MP2 Energy, LLC v. DownUnder Geosolutions (America) LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MP2 ENERGY, LLC, 	§
§
§	Plaintiff,
v.
DOWNUNDER GEOSOLUTIONS
(AMERICA) LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. H-24-2347
ORDER FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS OF COURT
Pending 	before the 	Court is 	Plaintiff MP2 	Energy 	LLC's 	Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Court Costs, and Other Expenses (Document No. 105). Having
considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that
the motion should be granted in part for the reasons set out below.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from a contractual dispute stemming from complications brought
o~ by Winter Storm Uri in February of 2021. On October 6, 2025, the parties
proceeded to trial. On October 16, 2025, a jury returned a unanimous verdict in
Plaintiff MP2 Energy, 	LLC's 	("MP2") 	favor, 	finding 	Defendant DownUnder
Geosolutions (America) LLC ("DUG") liable to MP2 for breach of the Services
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 13

Agreement between the parties. 1 The jury also returned a verdict in favor of MP2
with regard to DUG's counterclaim, finding MP2 was not liable to DUG for breach
of the parties' Sales Agreement. 2 The jury awarded MP2 $270,477.32 in damages. 3
MP2 now moves for attorneys' fees and other items to be awarded by this Court.
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
MP2 moves the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$1,846,909.00, an award of attorney's fees in the amount of$15,000.00 for preparing
the pending motion, and court costs and expenses in the amount of $28,517.02,
amounting to a total request of $1,890,426.02. The Court will consider the requested
attorneys' fees and court costs, in tum.
A. 	Attorneys' Fees
MP2 seeks attorneys' fees pursuant to Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice
& Remedies Code, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which permits the
Court to enter a post-judgment award of attorneys' fees and costs. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 	54(d)(2). 	"In diversity 	cases[,] 	state 	law 	governs 	the 	award 	of attorney's
fees." Transverse, L.L.C. v. Iowa Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 992 F.3d 336,344 (5th Cir.
1 See Jury Verdict, Document No. 104 at 7-8.
2 See Jury Verdict, Document No; 104 at 10.
3 See Jury Verdict, Document No. 104 at 9.
2
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 13

2021) (quotation marks omitted). Under Texas Law, the party seeking fees has the
burden of showing entitlement to them. See Kinsel v. Lindsey, 526 S. W .3d 411, 427
(Tex. 2017).
In the Fifth Circuit, the "lodestar" method is used to determine statutorily
authorized attorney fees. Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., 98 F.3d 817, 821 (5th Cir.
1996). Under the lodestar method, the Court determines the reasonable hourly rate
for the movant' s attorney and the· reasonable number of hours expended on the
litigation by the movant's attorney. Id. The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the
reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours. Id. Once the lodestar is
initially determined, the Court may adjust the lodestar up or down to make the award
of attorney fees reasonable. Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453,457 (5th Cir. 1993). The
movant bears the burden of establishing the rate charged and reasonableness of the
hours expended. Riley v. City of Jackson, Miss., 99 F.3d 757, 760 (5th Cir. 1996).
Once the lodestar analysis is complete, the Court may increase or decrease the award
based on the factors provided in Johnson v. Ga. Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714,
717-19 (5th Cir. 1974). Saizan v. Delta Concrete Prods. Co., 448 F.3d 795,800 (5th
Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 4
4 The Johnson factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and
difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4)
the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; ( 5) the
customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by
the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the
3
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 13

