Preview
FILED
9/5/2023 5:49 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Elizabeth Ferguson DEPUTY
CASE NO. DC-23-00822
AMERICAN HEALTHCARE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§§§§§
MANAGEMENT, LLC
Plaintiff
v. 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL,
LP, d/b/a CRESCENT MEDICAL
CENTER LANCASTER
Defendant DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
SUPPLEMENTAL IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Plaintiff American Healthcare Management, LLC and files this, its
Response to Defendant’s Supplement in Support of Attorneys’ Fees (the “Supplement”), as
follows:
It is well-settled that, in the context of Rule 215.2, “when a party seeks attorney's fees as
sanctions, the burden is on that party to put forth some affirmative evidence of attorney's fees
incurred and how those fees resulted from or were caused by the sanctionable conduct.” Christus
Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell, 505 S.W.3d 528, 540 (Tex. 2016). The party seeking attorneys’
fees bears the burden of proof and must supply enough facts to support the reasonableness of the
amount awarded. Yowell v. Granite Operating Co., 620 S.W.3d 335, 354 (Tex. 2020)(citing El
Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757, 762-63 (Tex. 2012)). If there is insufficient evidence in
the record to uphold the trial court’s award of those fees, an appellate court must reverse. See El
Apple I, Ltd., 370 S.W.3d at 763-64. The issue of the reasonableness and necessity of attorney's
RESPONSE T0 SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE 1
fees requires expert testimony. Woodhaven Partners, Ltd. v. Shamoun & Norman, L.L.P., 422
S.W.3d 821, 830 (Tex. App—Dallas 2014, no pet).
The Texas Supreme Court has recently elaborated on the showing an attorney must make
to support an award of fees in “any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours
worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.” Yowell v. Granite Operating C0., 620 S.W.3d
335, 354 (Tex. 2020) (quoting Rohrmoos Venture, 578 S.W.3d at 498). In these situations, “the
fact finder’s starting point for calculating an attorney’s fee award is determining
the reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and the fee claimant bears
the burden of providing sufficient evidence on both counts.” Id. Such evidence “includes, at a
minimum, evidence of (l) particular services performed, (2) who performed those services, (3)
approximately when the services were performed, (4) the reasonable amount of time required to
perform the services, and (5) the reasonable hourly rate for each person performing such
services.” Id.
Defendant failed to meet its burden to establish its entitlement to attorneys’ fees in the
Motion. The Supplement was filed after the hearing and is late. Plaintiff objects to and moves to
strike the Supplement.
Plaintiff attaches the Declaration of Dennis M. Holmgren as Exhibit A and incorporates
it herein by reference.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court
strike the Supplement, strike the alleged evidence attached to the Supplement, deny Defendant’s
request for attorneys’ fees, and grant it such further and additional relief to which it may show
itself to be justly entitled.
RESPONSE To SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE 2
Respectfully submitted,
HOLMGREN JOHNSON:
MITCHELL MADDEN, LLP
By: /s/ Dennis Holmgren
Dennis Holmgren
State Bar No. 24036799
Email: dennis@hjmmlegal.com
12801 N. Central Expressway, Suite 140
Dallas, Texas 75243
Telephone: 972-484-7780
Facsimile: 972-484-7743
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on counsel of
record according to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on September 5, 2023.
/S/ Dennis Holmgren
Dennis Holmgren
RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
EXHIBIT
CAUSE NO. DC-23-00822 A
AMERICAN HEALTHCARE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§§§§§§
MANAGEMENT, LLC
Plaintiff,
VS. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL,
LP, d/b/a CRESCENT MEDICAL
CENTER LANCASTER,
Defendant. 116TH IUDICIAL DISTRICT
DECLARATION OF DENNIS M. HOLMGREN
I, DENNIS HOLMGREN, declare:
1. “My name is Dennis M. Holmgren and I am over the age of 21, am legally
competent, and have never been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. The
facts stated in this Declaration are Within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.
