TOTAL E&P USA, Inc. v. Marubeni Oil & Gas (USA), Inc.MOTION for Attorney FeesS.D. Tex.March 4, 20191 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Total E&P USA, INC. * CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff * 4:16-cv-02671 * v. * JUDGE NANCY F. ATLAS * MARUBENI OIL & GAS (USA) INC. * Defendant * **************************************** MARUBENI OIL & GAS (USA) LLC’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS Marubeni Oil & Gas (USA), LLC (“MOGUS”), as the prevailing party in the above- captioned matter, hereby submits this Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). MOGUS requests an award of $2,459,057.42 in reasonable attorney’s fees and $625,820.07 in costs, which represents the fees and costs that MOGUS has paid in this case from inception to date.1 INTRODUCTION On February 21, 2019, the Court granted MOGUS’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Damages and entered judgment in favor of MOGUS and against Total E&P USA, Inc. (“Total”) in the principal amount of $12,677,584 for costs incurred by MOGUS as of June 30, 2017, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs.2 On that 1 This motion includes MOGUS’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred through January 31, 2019. At the conclusion of all post-judgment proceedings and any appeals, MOGUS will file a supplemental motion to recover any additional attorney’s fees and costs incurred after that date, including any fees and costs incurred during February/March 2019 and in any post-judgment proceedings. 2 Dkt. 228. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 1 of 17 2 day, the Court also entered a scheduling order that set briefing deadlines for MOGUS to file a motion for attorney fees and costs.3 MOGUS, therefore, files the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. MOGUS’s attorney fees and costs are recoverable under the CEPS Operating Agreement (the “CEPS OA”), which provides that MOGUS is entitled to recover “attorney’s fees, court costs, and other costs in connection with the collection of unpaid amounts” due from Total.4 LAW AND ARGUMENT Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) requires a party seeking attorney’s fees and related expenses to submit a motion within 14 days after the entry of judgment that specifies the amount sought, as well as “the judgment and the statute, rule or other grounds entitling the movant to the award.”5 MOGUS’s entitlement to an award under Rule 54(d)6 is provided specifically in Exhibit C, Section I.3.B. of the CEPS OA, whereby the parties agreed: [E]ach Party shall pay its proportion of all bills within thirty (30) days of receipt date. If payment is not made within such time, the unpaid balance shall bear interest compounded monthly using the U.S. Treasury Bill three month rate plus 3% in effect on the first day of the month for each month that the payment is delinquent or the maximum contract rate permitted by the applicable usury laws in the jurisdiction in which the Common System is located, whichever is the lesser, plus 3 Dkt. 229. 4 The CEPS OA is available at Dkt. 230-1. The specific provision quoted above (Exhibit C, ¶ I.3.B.) is available at ECF p. 75 of Dkt. 230-1. 5 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(d). 6 In addition, Alabama law, which governs this dispute (Dkt. 168), provides that attorney’s fees may be awarded if authorized by statute, contract, or special equity. Regions Bank v. Lowrey, 101 So. 3d 210, 220 (Ala. 2012) (citing Hart v. Jackson, 607 So. 2d 161, 163–64 (Ala. 1992)) (“In Alabama, attorney fees are to be awarded only if they are provided for by statute, contract, or special equity.”). Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 2 of 17 3 attorney’s fees, court costs, and other costs in connection with the collection of unpaid amounts. Interest shall begin accruing on the first day of the month in which the payment was due.7 MOGUS is therefore entitled to recover attorney’s fees, court costs, and other costs in connection with MOGUS’s efforts to collect Total’s share of decommissioning costs through this litigation. The amounts of these fees and costs are described below and supported by the declarations of Paul J. Goodwine, Exhibit A hereto, and Joelle F. Evans, Exhibit B hereto. A. Total owes MOGUS $2,459,057.42 in attorney’s fees. The calculation of reasonable attorney’s fees under Rule 54(d) involves a two-step process.8 First, the district court must multiply the attorney hours worked by an hourly rate the Court deems reasonable.9 The product of this calculation is called the lodestar, which the district court then either accepts or adjusts upward or downward, depending on the circumstances of the case. There is a strong presumption that the lodestar calculation is reasonable.10 The second step involves a consideration of the twelve Johnson factors to make any adjustments to the award.11 These factors include: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the 7 See Dkt. 230-1, at ECF p. 75 (CEPS OA, Exhibit C, ¶ I.3.B.) (emphasis added). On February 16, 2018, MOGUS filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability with Respect to CEPS, seeking “summary judgment finding TOTAL liable to pay its 25.834% share of the decommissioning expenses associated with the CEPS, plus interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.” Dkt. 92, at ECF p. 36 (emphasis added). This Court granted MOGUS’s motion. Dkt. 181. 8 Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 323 (5th Cir. 1995). 9 Bank of Am., N.A. v. World of Smiles, 2017 WL 4118871, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 18, 2017). 10 Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 458 (5th Cir. 1993). 11 See Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974). Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 3 of 17 4 novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.12 I. Step 1: Calculate the Lodestar Based on the number of attorney hours worked multiplied by the applicable hourly rates, Total owes MOGUS $2,459,057.42 in attorney’s fees. a. The attorney hours worked are reasonable. For over 30 months, each side aggressively prosecuted its claims and vigorously defended against claims alleged by the other side. MOGUS’s counsel expended approximately 6,786.264 hours litigating this case since its inception. The number of hours worked were both reasonable and necessary because the litigation has been protracted and labor intensive. Moreover, the time and expense required for this case was driven primarily by Total, which, among other things, refused to arbitrate, filed three separate lawsuits, opposed consolidation, and pursued virtually unlimited discovery from MOGUS. On August 18, 2016 – the day before MOGUS was to submit this matter for arbitration – Total filed two separate, but identical, state court petitions in Harris County, 12 Id. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 4 of 17 5 Texas seeking declaratory judgment, one for MC 305 and one for MC 348. On August 24, 2016, TOTAL filed a third declaratory judgment action in Harris County involving the CEPS. MOGUS was then required to file notices to remove the three actions to the Southern District of Texas,13 which Total opposed14 and MOGUS justified through motion practice.15 Total was also opposed to MOGUS’s motion to consolidate the three actions in an effort to save litigation expenses.16 After this case had been pending for a few months, MOGUS filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to Total’s liability under the CEPS OA.17 In response, Total filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) arguing that it needed to conduct discovery to respond to MOGUS’s motion.18 The Court granted Total’s Rule 56(d) motion,19 and Total proceeded to conduct far-reaching discovery on MOGUS. In this case alone, Total propounded 59 requests for production, 50 requests for admission, and 18 interrogatories on MOGUS. Total and MOGUS agreed that, due to the overlapping nature of the three cases, discovery responses would apply to all three cases. MOGUS’s counsel spent thousands of attorney hours reviewing documents and developing privilege logs. Further, in addition to searching and producing all relevant records of MOGUS, Total also required MOGUS to search and produce all relevant records from its 13 See Dkt. 1; see also Dkt. 1 (Case No. 16-2674); Dkt. 1 (Case No. 16-2678). 14 Dkt. 2 (Total’s motion to remand). 15 See Dkt. 16; see also Dkt. 21 (order denying Total’s motion to remand). 16 Dkt. 7 (Case No. 16-2674). 17 Dkt. 28. 18 Dkt. 34. 19 Dkt. 43. