United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
PNC BANK, N.A., successor to National City Bank, successor to National City Bank of Michigan/Illinois, N.A., Plaintiff,
BOHANNAN MEDICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., CHERYL BOHANNAN, TOMMY BOHANNAN, Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
E. Shadid Chief United States District Judge.
matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion 
to Amend/Correct Order and Motion  for Attorney Fees and
Court Costs. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's
Motion  to Amend/Correct Order is Granted and
Plaintiff's  for Attorney Fees and Court Costs is
Granted in Part.
PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC” or “PNC Bank”),
initiated this action against Defendants Bohannan Medical
Distributors, Inc. (“BMD” or
“Borrower”), and Cheryl and Tommy Bohannan
(“Guarantors”), alleging four counts of breach of
contract arising out of Defendants' default on a
commercial loan and credit card agreement. On June 15, 2016,
this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment. ECF Doc. 32. Specifically, the
Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment
in the amount of $188, 714 on the breach of contract and
breach of guaranty claims because BMD defaulted on the Note
and Cheryl and Tommy Bohannan were liable as guarantors.
However, the Court denied summary judgment as it related to
the balance of $29, 733 under Credit Card Agreement, finding
that a material dispute of fact remained as to whether BMD
was in default under the terms of the Agreement.
renewed its motion for summary judgment on August 12, 2016.
See ECF Doc. 38. That motion included a copy of the signed
credit card agreement, resolving the only remaining factual
dispute that precluded summary judgment in the first
instance. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Plaintiff in the amount of $223, 958.48 on September 30,
2016. See ECF Doc. 47. Plaintiff now moves to amend the
judgment, reasoning that the amount of interest included in
the judgment was only current through the dates of
Plaintiff's affidavits and does not include the per
diems that accrued thereafter. Additionally, Plaintiff
moves for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $17, 911
and costs in the amount of $671.02.
the Seventh Circuit, courts do not submit fee requests based
upon contractual fee-shifting provisions to the same degree
of rigorous review as Illinois state courts.”
Cumulus Radio Corp. v. Olson, No. 15-CV-1067, 2015
WL 3407438, at *2 (C.D. Ill. May 27, 2015). Rather,
“fees should be reimbursed ‘no matter how the
bills are stated, ' and courts need not ‘engage in
detailed, hour-by-hour review of a prevailing party's
billing records.'” Id., (citing
Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Edman Controls, Inc., 712
F.3d 1021, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013)). However, “[w]hen
calculating a fee award, a court should exclude hours that
were not reasonably expended, such as time spent on tasks
that are not normally billed to a client or hours expended by
counsel on tasks that should be delegated to a
non-professional assistant.” Kaylor-Trent v. John
C. Bonewicz, P.C., 916 F.Supp.2d 878, 886 (C.D. Ill.
2013). Administrative tasks such as “organizing file
folders, document preparation, copying of faxing documents,
scheduling matters, and mailing letters” should not be
included in fee awards. Id.
first motion seeks to amend the prior judgment in the amount
of $223, 958.48 because the Court's September 30, 2016,
Order granting summary judgment did not include the
contractually agreed-upon per diem interest that
accrued after the date Plaintiff's submitted their
affidavits. Defendants' response does not contest that
Plaintiff is entitled to the additional interest, fees, and
costs. Including the interest up to September 30, 2016,
Plaintiff is entitled to $229, 338.76.
second motion seeks an award of attorney fees pursuant to the
contractual fee-shifting provisions in the loan and credit
card agreements. The motion is supported by affidavits and
billing records that indicate Plaintiff has incurred
attorney's fees in the amount of $17, 911 and costs in
the amount of $671.02. Although the Court need not
“engage in detailed, hour-by-hour review of a
prevailing party's billing records, ” hours that
were not reasonably expended, “such as time spent on
tasks that are not normally billed to a client or hours
expended by counsel on tasks that should be delegated to a
non-professional assistant, ” should be excluded.
Kaylor-Trent, 916 F.Supp.2d at 886. Here,
Plaintiff's billing records include fees of $639 for
administrative work by a paralegal for preparing appearances,
filing and mailing documents, and corresponding with the
process server. Fees for these administrative tasks are not
recoverable. See id.
the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to the additional
interest on the loan and credit card agreements, for an
amended total of $229, 338.76. Additionally, Plaintiff is
entitled to $17, 943.02 for attorney's fees and costs.
The amended judgment will enter in the amount of $247,
reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion  to
Amend/Correct Order is Granted. Plaintiff's  for
Attorney Fees and Court Costs is Granted in Part. An amended