Biton v. Jackson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ETTI BITON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-23-968-SLP
)
JEFFREY JACKSON, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Attorney Fees [Doc. No. 101] filed pursuant
to the Court’s July 9, 2025 Order [Doc. No. 100]. In the July 9 Order, and at the sanctions
hearing on July 8, the Court found a monetary sanction and an attorney fee award were
appropriate sanctions for the conduct of Plaintiff’s counsel, Nkem Amadi House, Sr., in
failing to attend the Court’s June 12 status conference and failing to comply with the
Court’s Order to Show Cause. See id.; see also Minute Sheet [Doc. No. 99].
The Court directed counsel for Plaintiff to file billing records supporting the amount
of attorney’s fees requested by 5:00 p.m. on Friday July 11 and gave Mr. House an
opportunity to file an objection by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 14. See id. Counsel for
Plaintiff timely complied and filed their Notice requesting $1,000.00 in attorney’s fees.
See Notice [Doc. No. 101]. Mr. House filed a Response [Doc. No. 102] over three hours
late, at 8:09 p.m. on July 14. See [Doc. No. 102]. Mr. House states he “has not (sic)
objection to Plaintiff’s Notice and will remit the same once ordered by the Court.” Id.
Case 5:23-cv-00968-SLP Document 103 Filed 07/16/25 Page 1 of 3

2
In ordering attorney’s fees as a sanction pursuant to its inherent authority, the Court
considers: (1) the reasonableness of the fee amount; (2) that the award must be the
minimum amount reasonably necessary to deter the undesirable behavior; and (3) Mr.
House’s ability to pay. See Farmer v. Banco Popular of N. Am., 791 F.3d 1246, 1259 (10th
Cir. 2015); see also White v. Gen. Motors Corp., 908 F.2d 675, 684-85 (10th Cir. 1990)
(discussing the same factors in the context of attorney’s fees for a Rule 11 violation). The
“lodestar method”—i.e., a product of the number of attorney hours reasonably expended
and a reasonable hourly rate—is “an acceptable approach to determine the reasonableness
of a fee request. . .” Farmer, 791 F.3d at 1259. As particularly relevant where there is no
objection to the amount requested, “a trial court’s determination of fees need not be
exacting, and ‘should not result in a second major litigation.’” See Acosta v. Maranto, No.
CIV-15-1378-D, 2017 WL 6520919, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 20, 2017) (first quoting Fox
v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011), then citing Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581
U.S. 101, 110 (2017)).
Upon consideration of these factors, the Court finds the full amount requested by
Plaintiff is reasonable. See [Doc. No. 101-1]. Counsel for Plaintiff applied an hourly rate
of $250.00 per hour of attorney time, which is reasonable in the local legal community.
See id.; see also Gooden v. Drywall Supply Midwest, Inc., No. CIV-09-1101-D, 2010 WL
3769261, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 22, 2010) (finding “$250.00 per hour is reasonable and
fully justified” based in part on “the Court’s familiarity with prevailing rates in the local
legal community”). The four hours expended by counsel for Plaintiff is also eminently
reasonable: counsel seeks fees solely for time reasonably spent preparing for and attending
Case 5:23-cv-00968-SLP Document 103 Filed 07/16/25 Page 2 of 3

3
the status conference Mr. House failed to appear for, in addition to the sanctions hearing
and minor related matters. See [Doc. No. 101-1]. Accordingly, the lodestar amount of
$1,000.00 is reasonable.
The Court likewise finds the amount requested is the minimum amount reasonably
necessary to deter the undesirable behavior by Mr. House. As previously explained, Mr.
House’s failures have carelessly and unnecessarily wasted both judicial and party
resources. There have been at least eight docket entries and one hearing directly related to
Mr. House’s failures to appear and respond, all in a case where judgment has been entered
since January 7, 2025. Plaintiff seeks a relatively low amount of attorney fees in
connection with this conduct, and this amount represents only part of the overall time and
expense associated with Mr. House’s failure to appear and lack of responsiveness. Finally,
there is no concern regarding ability to pay because Mr. House states that he will “remit
the [amount requested by Plaintiff] once ordered by the Court.” See [Doc. No. 102]. For
all these reasons, the Court finds the amount requested by Plaintiff is reasonable and
appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
Order, counsel for Defendant, Nkem Amadi House, Sr., shall pay the amount of $1,000.00
in attorney’s fees to Plaintiff Etti Biton, in care of her counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2025.
Case 5:23-cv-00968-SLP Document 103 Filed 07/16/25 Page 3 of 3