2. I am an attorney licensed to practice by the State of Texas and a partner in the Firm
of Holmgren Johnson: Mitchell Madden, LLP, who are attorneys of record for Plaintiffs in the
above-entitled action. I am making this Declaration of Dennis M. Holmgren in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Response”). The following
opinions and conclusions are either based upon my personal knowledge, or my review of the
Court’s docket of filings in the above-entitled and numbered cause and the Firm’s file, and if called
as a witness herein, I could and would competently testify thereto.
3. I was licensed in 2002 as an attorney and counselor at law by the Supreme Court
of the State of Texas and have practiced law in the State of Texas continuously from that date to
the present date. I am also admitted the Bar of the State of California, since 2007. Additionally, I
am admitted to appear before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Federal Circuits, as well
as before the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of Texas, the
Southern, Central and Eastern Districts of California, and the District of Colorado. I am the
managing member of The Holmgren Law Firm, PLLC, which is a partner in Holmgren Johnson:
Mitchell Madden, LLP (the “Firm”).
4. I have practiced in the trial and appellate courts in North Texas, and particularly in
Tarrant, Collin, Denton, and Dallas Counties. My trial and appellate experience has involved trials
and appeals, complex litigation, patent/intellectual property litigation, business litigation, personal
injury, and other civil litigation matters. I am, therefore, familiar with the standards of care and
practice related to prosecuting and defending trial and appellate matters, as well as the usual and
customary rates normally charged by trial and appellate practitioners locally, in the state, and in
DECLARATION OF DENNIS HOLMGREN PAGE l
the Federal system. I have worked on litigation and arbitration matters in the past that have
involved the same or similar issues as those that exist in the case at bar. Attached hereto as Exhibit
is a true and correct copy of my current curriculum Vitae which further discusses my education,
experience and qualifications.
5. In connection with my work as an attorney for Plaintiff, I have reviewed and am
familiar with the pleadings, discovery materials, and evidence in this case.
6. My opinions herein are based on, without limitation, my personal knowledge of
legal services provided in this case, my review of file materials from this case, my review of the
Fees Motion including its attachments, my knowledge, skill, experience, training and education
involving trial and appellate work, the time and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of the
issues involved; the skill required to properly perform the legal services; the fee customarily
charged in Collin County for legal services; and the amount in controversy. My opinions are also
based on the standards set forth in Rohrmoos Venture v. UTS WD VA Healthcare, LLP, 5 78 S.W.3d
469, 487 (Tex. 2019), and its progeny, including that the lodestar method applies for determining
the reasonableness and necessity of attorney’s fees in a fee shifting situation and that:
Under the lodestar method, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable
attorney's fee involves two steps. First, the [fact finder] must determine the
reasonable hours spent by counsel in the case and a reasonable hourly rate for such
work. The [fact finder] then multiplies the number of such hours by the applicable
rate, the product of which is the base fee or lodestar. The [fact finder] may then
adjust the base lodestar up or down (apply a multiplier), if relevant factors indicate
an adjustment is necessary to reach a reasonable fee in the case.
Rohrmoos Venture v. UTS WDVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469, 501 (Tex. 2019). Further,
under Rohrmoos, general conclusory testimony devoid of any real substance will not support a fee
award and that thus, a claimant seeking an award of attorney's fees must prove the attorney's
reasonable hours worked and reasonable rate by presenting sufficient evidence to support the fee
award sought. Under Rohrmoos, on which I rely, sufficient evidence includes, at a minimum,
evidence of (l) particular services performed, (2) who performed those services, (3) approximately
when the services were performed, (4) the reasonable amount of time required to perform the
services, and (5) the reasonable hourly rate for each person performing such services Rohrmoos,
578 S.W.3d at 501-02. In support of my opinions, I am also relying on the other authorities cited
in this Declaration. My opinion regarding Defendant’s segregation obligations is based upon the
standard set forth in Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) and its
progeny.
