Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-4128 SECTION "K"(2)
August 16, 2002
MINUTE ENTRY
Before this Court is defendant, Mobil's, Motion for Reconsideration of Award of Attorney's Fees (rec. doc. 133). The Court has considered the memoranda and relevant law and DENIES defendant's motion.
On September 27, 2001, prompted by plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Findings, this Court found as a fact that Mobil had completely disregarded its obligation to repair and maintain the canal system on plaintiffs property as required by the court's January 1999 order. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that because Mobil had willfully failed to comply with a court order, it should be cast with "all costs, including attorney fees, incurred by plaintiffs in connection with the Motion to Enforce Findings" (rec. doc. 102).
Subsequently, on June 7, 2002, this Court specified that defendants were required to pay all costs of the special master and attorneys fees connected with her appointment and implementation of her plan as adopted and modified by this Court (rec. docs. 130 and 131).
Through the instant motion, Mobil urges this court to reconsider its award of attorney's fees in favor of plaintiffs as set forth in its June 7, 2002 Judgment because its "actions do not rise to the level of willful disobedience or bad faith. Citing Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975) (holding that a court may assess attorney's fees for "willful disobedience of a court order or when the losing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons). Specifically, Mobil argues that: (1) plaintiffs motion to enforce findings and the precise relief requested therein was ultimately rejected, (2) the judgment was not clear as to Mobil's ongoing canal maintenance obligations, (3) in October 2001, Mobil was advised not to take any action in the canal until a decision was made as to what work should be undertaken.
Defendant points out that plaintiff repeatedly urged Judge Livaudais, without avail, to order Mobil to fill the canals at issue. While Judge Livaudais did not require Mobil to fill the canals, he unequivocally ordered Mobil to maintain and repair the canals.
The Court finds defendant's arguments disingenuous. As this Court has repeatedly stated, Mobil took no action to comply with Judge Livaudais's order to "repair and maintain" the canal system it damaged for at least two years after it was rendered — nor did Mobil make any effort to have the court clarify what work should be completed so that it could comply with the order. Such behavior is easily characterized as "willful disobedience" or "bad faith." Had defendant made even a modicum effort to comply with the court's original judgment in this matter, neither plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Findings nor this Court's subsequent actions, including the appointment of the special master, would have been required.
Accordingly,
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Attorney's Fees is DENIED. As this Court noted in its June 7, 2002 order, the reasonableness of any requested attorneys fees shall be referred to the magistrate for a report and recommendation pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1)(D).