MEMORANDUM ORDER

KATHLEEN KAY, Magistrate Judge.

On August 13, 2019, the court issued a Judgment adopting the Report and Recommendation of the undersigned which granted plaintiffs' motion to remand and awarded attorney fees associated with the improper removal. Doc. 29. In accordance with the Judgment plaintiffs submitted an Affidavit and a four (4) page itemized billing statement in support of their request for attorney fees. Doc. 31. The request for attorney fees has been referred to the undersigned for issuance of a Report and Recommendation. Doc. 32.

Determining the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees is a two-step process. "Initially, the district court must determine the reasonable number of hours expended on the litigation and the reasonable hourly rate for the participating lawyers." Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1995)(citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939 (1983). "Then, the district court must multiply the reasonable hours by the reasonable hourly rates." Id. (citing Blum v. Stenson, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1544 (1984). "The product of this multiplication is the lodestar, which the district court then either accepts or adjusts upward or downward, depending on the circumstances of the case." Id. (citing Brantley v. Surles, 804 F.2d 321, 325 (5th Cir. 1986). In conducting this analysis, the court must consider the factors elucidated by the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). The factors are as follows:

Id. at 717-19.

The fee applicants bear the burden of demonstrating the number of hours expended and the reasonableness of the rate charged. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1995). Additionally, the fee applicants must prove that they exercised billing judgment, which requires "documentation of the hours charged and of the hours written off as unproductive, excessive, or redundant." Saizan v. Delta Concrete Products Co., Inc., 448 F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 2006). If the court finds billing judgment lacking, it must reduce the award by a percentage "intended to substitute for the exercise of billing judgment." Id.

While the request for attorney fees herein is uncontested, we are unable to is make the proper determination of any reasonable award when considering the information provided by plaintiffs in this matter., Counsel for plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of a managing partner of the law firm which maintains that he is familiar with the billing procedures and accounts and confirms that the attached billing statement is an accurate representation of time entries of paralegals and attorneys in the matter before the court. Doc. 31. The attached billing statement provides a description of the work, the hours billed, the amount billed, and initials of presumably the paralegal(s) and attorney(s) that performed the work. Doc. 31, att. 1. Counsel does not submit any memorandum explaining whether the work billed was performed by an attorney or a paralegal, whether the hourly rate charged is indicative of the prevailing market rate for similarly-situated attorneys, or addressing any of the relevant Johnson factors.

Plaintiffs have the burden of showing the reasonableness of the hours they billed and that they exercised billing judgment. They have not done so. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs are to file a memorandum addressing the issues set forth herein within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Any opposition should be filed within seven (7) days thereafter.