7. Under Rule 215.2(b)(8), sanctions are limited to “the reasonable expenses,
including attorney fees, caused by the failure,” which necessitates segregation. See JCB, Inc. v.
Horsburgh & Scott Co., 597 S.W.3d 481, 491 -92 (Tex. 2019). Defendant is required to show how
each of the discrete legal services they have identified whether research, discovery, proof or legal
expertise, advance both a recoverable and unrecoverable claim. See Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v.
Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 313 (Tex. 2006). They did not do so adequately.
8. From a review of the fee invoices, it is my opinion that Defendant has failed to meet
its burden to demonstrate their entitlement to fees under the lodestar or any other method. It is
DECLARATION OF DENNIS HOLMGREN PAGE 2
fulther my opinion that the fees sought in Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions are not reasonable or
necessary.
9. With respect to the reasonableness and necessity of the claimed fees, I have
reviewed and billing statements attached to the Declaration of Skyler Stuckey. The Motion to
Compel and For Sanctions (the “Motion”) comprised a body of 16 pages along with attachments.
The attachments are comprised largely of the discovery responses at issue. The body of the Motion
largely contains a recitation of the facts involving the discovery dispute and contains several pages
comprised of imaged copies of emails and snippets of the discovery responses served by Plaintiff.
The arguments and authorities section was largely comprised of boilerplate case law that is
common to virtually every motion to compel. Gray Reed is a mid-size Texas-based law firm. The
bulk of the argument section appears to have come from other motions to compel.
10. In his declaration, Mr. Stucky contends that it took him a total of 10.2 hours to draft
the Motion. The Motion was simple and the matters not complex. A firm the size of Gray Reed
will have a form bank of numerous motions to compel and other discovery motions. The
undersigned has brought successful motions for dispositive relief that took far less time to draft.
It is my opinion that the amount of time requested was not reasonable and is not recoverable. For
example, .6 hours were billed to review Plaintiff‘s discovery responses. That is something that
Defendant would have had to have done anyway. Mr. Stuckey billed 1.6 hours for a hearing that
lasted less than 30 minutes of Zoom time. The actual argument was shorter. Mr. Stucky billed
1.3 hours to draft a simple order. In my opinion, these charges are inflated and are not reasonable.
Moreover, several of the entries are impermissible block billing.
11. In my opinion, the evidence offered by the Defendant in support of its Motion is
insufficient to meet the minimum standards for the sufficiency of evidence to support an award of
fees. The Texas Supreme Court has recently elaborated on the showing an attorney must make to
support an award of fees in “any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours
worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.” Yowell v. Granite Operating Co., 620 S.W.3d
335, 354 (Tex. 2020) (quoting Rohrmoos Venture, 578 S.W.3d at 498.
12. Viewed as a Whole, some of Plaintiffs’ objections are well founded and should be
sustained. To the extent that any are, it is not a complete Victory for Defendant and the requested
attorneys’ fees should be downwardly adjusted. It my opinion that a reasonable fee for the Motion
under Rule 215.2(b)(8), after appropriate adjustments, would be 2.5 hours of attorney time for a
total of $1,000.00 at Mr. Stuckey’s $400 per hour rate.
FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
DECLARATION OF DENNIS HOLMGREN PAGE 3
JURAT
My name is Dennis Holmgren, my date of birth is June 1, 1976, and my business address
is 12801 North Central Expressway, Suite 140, Dallas, Texas 75243. I declare under penalty of
United States perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Dallas County, Texas on
September 5, 2023.
ennis olmgren
DECLARATION OF DENNIS HOLMGREN PAGE 4
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Tania Flores on behalf of Dennis Holmgren
Bar No. 24036799
tflores@hjmmlegal.com
Envelope ID: 79234008
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: TO PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL IN SUPPORT OF
ATTORNEY FEES
Status as of 9/6/2023 8:45 AM CST
Associated Case Party: AMERICAN HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
DENNIS MHOLMGREN DENN|S@HJMMLEGAL.COM 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: LANCASTERREGIONAL HOSPITAL, LP
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Kenneth Stone kstone@grayreed.com 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT
Skyler Stuckey sstuckey@grayreed.com 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Susan Langley slangley@grayreed.com 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT
Tania Flores tflores@hjmmlegal.com 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 9/5/2023 5:49 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Elizabeth Ferguson DEPUTY CASE NO. DC-23-00822 AMERICAN HEALTHCARE IN THE DISTRICT COURT §§§§§§§§§§§ MANAGEMENT, LLC Plaintiff v. 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LP, d/b/a CRESCENT MEDICAL CENTER LANCASTER Defendant DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Plaintiff American Healthcare Management, LLC and files this, its Response to Defendant’s Supplement in Support of Attorneys’ Fees (the “Supplement”), as follows: It is well-settled that, in the context of Rule 215.2, “when a party seeks attorney's fees as sanctions, the burden is on that party to put forth some affirmative evidence of attorney's fees incurred and how those fees resulted from or were caused by the sanctionable conduct.” Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell, 505 S.W.3d 528, 540 (Tex. 2016). The party seeking attorneys’ fees bears the burden of proof and must supply enough facts to support the reasonableness of the amount awarded. Yowell v. Granite Operating Co., 620 S.W.3d 335, 354 (Tex. 2020)(citing El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757, 762-63 (Tex. 2012)). If there is insufficient evidence in the record to uphold the trial court’s award of those fees, an appellate court must reverse. See El Apple I, Ltd., 370 S.W.3d at 763-64. The issue of the reasonableness and necessity of attorney's RESPONSE T0 SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE 1 fees requires expert testimony. Woodhaven Partners, Ltd. v. Shamoun & Norman, L.L.P., 422 S.W.3d 821, 830 (Tex. App—Dallas 2014, no pet). The Texas Supreme Court has recently elaborated on the showing an attorney must make to support an award of fees in “any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.” Yowell v. Granite Operating C0., 620 S.W.3d 335, 354 (Tex. 2020) (quoting Rohrmoos Venture, 578 S.W.3d at 498). In these situations, “the fact finder’s starting point for calculating an attorney’s fee award is determining the reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and the fee claimant bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence on both counts.” Id. Such evidence “includes, at a minimum, evidence of (l) particular services performed, (2) who performed those services, (3) approximately when the services were performed, (4) the reasonable amount of time required to perform the services, and (5) the reasonable hourly rate for each person performing such services.” Id. Defendant failed to meet its burden to establish its entitlement to attorneys’ fees in the Motion. The Supplement was filed after the hearing and is late. Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the Supplement. Plaintiff attaches the Declaration of Dennis M. Holmgren as Exhibit A and incorporates it herein by reference. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court strike the Supplement, strike the alleged evidence attached to the Supplement, deny Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees, and grant it such further and additional relief to which it may show itself to be justly entitled. RESPONSE To SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE 2 Respectfully submitted, HOLMGREN JOHNSON: MITCHELL MADDEN, LLP By: /s/ Dennis Holmgren Dennis Holmgren State Bar No. 24036799 Email: dennis@hjmmlegal.com 12801 N. Central Expressway, Suite 140 Dallas, Texas 75243 Telephone: 972-484-7780 Facsimile: 972-484-7743 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on counsel of record according to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on September 5, 2023. /S/ Dennis Holmgren Dennis Holmgren RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE EXHIBIT CAUSE NO. DC-23-00822 A AMERICAN HEALTHCARE IN THE DISTRICT COURT §§§§§§§§§§§§ MANAGEMENT, LLC Plaintiff, VS. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LP, d/b/a CRESCENT MEDICAL CENTER LANCASTER, Defendant. 