T&T Management, Inc. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-01504
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In T&T Management v. Choice Hotels, Judge Tunheim awarded the winning hotel franchisors $177,151.65 in attorney's fees and $4,362.23 in costs, cutting the fee request by 15% for overstaffing by a senior partner.
Hotel franchisees who litigate breach of contract claims against franchisors and lose may be required to pay the franchisor's attorney's fees if the franchise agreement includes a fee-shifting provision. Parties challenging fee requests should be prepared to identify specific billing entries they dispute, as courts will not comb through records without specific objections. Parties seeking a stay of a fee award pending appeal must show harm that cannot be remedied by money.
What happened
In T&T Management, Inc. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., No. 24-1504, a hotel franchisee called T&T Management, Inc. sued franchise companies Choice Hotels International, Inc. and Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Inc. (together, the 'Franchisor Defendants'), as well as a competing hotel operator, alleging that they violated geographic exclusivity protections in a license agreement when a new hotel was licensed near T&T's property. The court had previously dismissed the entire case with prejudice, finding no breach of contract, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The Franchisor Defendants then sought $208,413.70 in attorney's fees and $4,362.23 in costs under the license agreement's fee-shifting provision. T&T acknowledged that the Franchisor Defendants were entitled to some fees but disputed the amount as unreasonable.
The court evaluated the fee request using the 'lodestar' method — multiplying the number of hours reasonably worked by a reasonable hourly rate. The court found the hourly rates, which ranged from $250 to $695, to be consistent with Minneapolis market rates for attorneys of comparable skill and experience. The court rejected T&T's arguments that hours were excessive given the litigation's procedural complexity (which included multiple amended complaints, a transfer between courts, and two motions to dismiss), that work on the second motion to dismiss was improperly duplicative, and that fees should be reduced by one-third to account for work that also benefited the third defendant, Sunshine Fund Port Orange, LLC, which was not a party to the fee-shifting agreement. However, the court agreed that the Franchisor Defendants had not adequately justified why a senior partner billed more than half the total hours on a case where the underlying legal question — breach of contract — was relatively straightforward.
Judge Tunheim granted the Franchisor Defendants' motion for attorney's fees in part, applying a 15% reduction to the fee request to account for excessive use of senior partner billing time, and awarding $177,151.65 in attorney's fees. The court awarded the full $4,362.23 in costs, which T&T did not contest. The court also denied T&T's requests for an evidentiary hearing on the fee dispute and for a stay of the fee award pending T&T's appeal, finding that a hearing was unnecessary given the court's broad discretion and that a stay was unwarranted because any harm to T&T from paying the fee award could be remedied with money.
The detailed version
- T&T Management, Inc. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. · No. 0:24-cv-01504
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
This opinion concerns a motion for attorney's fees and costs following the dismissal with prejudice of the underlying breach of contract action. Plaintiff T&T Management, Inc. ('T&T') had entered into a license agreement with Country Inn & Suites by Carlson, Inc. ('Country') to operate a hotel in Port Orange, Florida, with geographic exclusivity protections. Country was subsequently acquired by Radisson Hotel Group Americas ('Radisson') and then by Choice Hotels International, Inc. ('Choice'). When Choice licensed Sunshine Fund Port Orange, LLC ('Sunshine') to open a competing hotel near T&T's property, T&T sued for breach of the geographic exclusivity provisions.
The case had a complicated procedural history. T&T originally filed in the Middle District of Florida. The Florida court dismissed T&T's first amended complaint as a deficient 'shotgun' pleading — a complaint that fails to clearly connect factual allegations to specific claims. After T&T filed a second amended complaint, the defendants moved to dismiss and to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota based on a forum selection clause in the license agreement. The Florida court granted the transfer. In Minnesota, T&T filed a third amended complaint to update its damages calculation after selling the hotel. The District of Minnesota then granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the entire action with prejudice, finding that Choice had not breached any agreement. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants on February 28, 2025.
