Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
THOMPSON v. ASS'N OF PENN. STATE COLLEGE & UNIV. FACULTIES
December 7, 2005.
PAMELA THOMPSON, ESQUIRE, Plaintiff,
ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY FACULTIES, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SYLVIA RAMBO, Senior District Judge
Before the court is an application for allowance of attorneys'
fees filed by Defendant Association of Pennsylvania State College
and University Faculties, the prevailing party in the captioned
action. Also pending before the court is an application for
taxation of costs. The application for counsel fees is in the
amount of $58,673.00. The request for costs is in the amount of
On November 10, 2005, counsel for Plaintiff filed a petition
for leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. On November 14,
2005, permission to withdraw as counsel was granted. Since the
response to the application for attorneys' fees and the
application for taxation of costs was due on or around the date
counsel was permitted to withdraw, the response time was extended
to November 22, 2005. The order permitting the withdrawal of counsel and extending
the time for Plaintiff to respond to the pending petitions was
sent to Plaintiff by regular and certified mail. The regular mail
was not returned; the certified mail was returned as unclaimed.
To date, no response to the fee application or petition for
taxation of costs has been filed.
In Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell Int'l,
Inc., 426 F.3d 694
, 711 (3d Cir. 2005), the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals held:
A prevailing party is not automatically entitled to
compensation for all the time its attorneys spend
working on a case; rather a court awarding fees must
"decide whether the hours set out were reasonably
expended for each of the particular purposes
described and then exclude those that are excessive,
redundant or otherwise necessary."
Id. at 711 (citing Public Interest Research Group v. Windall,
51 F.3d 1179
, 1188 (3d Cir. 1995)). However, a court may not
reduce an award sua sponte; it can only do so in response to
specific objections of the opposing party. Id. at 711 (citing
Bell v. United Princeton Properties, Inc., 884 F.2d 713
(3d Cir. 1989).
There has been no notification by Plaintiff that she is seeking
new counsel; no request for an extension of time to respond to
the pending applications, and lastly, no pro se response. Thus,
the court has no alternative but to grant the application for
fees. The request for taxation of costs are all allowable under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1) The application of Defendant for allowance of attorneys'
fees is GRANTED in the amount of $58,673.00.
2) Taxation of costs is GRANTED in the amount of $3,756.74. 3) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of
Defendant and against Plaintiff in the sum of $58,673 for
attorneys' fees and $3,756.74 for costs.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For