Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inc. v. M2 Software, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

March 30, 2017

M2 TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
M2 SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR FEES AND COSTS

          RICHARD A. SCHELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The following are pending before the court:

1. Plaintiff's petition for fees and costs (docket entry #69);
2. Defendant's traverse of Plaintiff's itemized statement of costs (docket entry #73); and
3. Plaintiff's reply in support of its petition for fees and costs (docket entry #75).

         Having considered the Plaintiff's petition for fees and costs and the responsive briefing thereto, the court finds that the Plaintiff's petition for fees and costs should be granted.

         BACKGROUND

         On March 4, 2016, the court denied the Defendant's “Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment and to Dismiss for Untimely Service Under Rule 4(m) and Alternatively to Dismiss for Mootness.” See Dkt. #68. In the same order, the court granted the Plaintiff's “Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P.” and ordered the Plaintiff to file with the court an itemized list of fees and costs that the Plaintiff incurred in preparing the following filings:

1. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions under Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P. (docket entry #64);
2. Plaintiff's reply in support of its motion for sanctions under Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P. (docket entry #66); and
3. Plaintiff's response in opposition to Defendant's motion to set aside default and default judgment and to dismiss for untimely service under Rule 4(m) and alternatively to dismiss for mootness (docket entry # 62).

         DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

         The computation of a reasonable attorneys' fee award is a two-step process. Rutherford v. Harris County, Texas, 197 F.3d 173, 192 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). First, the court must utilize the “lodestar” analysis to calculate a “reasonable” amount of attorneys' fees. Id. The “lodestar” is equal to the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the prevailing hourly rate in the community for similar work. Id. Second, in assessing the “lodestar” amount, the court considers the twelve Johnson factors before final fees can be calculated. Id.

         The Johnso ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.