From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Custom Iron Shop v. Roxbury

Superior Court of Delaware
Oct 29, 1999
CA No. 99A-03-014-NAB (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 1999)

Opinion

CA No. 99A-03-014-NAB.

Submitted: October 25, 1999.

Decided: October 29, 1999.

Claimant's Application for Attorney's Fees.

Michael I. Silverman, Esquire, Silverman McDonald, 1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy., Suite 22, Wilmington, DE 19805

Michael P. Freebery, Esquire, Freeberry Houghton, 1232 King St., Suite 300, Wilmington, DE 19801


Gentlemen:

I have before me Claimant Eugene Roxbury's application for attorney's fees, as well as Employer Custom Iron Shop's answer in opposition. Claimant seeks an award of $9,733.33, based on 35 hours spent on the appeal at a rate of $200 per hour; plus an additional one-third of that amount as a contingency; plus 2 hours at $200 per hour for the fee application.

This Court affirmed the decision of the Industrial Accident Board awarding workers' compensation benefits to Claimant as a result of injuries incurred at work. Therefore, pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 2350 (f), this Court in its discretion may award a reasonable fee to Claimant's attorney.

Under the now familiar standards presented in General Motors v. Cox, I find that the hourly fee of $200 is within the range customarily charged in this locality for similar services. However, 35 hours is not a reasonable amount of time to spend responding to an appeal that did not present any novel or complex questions of law, and where there was controlling case law on the salient issues. Furthermore, Claimant filed a motion to affirm, a document of much more limited scope than an answering brief. Finally, as Employer points out, Claimant did not provide a breakdown of the time spent, or any other explanation for the 35 hours charged. For these reasons, I conclude that 15 hours is a reasonable amount of time for the appeal to this Court.

Del. Supr., 304, A.2d 55, 57 (1973).

See De Shields v. Harris Manufacturing Co., Del. Super., C. A. No. 97A-06-003, Ridgely, P.J. (Jan. 20, 1998) (Letter Op.).

In regard to the 2 hours charged for the fee application, I find that 1 hour is a reasonable amount of time. Claimant is therefore awarded a total of 16 hours at $200 per hour, or $3200.00, in attorney's fees.

In seeking an additional one-third contingency, Claimant cites to (but did not provide copies of) two unreported cases, Quality Car Wash v. Cox, and In re Ronald Cox. Neither of these cases suggests that a contingency fee is warranted in a case as straightforward as this one. Claimant's request for a one-third contingency fee is therefore denied.

Del. Super., C. A. No. 80A-DE-1, Balick, J. (Feb. 25, 1983).

Del. Ch., C. M. No. 3487, Longobardi, V.C. (June 7, 1984).

See De Shields, supra; Goshkey v. Exxon Shop of Rehoboth and Wilson Baker, Inc., Del. Super., C. A. No. 96A-12-003, Lee, J. (May 26, 1998) (Letter Op.).

For all these reasons, I conclude that $3200 is a reasonable and appropriate fee for counsel's appellate efforts in this case.

It Is So ORDERED .

Norman A. Barron, Judge


Summaries of

Custom Iron Shop v. Roxbury

Superior Court of Delaware
Oct 29, 1999
CA No. 99A-03-014-NAB (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 1999)
Case details for

Custom Iron Shop v. Roxbury

Case Details

Full title:CUSTOM IRON SHOP v. ROXBURY

Court:Superior Court of Delaware

Date published: Oct 29, 1999

Citations

CA No. 99A-03-014-NAB (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 1999)

Citing Cases

Sunrise Assisted Living, Inc. v. Milewski

General Metalcraft, Inc. v. Hayes, 1982 Del. Super. LEXIS 864 *3.Custom Iron Shop v. Roxbury, 1999 Del.…