Here, MP2 contends that it has accrued $1,846,909.00 in attorney fees. More
specifically, MP2 seeks $1,396,174.00 for the attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
its claim for breach of contract, and $450,735.00 in fees for successfully defending
against DUG' s counterclaim. In support of its request, MP2 produces detailed billing
records, including descriptions of the tasks performed throughout the litigation. MP2
also produced a declaration of senior equity partner on the case, Michael J. Mazzone
("Mazzone"), in support of its fee request (the "Mazzone Declaration"). 5 The
Mazzone Declaration indicates MP2' s legal team from Haynes & Boone LLP billed
2,049.10 hours over a period spanning from May 2024 through October 16, 2025. 6
Mazzone declared that his hourly rate in this matter ranged from $1,225.00 to
$1,475.00 throughout the course of litigation. 7 Additionally, Mazzone declared that
Haynes & Boone appellate partner, Natasha Breaux, worked on the matter at a rate
ranging between $1,125.00 to $1,250.00. 8 Mazzone also declared several Haynes &
experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case;
(11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards
in similar cases. Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19.
5 See Plaintiff MP2 Energy LLC 's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Court Costs, and
Other Expenses, Document No. 	105, Exhibit 2 at 	1-17 (Declaration of Michael J.
Mazzone) [hereinafter Declaration of Michael J. Mazzone].
6 See Declaration of Michael J. Mazzone, supra note 5 at 5.
1 See Declaration of Michael J. Mazzone, supra note 5, Exhibit B at 81 (Haynes &
Boone Billing Records) [hereinafter Haynes & Boone Billing Records].
8 See Haynes & Boone Billing Records, supra note 7, at 81.
4
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 13

Boone associates worked on the matter at a rate ranging between $550.00 and
$1,150.00. 9 Mazzone also contends that two Haynes & Boone paralegals worked on
the matter at a rate ranging between $550.00 and $650.00. 10
MP2 contends that the aforementioned attorneys' fees were reasonable and
necessary to obtain a verdict in MP2's favor over the course of nearly twenty-four
months oflitigation. MP2 notes for the Court the services Haynes & Boone rendered,
including, but not limited to: (1) investigating the underlying facts of this case; (2)
preparing disclosures and other discovery responses; (3) preparing two summary
judgment motions and related replies; (4) selecting and preparing expert witnesses;
and (5) preparing for and attending a two-week trial. MP2's request is supported by
voluminous billing records totaling over 100 pages, detailing the tasks completed by
the team, and the hours worked by each member. MP2 further contends that the rates
charged are within the range of what is commonly charged for practicing in federal
district court on commercial litigation matters and based on the experience and
qualifications of the attorneys involved. To support this argument, MP2 cites several
surveys of the Houston legal market that identify the prevailing billable hourly rate
for law firms with large litigation practices in Houston comparable to Haynes &
9 See Haynes & Boone Billing Records, supra note 7, at 81.
10 See Haynes & Boone Billing Records, supra note 7, at 82.
5
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 13

Boone, noting for the Court that their billable rates are in line with firms of similar
size, caliber, and reputation. 11
in response, DUG first contends that MP2's requested fee award is excessive
in relation to the amount of damages awarded by the jury. DUG further contends
that the requested award of almost $1,900,000.00 in attorneys' fees is unreasonable
when compared to the approximately $270,000.00 in damages awarded by the jury.
Second, DUG contends that the rates ·charged by MP2's counsel were excessive
when compared to the rates charged by DUG's counsel, noting instances where
MP2's attorney's charged hourly rates double that of DUG's counsel. Third, DUG
contends that MP2 failed to account for inefficiencies of younger attorneys staffed
on the matter, noting one junior associate who billed over 750 hours over the course
of nearly two years of litigation.
DUG also contends that MP2's requested paralegal fees should be rejected to
the extent that the paralegals performed administrative tasks. DUG cites for the
Court a total of $66,030.00 in tasks DUG contends are clerical in nature. 12 In
response, MP2 offers a supplemental declaration of Mr. Mazzone averring to the
qualifications of the two paralegals staffed in this case, which notes a depth of
11 See Declaration of Michael J. Mazzone, supra note 5 at 13-14.
12 See Defendant's Response to MP2 Energy LLC's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Court Costs, and Other Expenses, Document No. 108 at 19-26.
6
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 13

