Aetna Group USA, Inc., vs Aidco International, Inc.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 24, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-15424
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-03341-RLV
AETNA GROUP USA, INC.,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Counter
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant,
versus
AIDCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Counter
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Claimant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 24, 2011)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Aetna Group USA, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees

-- 1 of 3 --

and costs of litigation. The court granted Aetna’s unopposed Motion for Summary
Judgment against AIDCO International, Inc. (“AIDCO”), but denied Aetna’s
request for fees and expenses because Aetna submitted insufficient evidence for
the court to determine the reasonableness of its request. Aetna now appeals,
arguing the district court erred by denying attorney’s fees based on an insufficient
factual record without first allowing Aetna an opportunity to supplement the
supporting affidavit and billing record.
We review the denial of attorney’s fees for an abuse of discretion. In re
Trinity Indus., Inc, 876 F.2d 1485, 1496 (11th Cir. 1989). A fee applicant “bears
the burden of establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours and
hourly rates. . . . [And fee counsel must supply] the court with specific and
detailed evidence from which the court can determine the reasonable hourly rate.”
Norman v. Hous. Auth., 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988). At a minimum, the
party seeking attorney’s fees must produce more than an affidavit from the
attorney performing the work. Id. at 1299.
Aetna fell short of meeting this burden. However, we have held that
“[w]here documentation is inadequate, the district court is not relieved of its
obligation to award a reasonable fee . . . the district court traditionally has had the
power to make such an award without the need of further pleadings or an
2

-- 2 of 3 --

evidentiary hearing.” Id. at 1303; see also Thompson v. Pharmacy Corp. of Am.,
334 F.3d 1242, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (holding the “district court’s
conclusion that [the attorney] should receive no compensation” was an abuse of
discretion because “we are confident that some legitimate time was expended by
[the attorney]”). Thus, the district court should have given Aetna “an adequate
opportunity to respond to the court’s concerns regarding the fee application and to
correct perceived inadequacies in that application before making its decision.”
See NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1987) (per
curiam).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed. On remand, the
court should permit fee counsel to supplement its inadequate fee application.
REVERSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --