Rentokil North America, Inc. v. Z&H Foods, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA,
INC.,
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
V. 	§ 	Civil Action No. H-24-4327
§
Z&H FOODS, INC., et. al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
§
ORDER FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS OF COURT
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Rentokil North America, Inc.' s Motion
for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Document No. 74). Having considered the
motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the motion
should be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from a contractual dispute. On July 9, 2018, PlaintiffRentokil
North America, Inc. ("Rentokil"), a pest control services provider, entered into an
agreement with Defendants Z&H Foods, Inc., Zubha Foods, LLC, HZ Ops Holdings,
Inc., and Zubha Ppp Foods, LLC (hereinafter "Defendants"), to provide pest control
services at various Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen locations owned and operated by
Defendants. After the contract between the parties was executed, Defendants failed
to pay Rentokil for over $430,000.00 in pest control related services. Based on the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 19, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

foregoing, on November 6, 2024, Rentokil filed suit against Defendants in this
Court, asserting a clahn for breach of contract. On October 3, 2025, Rentokil filed a
motion for summary judgment, contending there was no material question of fact for
a jury regarding whether Defendants were in breach of contract. On January 22,
2026, the Court granted Rentokil' s motion for summary judgment and awarded
Rentokil damages in the principal amount of $431,107.40. Rentokil now moves for
attorney fees and other items to be awarded by this Court.
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
Rentokil contends they are entitled to an award of: (1) attorneys' fees for
services already rendered in the amount of $153,807.00; (2) prospective attorneys'
fees in the amount of$32,000.00; and (3) costs of court in the amount of$2,181.79. 1
The Court will consider each of Rentokil' s requests in tum.
A. 	Attorneys' Fees
Rentokil contends their legal counsel is entitled to attorney fees under both
the parties' contractual agreement and the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
now that it has prevailed on summary judgment. Accordingly, Rentokil has provided
a detailed accounting of its attorneys' 	fees in connection with its request for
1 See Rentokil North America, Inc. 's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, Document No. 74 at 1-8.
2
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

$158,807.00. 2 In response, Defendants contend that Rentokil's hours claimed are
excessive and unreasonable under the lodestar standard.
In the Fifth Cijcuit, the "lodestar" method is used to determine statutorily
authorized attorney ffes. Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., 98 F.3d 817, 821 (5th Cir.
1996). Under the lod~star 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). 3
2 See Rentokil North America, Inc. 's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, Document No. 14, Exhibit 1 at 1-80 (Declaration of Jose M Luzarraga).
3 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
3
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

Here, Rentokil contends that it has accrued $158,807.00 in attorney fees. In
support 	of 	its 	claim, 	Rentokil 	produces 	detailed 	billing 	records, 	including
descriptions of the tasks performed throughout the course of litigation. Rentokil also
produced 	a 	declaration 	of 	senior 	partner 	on 	the 	case, 	Jose 	M. 	Luzarraga
("Luzarraga"), in support of its fee request (the "Luzarraga Declaration"). 4 The
Luzarraga Declaration indicates Renotkil's legal team from Butler Snow LLP billed
494.5 hours over a period of sixteen months, spanning from September 2024 to
January 2026. Luzarraga declared that his billable hour rate over the course of
litigation was $495 per hour. Additionally, Luzarraga declared that four associate
attorneys worked on the matter at a rate of $300 per hour. Luzarraga also declared
that a special projects manager worked on the matter at a rate of $225 per hour.
Luzarraga finally declared that a paralegal worked on the matter at a rate of $255 an
hour. Luzarraga also contends that an additional 14.8 hours were incurred for a
senior counsel's time, but out of an abundance of caution the firm declined to seek
recovery of that counsel's fees. Luzarraga contends the billing rates charged by his
firm avoided unnecessary expense by utilizing associate attorneys with lower
the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the
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.
4 See Declaration of Jose M Luzarraga, supra note 2.
4
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