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 5 of 17 6 parent company in Tokyo.20 In all, MOGUS searched the records of over 30 document custodians and produced over 500,000 pages of documents to Total. This case also required 27 fact and expert depositions, and many discovery disputes arose during the litigation.21 After the discovery deadline expired, the parties engaged in additional, and substantial, motion practice. On February 16, 2018, MOGUS filed a renewed motion for partial summary judgment on Total’s liability under the CEPS OA.22 Total also filed two separate motions for summary judgment that day, in which it denied liability under the contract and claimed that its liability had been satisfied through the ATP bankruptcy.23 These motions, and others, were referred to Magistrate Judge Palermo for report and recommendation.24 After two full days of oral argument, Judge Palermo issued a Report and Recommendation finding that MOGUS’s motion should be granted and Total’s motions should be denied.25 Total then objected to Judge Palermo’s findings, which required additional motion practice.26 This Court eventually adopted Judge Palermo’s Report and Recommendation, granted MOGUS’s motion, and denied Total’s motions.27 20 This was required through a motion to compel which was granted in the MC 305 case. See Dkts. 72 and 96 (Case No. 16-2674). 21 See, e.g., Dkt. 115 (Total’s motion to compel production of documents listed on MOGUS’s privilege log); see also Dkt. 141 (denying Total’s motion to compel). 22 Dkt. 92. 23 Dkts. 97 and 98. 24 Dkt. 71. 25 Dkt. 163. 26 See Dkts. 172, 178, 179, and 180. 27 Dkt. 181. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 6 of 17 7 Total then filed a motion to certify the ruling for interlocutory appeal,28 which MOGUS opposed29 and the Court denied.30 Similar motion practice occurred with respect to the parties’ choice-of-law motions. The parties disputed the applicable law governing the dispute, and both parties filed motions on the applicable choice of law.31 These motions were also referred to Judge Palermo,32 who entered a Report and Recommendation in favor of MOGUS and against Total.33 Total then objected to the Report and Recommendation on choice of law, MOGUS responded, and Total replied.34 The Court ultimately adopted Judge Palermo’s finding and granted MOGUS’s motion.35 On September 11, 2018, the Court notified the parties that trial in this case would commence on February 18, 2019.36 Because a definitive trial date was not set in the MC 305 case until December 20, 2018,37 MOGUS’s attorneys believed that trial in this case would proceed first and focused their initial trial preparations on this case. Due to the Court’s liability ruling, the only issue remaining for trial in this case was the amount of MOGUS’s damages, and MOGUS filed certain motions in limine to exclude at trial 28 Dkt. 194. 29 Dkt. 199. 30 Dkt. 203. 31 See Dkts. 93, 99, 105, 113, 122, and 130. 32 Dkt. 71. 33 Dkt. 159. 34 See Dkts. 161, 164, and 167. 35 Dkt. 168. 36 Dkt. 185. Trial was later rescheduled for February 20, 2019. Dkt. 220. 37 See Dkt. 233 (Case No. 16-2674). Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 7 of 17 8 evidence and argument unrelated to damages. This included a motion in limine seeking to exclude various liability issues that Total had identified as “issues for damages.”38 Such issues related to hydrate remediation, the Bennu ORRI, the sale of CEPS, supplemental bonding, and accounting.39 After thorough motion practice, the Court granted MOGUS’s motion.40 Moreover, earlier in the case, MOGUS had filed various motions in limine to exclude certain opinions of Total’s experts,41 which were all granted by the Court.42 MOGUS later filed a supplemental motion in limine to exclude Total’s expert opinions unrelated to damages,43 which the Court also granted.44 As trial approached, MOGUS also worked with Total on a joint pretrial order, proposed jury charges, and a proposed jury verdict in addition to filing its own pre-trial memorandum and witness and exhibit lists. MOGUS also reviewed and objected to Total’s exhibit list consisting of approximately 438 exhibits and participated in the Court’s docket call. Additionally, MOGUS’s attorneys prepared for their trial presentations, which included among other things preparing an opening statement, creating demonstratives, and preparing for the direct and cross examination of the witnesses listed to testify. 38 Dkt. 191; see also Dkt. 201 (MOGUS’s reply in support). 39 Id. 40 Dkt. 206. 41 See Dkts. 86, 87, 88, 89, and 90. MOGUS’s replies in support of those motions are available at Dkts. 123, 124, 125, 126, and 128. 42 Dkt. 182. 43 Dtk. 193; see also Dkt. 202 (MOGUS’s reply in support). 44 Dkt. 206. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 8 of 17 9 Nevertheless, on the days leading up to trial, the parties resolved the damages issues, and no trial was ultimately necessary. Below is an estimated summary of the fees incurred for the categories of work performed by MOGUS’s attorneys: Category of Work Performed Fees Answer, counterclaim, remand, and other pre-discovery motions $96,318.59 Non-deposition discovery $451,561.04 Depositions $339,686.21 Discovery disputes $128,219.15 Mediation $67,730.91 Expert reports $142,757.09 Motions for summary judgment $361,351.34 Motions in limine and other pleadings $280,104.09 Pretrial order and trial preparation $591,329.00 Total $2,459,057.42 Based on the complexity of the issues involved, the amount of discovery, and the extensive motion practice, the hours worked by MOGUS’s attorneys are reasonable. b. The hourly rates for MOGUS’s attorneys and paralegals are reasonable. MOGUS employed two firms to work on this case: (1) Looper Goodwine P.C. (“LG”) and Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin, LLC (“SEMM”). Reasonable rates, for purposes of a lodestar analysis, are the “prevailing hourly rate in the community for similar work.”45 Both LG and SEMM billed at hourly rates consistent with or below the market rates in Houston for attorneys of similar skill and experience, and the hourly rates charged are consistent with or below those charged to the firms’ other clients. LG’s 45 Combs v. City of Huntington, Texas, 829 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2016). Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 9 of 17 10 average hourly rates ranged from $225 to $485 for attorneys and was $97 for paralegals. SEMM’s hourly rates ranged from $195 to $575 for attorneys and $65 to $130 for paralegals. Cases from the Fifth Circuit and the Southern District of Texas confirm that the rates of LG and SEMM are reasonable and consistent with, and in many cases lower than, the normal and customary rates prevailing in the Houston market for attorneys and paralegals of like skill and experience. See, e.g., Miller v. Raytheon Co., 716 F.3d 138, 149 (5th Cir. 2013) (finding that “the reduced hourly rates of $577.50, $542.50, and $280 were reasonable, customary rates.”); Slipchenko v. Brunel Energy, Inc., 2015 WL 338358, at *19 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (J. Rosenthal) (approving hourly rates ranging from $635 to $775 for partners, $415 to $530 for associates, and $240 to $260 for paralegals in ERISA litigation); In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., 586 F. Supp. 2d 732, 781 and n. 61 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (J. Harmon) (finding that an average hourly rate of $630 for partners was reasonable); see also Michaels Stores Procurement Co. v. DMR Constr., Inc., 2019 WL 399074 (N.D. Tex. 2019) (approving and finding reasonable hourly attorney rates of $675, $575, and $375 and paralegal hourly rate of $225). MOGUS’s lawyers’ hourly rates are thus well within the “prevailing hourly rate in the community for similar work.”46 In fact, such rates are comparable with the hourly rates approved by Judge Hittner in a case that involved similar claims, except without the added complexity of having to address bankruptcy and predecessor liability issues. In Apache 46 Combs, 829 F.3d at 392. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 10 of 17 11 Corp. v. W&T Offshore Inc., there was a dispute between two current parties to an operating agreement regarding the non-operator’s liability under the contract for costs to decommission certain offshore wells.47 Like MOGUS, Apache, the operator, prevailed and sought attorney fees under an almost identical contract provision to that in the CEPS OA.48 Judge Hittner found that the following hourly rates were “reasonable rates” for calculation of the lodestar: $517.41 to $746.50 for partners, $350 to $450 for associates, and $125 to $270 for legal assistants.49 Thus, the attorney fees incurred by MOGUS are certainly reasonable for complex, commercial litigation like this, and are believed to be less than the amount that Total’s attorneys were paid for handling this litigation. Moreover, MOGUS’s counsel exercised good billing judgment. Paul J. Goodwine from LG and Joelle Evans from SEMM were the attorneys in charge for MOGUS in this matter. Mr. Goodwine directed and supervised the work performed by attorneys and paralegals at LG while Ms. Evans directed and supervised the work at SEMM. Throughout this case, Mr. Goodwine and Ms. Evans ensured that tasks were assigned to personnel who could handle them most efficiently, while taking into account the billing rate of each attorney. This included assigning tasks to associates or paralegals whenever possible. Attorneys with lower billing rates were largely responsible for the significant amount of discovery and motion writing. All attorney and paralegal work was monitored closely to 47 2017 WL 6326141 (S.D. Tex. 2017). 