Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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



July 31, 1997


The opinion of the court was delivered by: MUNSON



 Presently before the court is Abdallah G. Bseirani's, AGB International Management Corporation's and Pittcon Preinsulated Pipe Corporation's (hereinafter "the Bseirani Parties") motion to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs for legal services rendered in connection with the successful litigation of claims brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter "RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum-Decision and Order, the court grants the Bseirani Parties' motion in the total amount of $ 620,361.48. Of this amount, $ 176,734.58 is apportioned against Mr. Mahshie and $ 443,626.90 is apportioned against Ismail Abou-Khadra, Contractors Services Establishment and Saudi Preinsulated Pipes Industries (hereinafter "the Abou-Khadra Parties").


 The instant motion is the culmination of litigation arising from a failed business relationship between Ismail Abou-Khadra and Abdallah G. Bseirani. The relationship began in late 1978 when George T. Mahshie introduced the two parties and continued until the early 1980's when Mr. Bseirani and Mr. Abou-Khadra had a falling out over the operation and control of two companies, Contract Services Establishment and Saudi Preinsulated Pipes Industries.

 Initially, the Bseirani Parties commenced an action against Mr. Mahshie in state court, which ultimately was settled. The Abou-Khadra Parties commenced suit in this court against a number of defendants, including the Bseirani Parties and Mr. Mahshie. The Bseirani Parties asserted seventeen counterclaims against the Abou-Khadra Parties, Mr. Mahshie and others in the federal action. Included in these counterclaims were alleged violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. The jury found against the Abou-Khadra Parties on their claims against the Bseirani Parties and for the Bseirani Parties on their counterclaims against the Abou-Khadra Parties and Mr. Mahshie, including those alleging violations of RICO.

 On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the finding of liability against the Abou-Khadra Parties and set aside the finding of liability against Mr. Mahshie, ordering a new trial for Mr. Mahshie only. Abou-Khadra v. Bseirani, 4 F.3d 1071 (2d Cir. 1993). Upon remand, the jury found in favor of the Bseirani Parties on all claims against Mr. Mahshie, including two violations of RICO. The Second Circuit affirmed these findings. Bseirani v. Mahshie, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 180, 1997 WL 3632 (2d Cir. 1997).

 The Bseirani Parties now move to recover the attorney's fees and costs incurred as the result of successful litigation of their counterclaims against Mr. Mahshie and the Abou-Khadra Parties. *fn1" In support of their motion the Bseirani Parties have submitted billing memoranda detailing the legal services rendered between June 17, 1985 and May 31, 1995. These records reveal that the Bseirani Parties seek a total award (fees and costs) of $ 952,777.37 apportioned as follows: $ 632,118.47 against the Abou-Khadra Parties and $ 320,658.90 against Mr. Mahshie. In addition, the Bseirani Parties acknowledge that a portion of the time spent litigating these claims and the associated costs are common to claims against both Mr. Mashie and the Abou-Khadra Parties. Thus, they request that $ 238,664.58 of the total award be deemed joint and several.

 Mr. Mahshie objects to the motion on the basis that the Bseirani Parties have failed to provide sufficient detail to permit the court to apportion the costs between the Abou-Khadra Parties and Mr. Mahshie. Therefore, Mr. Mahshie asks the court either to order the Bseirani Parties to resubmit their application in more detail or to reduce the requested amount to reflect only those fees and costs necessarily incurred in the second trial.

  The court notes that the Abou-Khadra Parties have filed no opposition to this motion.


 I. Reasonable Attorney's Fee

 Under the "American System" each party in a lawsuit usually bears the burden of paying its own attorney's fees and costs. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-30, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983); Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc., 421 U.S. 240, 247, 44 L. Ed. 2d 141, 95 S. Ct. 1612 (1975). Certain statutes, however, provide that the successful party may recover such fees and costs from the adverse party. Alyeska, 421 U.S. at 247-271. The Bseirani Parties rely upon section 1964(c) of RICO as the basis for their request.