Defendants Choice Hotels International, Inc. and Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Inc. (collectively, the 'Franchisor Defendants') subsequently filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs under the license agreement's fee-shifting provision. T&T conceded that the Franchisor Defendants were the prevailing parties entitled to reasonable fees but disputed the amount. T&T did not contest the $4,362.23 cost request.
Legal Standard
The court applied the 'lodestar' method — the standard approach in the Eighth Circuit for calculating reasonable attorney's fees — which multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. Under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary should be excluded. The court has substantial discretion in making this determination and is not required to achieve 'auditing perfection,' but only 'rough justice.' Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011).
Analysis
Reasonableness of Hourly Rates
The Franchisor Defendants' attorneys billed at rates ranging from $250 to $695 per hour. T&T argued these rates were above Minneapolis market rates and proposed reducing all hours to a flat $275.50 rate. The court rejected this, noting that recent Minnesota federal court decisions have found rates up to $650–$675 per hour reasonable for civil litigators in breach of contract cases. The court relied on its own knowledge of prevailing market rates as permitted by Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2005). Lead counsel Craig P. Miller — who holds expertise in franchise and distribution litigation and has nearly thirty years of experience — billed the highest rates, and only a small number of hours were billed at the maximum rate. The court found the rates reasonable and declined to reduce them.
Reasonableness of Hours Expended
T&T challenged 425.9 total billed hours on four grounds:
1. Excessive Hours Overall
T&T argued the case was simple and ended at the motion to dismiss stage. The court acknowledged the primary legal claim was not highly complex but found the overall hours reasonable given the case's complicated procedural history — including multiple amended complaints, a cross-district transfer, and two separate motions to dismiss — and T&T's own role in extending the litigation by filing an improper 'shotgun' complaint in the wrong court. The court declined to reduce fees on this basis.
2. Excessive Use of Senior Attorneys
T&T argued that lead partner Craig P. Miller (billing at rates up to $695/hour) performed 55% of the billed work when lower-billing attorneys could have handled much of it. The court agreed in part. While the facts and procedural posture were complex, the underlying legal question was a relatively standard breach of contract issue. The Franchisor Defendants did not adequately explain why a senior partner with nearly thirty years of experience was required to perform the majority of the work. Accordingly, the court applied a flat 15% reduction to the overall fee award to account for this. The court declined to reduce fees for associate Jackson R. Hobbs, who billed 33% of the hours at rates of $385–$418 per hour, finding those rates fell within an acceptable range.
3. Duplicative Work
T&T argued that approximately $9,024.90 in fees related to filing the second motion to dismiss in Minnesota were duplicative of the first motion filed in Florida. The court rejected this argument, finding that billing records showed meaningful work was done to conform the motion to Minnesota's local rules and that factual developments between the two filings also necessitated revisions.
4. Work Benefiting Defendant Sunshine
T&T urged a 33.33% reduction in all fees for work that benefited all three defendants, because Sunshine — unlike the Franchisor Defendants — was not a party to the license agreement and thus not entitled to fee-shifting. The court declined. The Franchisor Defendants had already excluded fees billed exclusively for Sunshine's benefit, and T&T identified no specific entries that should be reduced. The court further noted that the shared work would have been performed regardless of Sunshine's presence in the case.
Evidentiary Hearing and Stay
The court denied T&T's request for an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that the court's broad discretion in fee determinations and the well-developed record did not require one, and that fee disputes should not become 'a second major litigation.' Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598, 609 (2001).
The court also denied T&T's request to stay (pause) the fee award pending its appeal of the underlying dismissal. To obtain a stay, a party must show, among other things, irreparable harm — meaning harm that money cannot fix. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009). Because any harm to T&T from paying the fee award could be remedied through money, the court found the irreparable harm requirement was not met.
Disposition
The court granted the Franchisor Defendants' motion for attorney's fees in part. It awarded $177,151.65 in attorney's fees (reflecting a 15% reduction from the requested $208,413.70) and $4,362.23 in costs (the full amount requested), for a total award of $181,513.88. These amounts are to be paid by T&T Management, Inc. to Choice Hotels International, Inc. and Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Inc.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.