48 Cf. id. at *5, n.7 (quoting ¶ I.3.B. of Exhibit C to the Apache/W&T operating agreement) with Dkt. 230-1, at ECF p. 75 (¶ I.3.B. of Exhibit C to the CEPS OA). The only difference between the provisions is that bills under the Apache/W&T agreement must be paid within 15 days, whereas bills under the CEPS OA must be paid within 30 days. 49 Apache, 2017 WL 6326141, at *7. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 11 of 17 12 ensure that the work performed and time billed was reasonable and necessary to the prosecution and defense of MOGUS’s claims. Mr. Goodwine and Ms. Evans were also responsible for reviewing the time records, bills, and other invoices in this case. In their good faith billing discretion, and in order to comport with MOGUS’s litigation budget, Mr. Goodwine and Ms. Evans gave certain discounts to MOGUS and wrote off certain fees incurred. MOGUS does not seek to recover costs that were written off or were not charged to it as a result of its attorneys’ billing judgment. Considering the attorneys’ reasonable hours worked, reasonable rates, and billing discretion, MOGUS’s lodestar of $2,459,057.42 is reasonable. II. Step 2: Apply the Johnson Factors MOGUS does not seek an adjustment to the lodestar amount of $2,459,057.42 but, as applied below, the Johnson factors do support the reasonableness of MOGUS’s request for attorney’s fees: a. The time and labor required for the litigation: See above. b. The novelty and difficulty of the questions presented: This case presented complex and technical issues related to the plugging and abandonment of oil and gas wells as well as complex legal issues regarding, among other things, bankruptcy, federal plugging and abandonment regulations, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act choice-of-law, oil and gas accounting issues, technical operations issues, and predecessor liability. c. The skill required to perform the legal services properly: MOGUS’s attorneys have demonstrated the requisite professional skill with respect to both standard and novel problems encountered in this proceeding and have handled all legal issues in an efficient and effective manner. When possible, certain projects have been handled by paralegals or associates. All services performed by paralegals were professional in nature. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 12 of 17 13 d. The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case: LG’s representation of MOGUS has precluded LG from accepting additional business because of its representation of MOGUS in this case. The hours expended by LG and SEMM have also precluded work for other present and potential clients of the firms. e. The customary fee: See above. f. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent: The fees for the services of LG and SEMM are based upon the time spent on this case and are therefore fixed. g. Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances: This matter has involved several time-sensitive issues that have required an exceptional level of diligence and skill by LG and SEMM. This includes responding to the far-reaching discovery propounded by Total within a short time frame. h. The amount involved and the result obtained: MOGUS’s counsel obtained a judgment in the amount of $12,677,584, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs.50 i. The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys: LG believes and respectfully submits that its attorneys are highly regarded as experts in the areas of oil and gas and are acknowledged to have significant experience in oil and gas bankruptcies and plugging and abandonment issues. SEMM, moreover, believes and respectfully submits that its attorneys are highly skilled and have significant trial and litigation experience. Such experience and qualifications of MOGUS’s attorneys are described in more detail in the declarations attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. j. The “undesirability” of the case: This case has not been undesirable to either LG or SEMM, although it has presented highly complex, and often difficult issues, as noted above. k. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client: LG began working for MOGUS in April 2015. SEMM was retained by MOGUS in February 2017. l. Awards in similar cases: As explained above, LG and SEMM believe that the fees are in conformity with fees allowed in similar proceedings for similar services rendered and results obtained. 