 In relevant part this statute provides that: "any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). An applicant for an award under § 1964(c) bears the burden of establishing entitlement to such an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and the hourly rates. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 424. Therefore, the court initially must inquire whether the Bseirani Parties properly have demonstrated their entitlement to recovery pursuant to § 1964(c). If such entitlement has been established, the court will then analyze the submitted hours and requested rates to determine the final award.

 II. Entitlement to Award

 To establish entitlement to an award under § 1964(c), a movant must demonstrate that he is a prevailing party. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; see also Lyte v. Sara Lee Corp., 950 F.2d 101, 103 (2d Cir. 1991). To be considered a prevailing party for the purposes of such an award, a movant must demonstrate success "on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; see also Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co., 102 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1996); Carroll v. Blinken, 42 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1994).

 Here, there is no question that the Bseirani Parties are prevailing parties against both the Abou-Khadra Parties and Mr. Mahshie. The Bseirani Parties' counterclaims were resolved in two trials that resulted in jury findings that the Abou-Khadra Parties and Mr. Mahshie had violated RICO. The findings of both trials were affirmed on appeal. Abou-Khadra, 4 F.3d 1071; Bseirani, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 180, 1997 WL 3632. Accordingly, the court concludes that the Bseirani Parties have demonstrated entitlement to an award under § 1964(c).

 III. Determination of Award

 Having determined that the Bseirani Parties are prevailing parties, the court moves to the determination of an appropriate award. The responsibility for performing the analysis necessary to determine a fee award falls to the trial court. Bingham v. Zolt, 66 F.3d 553, 565 (2d Cir. 1995). This court is aware, however, the it should not "become enmeshed in a meticulous analysis of every detailed facet of the professional representation." Seigal v. Merrick, 619 F.2d 160, 164 n. 8 (2d Cir. 1980) (quoting Lindy Bros. Building, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 540 F.2d 102, 116 (3d Cir. 1976)). As the Supreme Court has indicated, "a request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437.

 An initial reasonable fee is determined by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the hourly rate customarily charged for similar litigation by attorneys of the same skill in the area. United States Football League v. National Football League, 887 F.2d 408, 413 (2d Cir. 1989); City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 560 F.2d 1093, 1098 (2d Cir. 1977). The product of these figures is referred to as the "lodestar" amount. United States Football League, 887 F.2d at 415. As the Supreme Court has explained, "this amount provides an objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of the lawyer's services." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. Although, this figure ultimately may be adjusted upward or downward, there is a strong presumption that the lodestar figure represents a "reasonable" amount. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439, 106 S. Ct. 3088 (1986).

 A. Determination of Reasonable Hours

 The first step in the calculation of a lodestar amount is to determine the reasonableness of the hours billed by the prevailing party's counsel. Fundamental to this determination is the submission of time records showing the hours spent by the attorney in pursuit of his client's claims. To establish the number of hours spent on the successful prosecution of their RICO claims, the Bseirani Parties have submitted computer generated billing records covering the work of forty-seven individuals for a period of 10 years. The submitted records list the person providing the service, the date on which the service was performed, the amount of time that was spent, a brief description of the work performed, and the value of the time calculated at the normal billing rates. Exs. B and C att'd to Bseirani Parties Aff., Doc. 445 in Case No. 84-CV-1502. According to these records, the Bseirani Parties seek attorney's fees for a total of 5818.25 hours expended over a ten year period. The following chart breaks these hours down by the year in which they were expended and the party against whom these hours are chargeable. HOURS Abou-Khadra Mahshie Common Total Parties Only Only to Both 1995 0 51.75 0 51.75 1994 123.25 536.25 0 659.5 1993 60.75 11.75 0 72.5 1992 340.75 11.5 0 352.25 1991 2231.25 25.75 .75 2257.75 1990 .25 .5 303 303.75 1989 0 8.25 488 496.25 1988 1.25 0 415.25 416.5 1987 41.25 29.75 655.5 726.5 1986 3.75 0 207.25 210.95 1985 106.25 0 164.25 270.45 TOTAL: 2908.75 675.5 2234 5818.25


© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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