Montgomery, Jr. - Adams-II v. Anderson et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CINDY ADAMS 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-2432
CONSUELLEO ANDERSON, ET AL. 	SECTION “R” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Waste Management of Virginia, Inc.’s
(Waste Management) unopposed motion for attorney’s fees. 1 	The Court
referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Michael B. North for a Report and
Recommendation (R&R). 2 	Magistrate Judge North recommended that the
motion be granted in part. 3 Plaintiff Cindy Adams objects to the R&R.4 The
Court has reviewed the motion, the record, the applicable law, the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R, and Adams’ objections. 	For the following reasons, the Court
overrules 	the 	objections 	and 	grants 	the 	amount 	of 	attorney’s 	fees 	as
determined in the R&R.
1 	R. Doc. 140.
2 	R. Doc. 132.
3 	R. Doc. 149.
4 	R. Doc. 150.
Case 2:24-cv-02432-SSV-MBN Document 152 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 5

2
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adams sued eighteen defendants for a series of disjointed claims
covering the past twenty-three years. 5 Adams alleged a slew of claims against
Waste Management, including civil conspiracy, sexual harassment, and
retaliation. 6 Waste Management asserted a counterclaim against Adams for
breach of contract, based on a release agreement entered between Adams
and Waste Management in October 2020. 7 	In that agreement, Adams
released any and all claims against Waste Management pertaining to, among
other bases, her employment with and separation from Waste Management,
discrimination, and retaliation.8 	The agreement included a provision that
Adams would pay attorney’s fees if she breached the agreement. 9
Adams did not respond to the counterclaim, and this Court granted
Waste Management’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. 10 	Waste
5 	R. Doc. 11.
6 	R. Doc. 11, at 6-7, 15.
7 	R. Doc. 59.
8 	R. Doc. 59-1.
9 	Id. 	at 9 (“In the event that ADAMS or WASTE MANAGEMENT
commences an action for damages, injunctive relief, or to enforce the
provisions of the Agreement, the prevailing party in any such action
shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney’s fees and all
costs 	including 	appellate 	fees 	and 	costs, 	incurred 	in 	connection
therewith as determined by the court in any such action.”)
10 	R. Doc. 132.
Case 2:24-cv-02432-SSV-MBN Document 152 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 5

3
Management then moved for attorney’s fees in the amount of $65,116,98. 11
Adams did not oppose the motion. 	This Court referred the motion to
Magistrate 	Judge 	North, 	who 	issued 	an 	R&R 	finding 	that 	Waste
Management was entitled to $35,872.65 in attorney’s fees.12 	Adams timely
filed an objection to the R&R. 13 	Adams objected only to the propriety of
awarding costs and fees against an in forma pauperis litigant; Adams did not
object to the R&R’s calculation of the lodestar amount and determination of
reasonable fees. 14
The Court addresses Adams’ objection below.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The Court applies de novo review to the parts of the R&R to which the
parties objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court is limited to plain-error
review of any part of the R&R not subject to a proper objection. 	Starns v.
Andrews, 524 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir. 2008).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The Court first analyzes the portion of the R&R subject to Adams’
objection de novo. 	Adams objects only to the granting of attorney’s fees
11 	R. Doc. 140.
12 	R. Doc. 149.
13 	R. Doc. 150.
14 	Id.
Case 2:24-cv-02432-SSV-MBN Document 152 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 5

4
against an in forma pauperis litigant and asks this Court to hold that no fees
or costs shall be assessed against a litigant granted in forma pauperis status
absent a specific statutory authorization or a finding of bad faith. 15
Such a requirement is rooted neither in law nor the facts of this case.
Even in Adams’ objection, Adams notes that the “‘American Rule’ bars
recovery 	of 	attorney’s 	fees 	except 	where 	authorized 	by 	statute 	or
contract.” 16 	It is a contract that authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees
and costs here, as this Court outlined extensively in the order granting Waste
Management’s 	motion 	for 	judgment 	on 	the 	pleadings. 17 	The 	release
agreement between Adams and Waste Management explicitly provided for
attorney’s fees and all costs incurred in connection with an action to enforce
the provisions of the agreement. 18 	As Magistrate Judge North noted in the
R&R, “Waste Management’s entitlement to fees is undisputed.” 19 The Court
thus overrules Adams’ objection.
Beyond a general assertion that the Court cannot award attorney’s fees
against an in forma pauperis litigant, Adams made no further objections to
the R&R. Adams’ objection provides no meaningful response or objection to
15 	R. Doc. 150-1, at 4.
16 	Id. at 2 (emphasis added).
17 	R. Doc. 132 at 14-16.
18 	See supra note 6.
19 	R. Doc. 149, at 2.
Case 2:24-cv-02432-SSV-MBN Document 152 Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 5

5
Magistrate Judge North’s well-reasoned R&R. Thus, the Court examines the
remainder of the R&R for clear error. 	See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983). 	The Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as its opinion.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons given in Magistrate Judge North’s R&R, the Court
GRANTS IN PART Waste Management’s motion for attorney’s fees for
$35,872.65.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of October, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02432-SSV-MBN Document 152 Filed 10/27/25 Page 5 of 5