50 Dkt. 228. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 13 of 17 14 The Johnson factors support MOGUS’s lodestar, and MOGUS should be awarded $2,459,057.42 in attorney’s fees. B. Total owes MOGUS $625,820.07 in costs. Over the past 30 months of litigation, MOGUS incurred considerable expenses that were essential to litigating this case and to the successful outcome. Under Exhibit C, Section I.3.B. of the CEPS OA, Total agreed to pay MOGUS for “court costs, and other costs in connection with the collection of unpaid amounts.”51 In the Apache case, this exact clause was interpreted broadly to allow the prevailing party “to recover all categories of costs sought in this litigation under the contract.”52 Thus, under the CEPS OA, MOGUS is entitled to recover all litigation costs, and a summary of those costs is provided in the chart below: Category Amount Discovery $205,173.75 Transcripts $21,681.74 Mediation $2,504.00 Delivery services/messengers $1,237.19 Filing fees $2,066.67 Witness fees $18.68 Subpoenas $477.46 Litigation support53 $10,809.39 Meals $1,855.01 Parking $764.57 Pacer/Searches $833.41 Telephone $168.22 51 See Dkt. 230-1, at ECF p. 75 (CEPS OA, Exhibit C, ¶ I.3.B.) (emphasis added). 52 Apache, 2017 WL 6326141, at *7; see also See Hancock v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2391500, at *13 (N.D. Tex. June 3, 2013) (explaining that costs due under a contract can be broader than taxable costs covered by 19 U.S.C. § 1920). 53 Includes, among other things, costs incurred for trial demonstratives and trial supplies. Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 14 of 17 15 Travel expenses (e.g. flights, transportation) $30,619.96 Hotel and lodging $5,936.98 Westlaw/online research $14,653.73 Xerox/outside copying service $15,004.46 Postage $6.49 Expert witness fees $309,618.14 Translators/Interpreters $2,390.22 Total $625,820.07 MOGUS should therefore be awarded $625,820.07 in costs. These costs are further supported by the declarations of Mr. Goodwine, Exhibit A hereto, and Ms. Evans, Exhibit B hereto, and detailed records of these costs are attached to those declarations. Moreover, many of these litigation costs are also taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. If necessary, MOGUS will file an alternative Bill of Costs seeking those costs pursuant to Section 1920 and Local Rule 54.2 within 14 days of the entry of the final judgment.54 CONCLUSION MOGUS and Total agreed in their contract that attorney’s fees, costs, and any other costs expended to collect Total’s unpaid amounts are recoverable. MOGUS’s attorney fees and costs are directly attributable to the prosecution and defense of MOGUS’s claims and to the successful outcome of this litigation. As such, MOGUS respectfully requests that this Court award MOGUS $2,459,057.42 in reasonable attorney’s fees and $625,820.07 in costs. 54 See LR54.2 (“An application for costs shall be made by filing a bill of costs within 14 days of the entry of a final judgment.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(d)(1). Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 15 of 17 16 Respectfully submitted, LOOPER GOODWINE P.C. /s/ Paul J. Goodwine Paul J. Goodwine (Attorney-in-Charge) LA Bar No. 23757; SDTX ID No. 437800 Holly O. Thompson LA Bar No. 31277; SDTX ID No. 2953818 Taylor P. Mouledoux LA Bar No. 31889; SDTX ID No. 1581156 Taylor P. Gay LA Bar No. 35140; SDTX ID No. 3251449 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2400 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 503-1500 Telecopier: (504) 503-1501 pgoodwine@loopergoodwine.com hthompson@loopergoodwine.com tmouledoux@loopergoodwine.com tgay@loopergoodwine.com -and- SCHONEKAS, EVANS, McGOEY & McEACHIN, LLC Kyle Schonekas LA Bar No. 11817; SDTX ID No. 305350 Joelle F. Evans LA Bar No. 23730; SDTX ID No. 436275 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 680-6050 Telecopier: (504) 680-6051 kyle@semmlaw.com joelle@semmlaw.com Attorneys for Marubeni Oil & Gas (USA) LLC Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 16 of 17 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record for the parties via e-mail, FedEx and/or by electronic filing in the Court’s electronic filing system on this 4th day of March 2019. /s/ Paul J. Goodwine Paul J. Goodwine Case 4:16-cv-02671 Document 231 Filed on 03/04/19 in TXSD Page 17 of 17