experience. 13 The Court has reviewed the billing entries associated with Haynes &
Boone's paralegals, and notes numerous substantive tasks performed, including trial
preparation, correspondence with opposing counsel and court staff, and filing
documents with the Court. Having considered the foregoing, the Court finds that
MP2' s requested paralegal fees are properly recoverable and should be reflected in
the Court's final award of attorneys' fees. The Court will now consider MP2's
attorney's hourly rates and the numbers of hours those attorneys expended in tum.
1. 	Hourly Rate
Under the lodestar method, the Court retains discretion to determine the
reasonable hourly rate, which is the rate prevailing in the community for similar
services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill. A review of the record in this
case reveals MP2' s attorneys successfully prosecuted a claim for breach of contract
against DUG, while simultaneously successfully defending against a counterclaim
brought by DUG against MP2. The Court also notes the plethora of data found within
Mazzone' s declaration identifying the customary fees for attorneys practicing at
large law firms in Houston, specifically those peer law firms to Haynes & Boone. 14
The Court further notes the inherent technical complexity of this case, having
13 See MP2 Energy LLC 's Reply in Support ofIts Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Court
Costs, and Other Expenses, Document No. 109, Exhibit B (Supplemental Declaration of
Michael J. Mazzone).
14 See Declaration of Michael J. Mazzone, supra note 5.
7
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 13

considered the nuances of the electric power industry and the parties' contractual
obligations with respect to the power grid. Iv1P2 	also notes for the Court the
longstanding recognition by Texas courts that parties "should be able to have a
choice in finally determining who represents them and the nature of the legal fees
which will be charged." Musslewhite v. State Bar of Tex., 786 S.W.2d 437,443 (Tex.
App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.) Despite DUG's contentions that the
hourly rate charged by attorneys employed by Haynes & Boone are unreasonable,
the Court finds that Haynes & Boone's hourly rates are appropriate considering the
complex nature of this litigation and the industry standard across equivalent firms
practicing in the H;ouston market. The Court will therefore apply these rates to
determine the appropriate amount of attorney fees. The Court now turns to the time
expended.
2. 	Time Expended
The party seeking attorney fees must present adequately documented time
records to the Court. Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 1993). Using this
time as a benchmark, the Court should exclude all time that is excessive, duplicative,
or inadequately documented. Id. The hours surviving this vetting process are those
reasonably expended in the litigation. Id. The Court examines both "whether the
total number of hours claimed were reasonable and whether specific hours claimed
8
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 13

were reasonably expended." LULAC v. Roscoe lndep. Sch. Dist., 119 F.3d 1228,
1232 (5th Cir. 1997).
MP2 requests an award based on the 2,049.10 hours billed by Haynes &
Boone. In response, DUG protests the number of hours billed across this case
generally, but specifically identifies four categories of tasks that allegedly took an
excessive amount of time, which include drafting: (1) the original petition; (2) the
initial disclosures; (3) the First Amended Complaint; and (4) two motions for
summary judgment. 15 MP2 notes for the Court that DUG fails to explain why the
hours billed for those tasks were unreasonable, and cite Texas law holding that "[a]n
affidavit filed by non-movant's counsel that simply criticizes the fees sought by the
movant as unreasonable without setting forth the basis for his opinion, as here, is·
conclusory." Iola Ba~ker v. Hurst, 632 S.W.3d 175, 192 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st
Dist.] 2021, no pet.).
DUG's only other criticism of the time Haynes & Boone expended in this
matter is with Haynes & Boone junior associate Ms. Dallas Jackson, who DUG
implies was inefficient in her billing, evidenced by the 786 hours she billed in this
case. In response, MP2 notes for the Court that DUG points to no evidence or
specific time entries that demonstrate that Ms. Jackson was inefficient in her efforts.
15 See Defendant's Response to MP2 Energy LLC's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Court Costs, and Other Expenses, Document No. 108 at 29.
9
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 13

