settlement agreement, the earlier defaults
alleged by Citicorp were never “proven defaults” by Dr. Edwards.
Consequently, the district court found that Citicorp failed to
relate convincingly the pre-litigation fees it sought to “proven
defaults” by Dr. Edwards.
Contrary to the district court’s finding regarding pre-
litigation attorney’s fees, the district court acknowledges the
February 1, 1999 Default Letter (“Default Letter”) which discusses
a number of acts of default in connection with the first mortgage
and with other documents that were entered into by Dr. Edwards and
Citicorp. The district court stated during the March 12, 2003
bench trial:
16
It is not necessary for me to reach a finding as to each
and every item of default alleged. I am convinced from
having heard the testimony that there are at least one or
more acts of default as identified in Exhibit 11 [the
Default Letter] that exist to include but not limited to
at a minimum on page 2 Roman Numeral II-A, that of the
$122,763 payment, Dr. Edwards acknowledged that there was
some balance unpaid . . . . And so at a minimum, there
were some acts of default that existed with respect to
loan documents and were established by Citicorp in
connection with Exhibit 11. . . . So therefore, I find as
a matter of fact and conclude as a matter of law there
were defaults under the loan documents . . . .
J.A. at 2171.*
The Default Letter states that Dr. Edwards had “failed to pay
(i) $122,763 of the October 1, 1998 Credit Note installment and
(ii) the $1,500,000 January 2, 1999 installment of the Credit Note
as and when due.” J.A. at 2559. Thus, the district court found
that Dr. Edwards had defaulted on at least one loan agreement prior
to February 1, 1999, but held that the award of default interest
would not commence until February 1999. Based on this alone, this
court can not affirm the district court’s decision to summarily
disallow all pre-litigation fees and expenses that Appellant sought
to recover. O&Y (U.S.) Financial Co. v. Chase Family Ltd.
Partnership No. 3, Nos. 93 Civ. 1855 to 93 Civ. 1857, 1994 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13249, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 1994) (“whether a
party seeking enforcement of a promissory note can recover
attorneys’ fees incurred in settlement negotiations is a matter on
*
Although the district court was discussing the issue of
default interest, the district court does acknowledge that defaults
had occurred prior to 1999.
17
which this court has not consistently ruled . . . . the better view
is that such fees should be recoverable.”).
I agree with the district court that Citicorp bears the burden
of demonstrating its entitlement to reasonable fees. Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (“party seeking an award of
fees should submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates
claimed. Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the
district court may reduce the award accordingly.”). However, I
disagree with the standard that the district court applies in
denying CitiCorp’s request of pre-litigation fees, which the
majority seems to accept as correct. In this case, the agreements
provide that reasonable attorneys’ fees connected to negotiation
and to defaults, are to be paid by Dr. Edwards. The district court
seems to be under the belief that the pre-litigated attorneys’ fees
allowed under the loan agreements require that they be directly
related to an adjudicated default and/or that there must be
evidence that the negotiation they are associated with were
undertaken due to bad faith on the part of Dr. Edwards. Neither of
these conditions are required in order to grant pre-litigation fees
to Citicorp. The loan agreements merely require that the fees be
related to negotiations of the First and Second Amended Agreements
and/or default on the part of Dr. Edwards. In fact, the Second
Amended and Restated Credit Note, executed in July 1998, expressly
states that “reasonable attorneys’ fees” incurred in the event of
18
any default, would be paid by Dr. Edwards “whether or not legal
proceedings may have been instituted.” J.A. at 878-79. Although
the provisions arguably were meant to encourage the parties to
settle any defaults without involving the courts, the plain
language of the provisions protects CitiCorp’s right to seek
attorney’s fees incurred in resolving non-adjudicated defaults.
There is evidence in the record including testimony of Richard
Werner, a Citicorp Vice President, that some of the attorneys’ fees
included in Appellant’s request were related to resolving Dr.
Edwards’s defaults. Tige Real Estate Development Co. v. Rankin-
Smith, 650 N.Y.S.2d 114 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (finding that the
landlord’s entitlement to attorney fees, including fees expended in
negotiation, was the law of the case, however the court, found that
the attorney’s fees were excessive and reduced the award, but did
not deny them all together).
Accordingly, I respectfully submit that the district court’s
denial of pre-litigation fees should be reversed and remanded to
the district court to determine what reasonable amount of pre-
litigation fees should be awarded.
19