United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H. BRUCE GUYTON, District Judge.
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and the referral order of the Chief District Judge.
On August 7, 2014, the Clerk of Court entered Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Capital Restoration, Inc., ("Capital Restoration"), in the amount of $3, 000, 000.00, with an additional award of $410.96 per diem in prejudgment interest from the filing of the Complaint on January 24, 2013.
On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees, Costs, & Post-Judgment Interest [Doc. 49]. In her motion, Plaintiff moves the Court to award her attorney's fees of $28, 757.50, costs in the amount of $205.74, as required by Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and post-judgment interest at a rate of.12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Plaintiff filed her motion on August 19, 2014. Defendant Capital Restoration, Inc. has not responded to the motion, and their time for doing so has expired, see E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1; Fed.R.Civ.P. 5, 6.
II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Plaintiff moves the Court to award her attorney fees of $28, 757.50, her costs in the amount of $205.74, and post-judgment interest at a rate of.12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). The Plaintiff has submitted both an affidavit of counsel and counsel's billing records in support of her request for attorney fees, and a list of costs incurred [Docs. 49-1, 49-2]. The Plaintiff maintains that the fees, costs, and proposed interest rate are reasonable and appropriate.
As stated above, Capital Restoration has not filed a timely response in opposition to the relief sought by the Plaintiff. The Court may treat this failure to respond as acquiescence to the relief sought. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2.
As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's request for fees, costs, and post-judgment interest is unopposed, and it could be granted on this basis alone. Nonetheless, the Court has considered the reasonableness of the Plaintiff's requested relief.
A. Attorney Fees
The Court finds that a lodestar analysis is the appropriate means for determining the fees reasonably incurred in this case. See Adcock-Ladd v. Sec'y of the Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 349 (6th Cir. 2000); see also Hunter v. City of Copper Hill, Case No. 1:09-CV-238, 2013 WL 5278673, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 19, 2013) (noting the standard applied to an attorney's fee application under the THRA is the same as the standard applied to an attorney's fee application brought by a prevailing plaintiff under federal anti-discrimination laws).
1. Hourly Rate Charged
Pursuant to the lodestar method, the Court considers, first, the reasonableness of the ...