116TH IUDICIAL DISTRICT DECLARATION OF DENNIS M. HOLMGREN I, DENNIS HOLMGREN, declare: 1. “My name is Dennis M. Holmgren and I am over the age of 21, am legally competent, and have never been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. The facts stated in this Declaration are Within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. 2. I am an attorney licensed to practice by the State of Texas and a partner in the Firm of Holmgren Johnson: Mitchell Madden, LLP, who are attorneys of record for Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action. I am making this Declaration of Dennis M. Holmgren in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Response”). The following opinions and conclusions are either based upon my personal knowledge, or my review of the Court’s docket of filings in the above-entitled and numbered cause and the Firm’s file, and if called as a witness herein, I could and would competently testify thereto. 3. I was licensed in 2002 as an attorney and counselor at law by the Supreme Court of the State of Texas and have practiced law in the State of Texas continuously from that date to the present date. I am also admitted the Bar of the State of California, since 2007. Additionally, I am admitted to appear before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Federal Circuits, as well as before the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of Texas, the Southern, Central and Eastern Districts of California, and the District of Colorado. I am the managing member of The Holmgren Law Firm, PLLC, which is a partner in Holmgren Johnson: Mitchell Madden, LLP (the “Firm”). 4. I have practiced in the trial and appellate courts in North Texas, and particularly in Tarrant, Collin, Denton, and Dallas Counties. My trial and appellate experience has involved trials and appeals, complex litigation, patent/intellectual property litigation, business litigation, personal injury, and other civil litigation matters. I am, therefore, familiar with the standards of care and practice related to prosecuting and defending trial and appellate matters, as well as the usual and customary rates normally charged by trial and appellate practitioners locally, in the state, and in DECLARATION OF DENNIS HOLMGREN PAGE l the Federal system. I have worked on litigation and arbitration matters in the past that have involved the same or similar issues as those that exist in the case at bar. Attached hereto as Exhibit is a true and correct copy of my current curriculum Vitae which further discusses my education, experience and qualifications. 5. In connection with my work as an attorney for Plaintiff, I have reviewed and am familiar with the pleadings, discovery materials, and evidence in this case. 6. My opinions herein are based on, without limitation, my personal knowledge of legal services provided in this case, my review of file materials from this case, my review of the Fees Motion including its attachments, my knowledge, skill, experience, training and education involving trial and appellate work, the time and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of the issues involved; the skill required to properly perform the legal services; the fee customarily charged in Collin County for legal services; and the amount in controversy. My opinions are also based on the standards set forth in Rohrmoos Venture v. UTS WD VA Healthcare, LLP, 5 78 S.W.3d 469, 487 (Tex. 2019), and its progeny, including that the lodestar method applies for determining the reasonableness and necessity of attorney’s fees in a fee shifting situation and that: Under the lodestar method, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee involves two steps. First, the [fact finder] must determine the reasonable hours spent by counsel in the case and a reasonable hourly rate for such work. The [fact finder] then multiplies the number of such hours by the applicable rate, the product of which is the base fee or lodestar. The [fact finder] may then adjust the base lodestar up or down (apply a multiplier), if relevant factors indicate an adjustment is necessary to reach a reasonable fee in the case. Rohrmoos Venture v. UTS WDVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469, 501 (Tex. 2019). Further, under Rohrmoos, general conclusory testimony devoid of any real substance will not support a fee award and that thus, a claimant seeking an award of attorney's fees must prove the attorney's reasonable hours worked and reasonable rate by presenting sufficient evidence to support the fee award sought. Under Rohrmoos, on which I rely, sufficient evidence includes, at a minimum, evidence of (l) particular services performed, (2) who performed those services, (3) approximately when the services were performed, (4) the reasonable amount of time required to perform the services, and (5) the reasonable hourly rate for each person performing such services Rohrmoos, 578 S.W.3d at 501-02. In support of my opinions, I am also relying on the other authorities cited in this Declaration. My opinion regarding Defendant’s segregation obligations is based upon the standard set forth in Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) and its progeny. 