billable hour rates, and staff members with specialized document review skills to
save "hundreds of hours of attorney time." 5
The Court has carefully analyzed the billing records and task descriptions.
produced by Rentokil. Based on the Court~s analysis of the bill: (1) Luzarraga billed
54.9 hours at $495 per hour; (2) various Butler Snow LLP associates billed 354.9
hours at $300.00 per hour; and (3) support staff billed 84.7 hours at a blended rate
of $238.03 per hour. 6 Rentokil contends that the billable rates are reasonable and
necessary in this matter, and 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.
In response, Defendants fail to offer any contention or argument opposing
Rentokil' s hourly rates, only offering opposition to the number of hours billed by
Rentokil 	over the sixteen months this matter was 	ongoing before the Court.
Defendants specifically contend that Rentokil's legal counsel overstaffed this matter
and failed to provide meaningful proof that billing judgment was 	exercised.
Defendants further contend that a "40% reduction is conservative and warranted,"
5 See Declaration of Jose M Luzarraga, supra note 2 at 4.
6 See Declaration of Jose M Luzarraga, supra note 2 at 6.
5
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

and 	ask the 	Court 	to 	reduce 	Rentokil' s 	requested 	attorneys' 	fee 	award 	by
$61,522.80.7
The Court has independently reviewed the number of hours Rentokil's legal
counsel dedicated to this matter, and notes a significant number of hours dedicated
to: (1) analyzing almost 120,000 pages of document production during various
stages of litigation; (2) drafting and filing motions to dismiss and motions for
summary judgment; (3) responding to Defendants' motion to dismiss; (4) responding
to Defendants' multiple motions to exclude; ( 5) preparing pretrial materials; and ( 6)
communicating with opposing counsel throughout the 	sixteen months 	of this
litigation. Having reviewed Luzaragga's declaration, and having considered the
significant motion practice and discovery involved in this matter over the course of
sixteen months, the Court determines that the number of hours billed in this case are
reasonable given the circumstances. Accordingly, the Court determines that an
award 	of $158,807.00 	is 	appropriate. 	The Court now turns to the 	award 	of
prospective attorneys' fees.
B. 	Prospective Attorneys 'Fees
Rentokil also seeks $32,000.00 in prospective attorney's fees in the event
Defendants appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the
7 Defendants' Opposition to Rentokil North America, Inc. 's Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Document No. 78 at 5.
6
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

United States Supreme Court. 8 Rentokil also seeks an unspecified amount of
anticipated attorneys' fees in connection with the filing of the pending motion. 9
Considering the Court's award of $153,807.00 for legal work performed up to the
final judgment in this case,. and the lack of billing records filed in support of
Rentokil's request for prospective and anticipated attorneys' fees, the Court declines
to award the requested $32,000.00 in prospective attorneys' fees. The Court will
now consider Rentokil' s requested costs of court.
C. Costs of Court
Rentokil requests costs of court in the amount of $2,181.79, consisting of: ( 1)
$405.00 in filing fees; (2) $309.00 in securing service of process; (3) $347.69 in
copying and printing fees; (4) $92.79 for Bates labeling; and (5) $998.50 to store
documents on an electronic discovery platform. 10 In response, Defendants contend
that Rentokil seeks costs impermissible under federal law.
The Court "may only award those costs articulated in [28 U.S.C. §] 1920
absent 	explicit 	statutory 	or 	contractual 	authorization 	to 	the 	contrary." 	Cook
8 See Rentokil North America, Inc. 's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, Document No. 74 at 7.
9 See Rentokil North America, Inc. 's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, Document No. 74 at 7.
10 See Rentokil North America, Inc. 's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, Document No. 74 at 6.
7
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

·children's Med. Ctr. v. The New 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).
Here, Rentokil provided the amount of the court costs and confirmed them in
the Luzarraga Declaration. 11 Rentokil contends that all the requested costs are
11 Declaration of Jose M Luzarraga, supra note 2, at 5-6.
8
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

reasonable and necessary to progress the litigation in this case. 	In response,
Defendnats contend that costs for electronic database access and Bates labeling are
not recoverable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 because they are technical services not
permitted under the law. Having considered the full list of expenses requested by
Rentokil, the Court determines that $1,091.29 of the requested $2,181.79 in costs
are not recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and as such, should not be awarded in
this matter. However, the Court does find that Rentokil is entitled to costs incurred
during this case that are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and therefore awards
Rentokil $1,090.50 in costs of court.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that PlaintiffRentokil North America, Inc.'s Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Document No. 74) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court
further
ORDERS that Plaintiff is AWARDED damages in the principal amount of
$431,107.40. The Court further
ORDERS 	that Plaintiff is 	AWARDED 	attorneys' 	fees 	1n 	the 	sum 	of
$153,807.00. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff is AW ARD ED costs of court in the amount of
$1,090.50.
9
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this _Lg__ day of March, 2026.
10
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04327 Document 79 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 10