MP2 further notes for the Court Ms. Jackson's significant familiarity with and
impact on the case, noting her efforts in: ( 1) conducting the entirety of MP2' s
document review 	and 	production; 	(2) 	drafting 	MP2's 	motions 	for 	summary
judgment and replies thereto; and (3) drafting the Joint Pretrial Order including
exhibit lists, motions in limine, and evidentiary objections.
Having 	considered 	the 	foregoing, 	pending 	motion, 	submissions, 	and
applicable law, in detail, the Court finds that MP2's requested attorneys' fees
calculation contains a reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable number of hours
expended. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court determines that the 	appropriate 	amount 	of
attorneys' fees to be awarded to MP2 in this matter is $1,846,909.00. 16 The Court
now turns to the award of court costs and expenses.
B. 	Court Costs and Expenses
MP2 requests court costs and expenses of $28,517.02. 17 The Court "may only
award those costs articulated in [28 U.S.C. 	§] 	1920 absent explicit statutory or
contractual authorization to the contrary." Cook Children's Med. Ctr. v. The New
16 MP2 also seeks $15,000.00 in anticipated fees in connection with preparing the
pending motion for attorneys' fees and reply thereto. See Plaintiff MP2 Energy LLC's
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Court Costs, and Other Expenses, Document No. 105 ai 11.
Considering the Court's award of $1,846,909.00 for legal work performed leading up to
the final jury verdict in this case, and the lack of billing records filed in support of MP2' s
request for prospective and anticipated attorneys' fees, the Court declines to award the
requested $15,000.00 in fees for the filing of the pending motion.
17 See Haynes & Boone Billing Records, supra note 7 at 65.
10
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 13

England PPO Plan of Gen. Consol. Mgmt., Inc., 491 F.3d 266,274 (5th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Mota v. The Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 529 (5th Cir.
2001)); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920. A party seeking costs must attach an affidavit "made
by himself or by his duly authorized attorney or agent having knowledge of the facts,
that such item is correct and has been necessarily incurred in the case and that the
services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed."
28 U.S.C. § 1924. Recoverable fees include: "(1) fees of the clerk and marshal; (2)
fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in
the case; (3) fees for printing and witnesses; ( 4) fees for exemplification and the
costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained
for use in the case; ( 5) docket fees ... ; and ( 6) compensation of court appointed
experts 	or 	interpreters, 	and 	salaries, 	fees, 	expenses, • and 	costs 	of 	special
interpretation services[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The Court may deny the award of
certain costs if the supporting affidavit is too conclusory to allow the Court to make
a reasonable determination as to necessity. United States ex rel. King v. Solvay S.A.,
No. H-06-2662, 2016 WL 3523873, at *8 (S.D. Tex. June 6, 2016) (Miller, J.), aff'd,
871 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2017).
11
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 13

Here, l\1P2 provided the requested amount of court costs and expenses,
confirming them in the Mazzone Declaration. 18 l\1P2 contends that all the requested
costs are reasonable and necessary to progress the litigation in this case. In response,
DUG contends that $20,280.33 	of the requested $28,517.02 in costs are not
recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 because these costs include costs for technical
services not permitted under federal law. A review of l\1P2's requested expenses
reveal a number of items not ordinarily recoverable under 28 U.S.C. 	§ 1920
including: (1) parking and rideshare services for hearings and trial; (2) daily meals
during trial and depositions; (3) charges for legal search databases Westlaw and
Lexis Nexis; and (4) charges for legal software including PACER and Xera. 19
Having considered the full list of expenses requested by l\1P2, the Court determines
that $20,280.33 of the requested $28,517.02 in costs are not recoverable under
§1920, and, as such, should not be awarded in this matter. However, the Court finds
that l\1P2 is entitled to costs incurred during this case that are recoverable under
§1920 and therefore awards $8,236.69 in court costs and expenses.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
18 See Declaration of Michael J. Mazzone, supra note 5.
19 See Defendant's Response to MP2 Energy LLC's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Court Costs, and Other Expenses, Document No. 108 at 13-15.
12
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 13

ORDERS that Plaintiff MP2 Energy, LLC's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Court Costs, and Other Expenses (Document No. 105) is GRANTED IN PART.
The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff MP2 Energy, LLC is AWARD ED attorneys' fees in .
the amount of $1,846,909.00. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff MP2 Energy, LLC is AW ARD ED court costs and
expenses in the amount of $8,236.69.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 	~ day of February, 2026.
13
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-02347 Document 111 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 13 of 13