United States District Court, District of Columbia
HOWARD TOWN CENTER DEVELOPER, LLC, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant,
HOWARD UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Counter Plaintiff-Third Party Plaintiff, CASTLEROCK PARTNERS, LLC, Third Party Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. HOWELL Chief Judge
consideration of the defendant Howard University's Motion
for Allowance of Additional Damages, Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses (“Def.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 128, the
memoranda in support and in opposition, and the entire record
herein, the defendant's motion is GRANTED.
defendant seeks attorneys' fees in the amount of $1, 035,
481.50, which amount includes $5, 550.00 for fees associated
with the request for attorneys' fees. Def.'s Mot.
¶¶ 4, 8; Def.'s Mot., Ex. 1, Declaration of
Timothy F. McCormack (“McCormack Decl.”) ¶
35, ECF No. 128-1. The defendant also requests $51, 004.00 in
costs, $263, 802.74 in prejudgment interest, and $1, 725.55
in postjudgment interest, with postjudgment interest
continuing to accrue at a rate of 1.22 percent per annum
until the judgment is paid in full. Def.'s Mot. ¶ 4;
Def.'s Reply Supp. Mot. Att'ys' Fees
(“Def.'s Reply”) at 4, ECF No. 132; McCormack
Decl. ¶ 36. The plaintiff and the third-party
defendant do not dispute the reasonableness of the fees or
expenses sought by the defendant. Pl.'s Opp'n
Def.'s Mot. Att'ys' Fees (“Pl.'s
Opp'n”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 131. The sole disputed
issue here is whether the requested additional amount of
judgment should be entered against the plaintiff, Howard Town
Center Developer, LLC (“the Developer”), and the
third-party defendant, CastleRock Partners, LLC
(“CastleRock”), “jointly and
severally” or whether the judgment should be entered
against only the Developer. Def.'s Mot. at 4; Pl.'s
Opp'n ¶¶ 2-3; Def.'s Reply at 4-5. The
Developer and CastleRock argue that because “the Court
ordered only that ‘Developer, ' defined by the
Order as ‘Howard Town Center Developer, LLC, ' pay
$1, 475, 000 in damages, along with interest and fees,
” it would be incorrect for the Court to impose
judgment jointly and severally against both the Developer and
CastleRock. Pl.'s Opp'n ¶¶ 2-3.
Memorandum Opinion accompanying that Order makes clear that
Howard Town Center Developer and CastleRock “generally
will not be referenced separately when discussing the actions
of the parties in this matter, ” a practice that has
been employed throughout this litigation. Howard Town
Ctr. Developer, LLC v. Howard Univ., No. 13-1075, 2017
WL 3493081, at *1 n.1 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2017); see also
Howard Town Ctr. Developer, LLC v. Howard Univ., No.
13-1075, 2017 WL 421909, at *1 n.2 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2017)
(“[T]he third-party defendant will not be referenced
separately when discussing the actions of the parties in this
matter.”). The plaintiff and the third-party defendant
used this practice in their motion for summary judgment on
their amended complaint. See Pl. & Third-Party
Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Mot. Summ.
J.”) at 18 n.2, ECF No. 87 (“Because, as to the
summary judgment issues, CastleRock's responsibilities as
an assignor are identical to [Howard Town Center
Developer's], this memorandum refers to the latter in
describing those rights and obligations.”). Their
notice of appeal did the same, stating that “Plaintiff
Howard Town Center Developer, LLC, and Third-Party Defendant
Castlerock Partners, LLC (‘Plaintiffs')” were
appealing the final judgment entered “in favor of
Defendant Howard University and against Plaintiffs.”
Notice of Appeal at 1, ECF No. 129. Having advanced this
position before this Court, the plaintiff and the third-party
defendant cannot now change their tune. Accordingly, it is
that the defendant's motion is GRANTED; and it is further
that the defendant is awarded attorneys' fees and
expenses from the Developer and CastleRock in the total
amount of $1, 086, 485.50, which amount includes $1, 029,
931.50 in attorneys' fees, $5, 550.00 in fees on fees,
and $51, 004.00 in expenses; and it is further
that the defendant is awarded prejudgment interest in the
total amount of $263, 802.74 and postjudgment interest in the
amount of $1, 725.55, and that postjudgment interest shall
continue to accrue at a rate of 1.22 percent per annum from
August 14, 2017, until the judgment is paid in full.
 The defendant initially estimated that
attorneys' fees associated with the preparation of the
fee request would total $5, 550.00. Def.'s Mot. ¶ 8.
While the defendant's contemporaneous billing records
reflect fees-on-fees in the amount of $11, 955.00, the
defendant is seeking only $5, 550.00 in fees-on-fees.
See Def.'s Resp. Court's Nov. 14, 2017 Order
at 2, ECF No. 133.
 The defendant initially requested
prejudgment interest in the amount of $267, 581.16.
Def.'s Mot. ¶ 3. This amount was calculated using an
interest rate of 4.25 percent per annum and a date range
spanning from May 31, 2013 (the date the complaint was filed)
until September 5, 2017 (the date the defendant's motion
for attorneys' fees was filed). Id. The parties
now agree that the defendant is entitled to prejudgment
interest from May 31, 2013, until only August 14, 2017.
Def.'s Reply at 4; Pl.'s Opp'n Def.'s Mot.
Att'ys' Fees (“Pl.'s Opp'n”)
¶ 4, ECF No. ...