Frenotec LLC et al v. Texas Motorsports and Design LLC et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
FRENOTEC, LLC, et al., 	§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-1457-X
§
TEXAS MOTORSPORTS AND 	§
DESIGN LLC, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Frenotec, LLC and David Roy’s Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees filed on February 25, 2026. (Dkt. No. 41 (“Mot.”).) Plaintiffs seek
an order awarding reasonable costs against Defendants Texas Motorsports & Design,
LLC, Texas Motorsports Design TMD, LLC, Alexander Quintero, and Jazmine
Quintero (collectively “Defendants”) and their attorney, Thomas H. Keen, for
expenses associated with a motion to compel. Neither Defendants nor Keen has
filed a response to the motion within the time permitted. (See Dkt. No. 38
(“Defendant shall file a response no later than 14 days after Plaintiffs file the
motion.”).)
After considering the motion, supporting evidence, and applicable authority,
the Court GRANTS the motion and orders Defendants and Attorney Thomas H.
Keen to pay $5,865.00 for reasonable costs associated with Plaintiff’s motion to
compel discovery.
Case 3:25-cv-01457-X Document 43 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-2-
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in June 2025 alleging that Defendants infringed
Plaintiffs’ trademarks and engaged in unfair competition and cybersquatting. (See
generally Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery from Defendants
on December 10, 2025. (Dkt. No. 21.) According to the motion, Defendants’
disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) were insufficient and Defendants wholly
failed to respond to requests for production and interrogatories. The Court ordered
Defendants to file their response to the motion to compel no later than December 18.
(Dkt. No. 23.) After Defendants’ response deadline passed without any response
having been filed, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a report by December 29
advising the Court of the status of Defendants’ disclosures and production of
discovery. (Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiffs filed the status report as directed, and they
reported that Defendants had not supplemented their disclosures or provided any
response to discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 27.)
On December 30, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and
ordered Defendants to serve complete disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A) and
complete responses to requests for production and interrogatories by January 15,
2026. (Dkt. No. 28.) The order noted the availability of expenses under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(5)(A) and provided Defendants an opportunity to file a response by
February 2, 2026, explaining why they should not be required to pay Plaintiffs’
reasonable costs incurred in filing the motion to compel. (Id.) Defendants never
Case 3:25-cv-01457-X Document 43 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-3-
filed a response to the order or otherwise showed cause why an award of costs
should not be ordered.
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees on February 25. (See
Mot.) They request reimbursement in the amount of $5,865.00 and support the
motion with a declaration by Katarzyna Brozynski, Plaintiffs’ counsel in this action.
(See Dkt. No. 41-1 (“Brozynski Decl.”).) She has been a licensed attorney for almost
25 years and attests to her familiarity with fees charged in this matter. (Id.) Plaintiffs
also provide the time entries for Brozynski and associate attorney Eric Knudsen
showing their time spent and brief descriptions of the work they performed, the
attorneys’ respective billing rates, and the total amount incurred relating to Plaintiffs’
motion to compel. (See Dkt. No. 41-2.)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) provides that, if a court grants a
motion to compel discovery, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be
heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or
attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses
incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” The Court must not,
however, “order this payment if: (i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in
good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the
opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or
(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 3:25-cv-01457-X Document 43 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-4-
37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii). “[T]he party whose conduct necessitated the filing of a motion to
compel discovery has the burden of showing that its actions were substantially
justified.” Architectural Granite & Marble, LLC v. Pental, No. 3:20-CV-295-L, 2023 WL
121996, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2023).
“‘Reasonable attorneys’ fees are determined through a two-step process,’
otherwise known as the lodestar method.” Ferguson v. Sw. Reg'l PCR, LLC, No. 5:22-
CV-182-H, 2023 WL 9890884, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2023) (quoting Fessler v.
Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., 23 F.4th 408, 415 (5th Cir. 2022)). The
lodestar is the product of the hours reasonably spent on the matter and an
appropriate hourly rate for such work. Id. Once the lodestar is calculated, the “court
may then ‘enhance or decrease the amount of attorney’s fees based on the relative
weights of the twelve factors” set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Exp., Inc., 488
F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). Ferguson, 2023 WL 9890884, at *2. The lodestar is
presumptively reasonable, and the fee applicant must support the application with
documentary proof establishing the reasonableness of the fees. Id. “[T]he party
desiring modification of the lodestar bears the burden of establishing that a reduction
is justified.” Id. (citing Fessler, 23 F.4th at 415–16).
III. ANALYSIS
None of the circumstances in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii) are present.
The Court, in its December 30 order, found that Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel
only after attempting to obtain discovery without resorting to court intervention.
Case 3:25-cv-01457-X Document 43 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-5-
(Dkt. No. 28.) Defendants did not file a response to the order as permitted, and they
have failed to show either that their nondisclosure was substantially justified or that
there are circumstances that would make an award of costs unjust.
Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants and their attorney to repay
attorneys’ fees totaling $5,865.00. As stated, their request is supported by Ms.
Brozynski’s declaration attesting to the reasonableness of the attorneys’ rates charged
and work performed in preparing and filing the motion to compel. Because
Defendants have not responded to the motion, they have not disputed or otherwise
given any reason to take issue with the work performed or the amount of attorneys’
fees sought.
Plaintiffs submit evidence showing that Ms. Brozynski spent 4.9 hours and
Mr. Knudsen spent 7.8 hours working on matters pertaining to the motion to
compel. Additionally, the declaration establishes the reasonableness of Ms.
Brozynski’s billing rate of $600.00 per hour and Mr. Knudsen’s billing rate of
$375.00 per hour. Based on these hours and billing rates, Plaintiffs compute a
lodestar amount of $5,865.00.
An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is “calculated according to the prevailing
market rates in the relevant community . . . for similar services by lawyers of
reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil
Consultants, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-2025-K-BN, 2024 WL 1348401, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
Mar. 28, 2024) (quoting McClain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 649 F.3d 374, 381 (5th Cir.
Case 3:25-cv-01457-X Document 43 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-6-
2011)). “The relevant legal community is the community in which the district court
sits.” Id. (citing Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2002)).
The reasonable hourly rate is typically established through sworn testimony of
other attorneys practicing in the legal community, but the Court may also exercise its
judgment based on its own expertise to assess the appropriate hourly rate. Id. “The
party seeking reimbursement of attorneys’ fees bears the burden to ‘produce
satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorneys’ own affidavits—that the
requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services
by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. (quoting
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96 n.11 (1984)).
Because Defendants have not filed a response, they do not dispute the lodestar
amount computed and, therefore, do not show that any adjustment to the lodestar
amount is appropriate. Considering all appropriate factors, the Court determines
that Plaintiffs reasonably incurred $5,865.00 in filing the motion to compel.
Rule 37(a)(5)(A) requires costs be paid by “the party . . . whose conduct
necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both[.]” In
the absence of any assertion that either defendants or their attorney bear primary
responsibility for the conduct that necessitated the motion to compel, the Court
determines that it is appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case to order
that the attorneys’ fees be jointly and severally paid by Defendants and their
attorney.
Case 3:25-cv-01457-X Document 43 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID <pageID>

-7-
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No. 41) is GRANTED.
Defendants Texas Motorsports & Design, LLC, Texas Motorsports Design TMD,
LLC, Alexander Quintero, and Jazmine Quintero and Attorney Thomas H. Keen
are ORDERED to pay $5,586.00 to the law firm Brozynski & Dalton, P.C. within
45 days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED on March 12, 2026.
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01457-X Document 43 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID <pageID>