Following a motion for reconsideration on an order granting a fee application with a reduction for unproductive travel time, the court evaluated its decision on the appropriate billable rate for travel time. Consistent with its original ruling, the court concludes that it maintains discretion to review an employment agreement and make adjustments accordingly. The court upholds its determination that unproductive travel time is compensable at one-half a professional’s normal hourly rate.
You are here
Click here to view.
Honorable David L. Bissett
In the context of a professional’s application for compensation, the court addressed the appropriate billable rate for travel time. The court concludes that time traveling, and not performing legal services while traveling, is compensable at one-half a professional’s normal hourly rate.
Consistent with the court’s previous determination that the Defendant willfully violated the stay, damages were assessed under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(k)(1). The court awarded the amount of the garnished wages and related attorney fees. Ultimately, the court imposes damages upon the Defendant in the amount of $13,025.72.
The court grants, in part, the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his complaint for willful violation of the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). In that regard, there is no material dispute as to the Defendant’s liability based upon her actions regarding her garnishment of the Chapter 7 Plaintiff-Debtor’s post-petition wages. The court set a subsequent hearing to determine damages.
The court determines that the Plaintiff’s state court judgment against the Defendant is non-dischargeable: the Plaintiff meets her burden of proof under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The Defendant misrepresented himself as a licensed Contractor.
Honorable Becker McKay Wyckoff Mignault
In overruling the objection of the United States Trustee and denying its motion to convert, the court found the Debtor’s proposed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization to be feasible based upon the financial projections and the commitment of the Debtor’s principals. Additionally, the court was unpersuaded by the United States Trustee’s assertion that the exculpation clause in the Debtor’s plan violated the Fourth Circuit’s instruction in Berhmann v. Nat’l Heritage Found., 663 F.3d 704 (4th Cir. 2011).