7. Under Rule 215.2(b)(8), sanctions are limited to “the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the failure,” which necessitates segregation. See JCB, Inc. v. Horsburgh & Scott Co., 597 S.W.3d 481, 491 -92 (Tex. 2019). Defendant is required to show how each of the discrete legal services they have identified whether research, discovery, proof or legal expertise, advance both a recoverable and unrecoverable claim. See Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 313 (Tex. 2006). They did not do so adequately. 8. From a review of the fee invoices, it is my opinion that Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate their entitlement to fees under the lodestar or any other method. It is DECLARATION OF DENNIS HOLMGREN PAGE 2 fulther my opinion that the fees sought in Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions are not reasonable or necessary. 9. With respect to the reasonableness and necessity of the claimed fees, I have reviewed and billing statements attached to the Declaration of Skyler Stuckey. The Motion to Compel and For Sanctions (the “Motion”) comprised a body of 16 pages along with attachments. The attachments are comprised largely of the discovery responses at issue. The body of the Motion largely contains a recitation of the facts involving the discovery dispute and contains several pages comprised of imaged copies of emails and snippets of the discovery responses served by Plaintiff. The arguments and authorities section was largely comprised of boilerplate case law that is common to virtually every motion to compel. Gray Reed is a mid-size Texas-based law firm. The bulk of the argument section appears to have come from other motions to compel. 10. In his declaration, Mr. Stucky contends that it took him a total of 10.2 hours to draft the Motion. The Motion was simple and the matters not complex. A firm the size of Gray Reed will have a form bank of numerous motions to compel and other discovery motions. The undersigned has brought successful motions for dispositive relief that took far less time to draft. It is my opinion that the amount of time requested was not reasonable and is not recoverable. For example, .6 hours were billed to review Plaintiff‘s discovery responses. That is something that Defendant would have had to have done anyway. Mr. Stuckey billed 1.6 hours for a hearing that lasted less than 30 minutes of Zoom time. The actual argument was shorter. Mr. Stucky billed 1.3 hours to draft a simple order. In my opinion, these charges are inflated and are not reasonable. Moreover, several of the entries are impermissible block billing. 11. In my opinion, the evidence offered by the Defendant in support of its Motion is insufficient to meet the minimum standards for the sufficiency of evidence to support an award of fees. The Texas Supreme Court has recently elaborated on the showing an attorney must make to support an award of fees in “any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.” Yowell v. Granite Operating Co., 620 S.W.3d 335, 354 (Tex. 2020) (quoting Rohrmoos Venture, 578 S.W.3d at 498. 12. Viewed as a Whole, some of Plaintiffs’ objections are well founded and should be sustained. To the extent that any are, it is not a complete Victory for Defendant and the requested attorneys’ fees should be downwardly adjusted. It my opinion that a reasonable fee for the Motion under Rule 215.2(b)(8), after appropriate adjustments, would be 2.5 hours of attorney time for a total of $1,000.00 at Mr. Stuckey’s $400 per hour rate. FURTHER DECLARANT SAYETH NAUGHT. DECLARATION OF DENNIS HOLMGREN PAGE 3 JURAT My name is Dennis Holmgren, my date of birth is June 1, 1976, and my business address is 12801 North Central Expressway, Suite 140, Dallas, Texas 75243. I declare under penalty of United States perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Dallas County, Texas on September 5, 2023. ennis olmgren DECLARATION OF DENNIS HOLMGREN PAGE 4 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Tania Flores on behalf of Dennis Holmgren Bar No. 24036799 tflores@hjmmlegal.com Envelope ID: 79234008 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: TO PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY FEES Status as of 9/6/2023 8:45 AM CST Associated Case Party: AMERICAN HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status DENNIS MHOLMGREN DENN|S@HJMMLEGAL.COM 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT Associated Case Party: LANCASTERREGIONAL HOSPITAL, LP Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Kenneth Stone kstone@grayreed.com 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT Skyler Stuckey sstuckey@grayreed.com 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Susan Langley slangley@grayreed.com 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT Tania Flores tflores@hjmmlegal.com 9/5/2023 5:49:06 PM SENT