Clayton et al v. HSBC Bank USA NA
Filing
68
*ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees 55 is granted. Defendants HSBC Bank USA NA and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Corporation collectively are awarded attorneys' fees and nontaxable expenses incurred in defending against Plaintiff's claims. See order for details. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 3/15/2019. (LMR) *Modified to add WO on 3/15/2019 (SLQ).
WO
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Mickey Nelson Clayton,
9
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
vs.
HSBC Bank USA NA, et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-17-01464-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Defendants Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Corporation and HSBC Bank USA NA
(together, the “Defendants”) move for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12341.01(A) (the “Motion”). (Doc. 55) The Motion was fully briefed on July 13, 2018.
(Docs. 61, 65) The Court’s ruling is as follows.
I.
Background
Mickey Nelson Clayton (the “Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit against HSBC Bank
USA NA in Arizona state court alleging causes of action for breach of contract and
declaratory relief, among other claims, related to the Defendants’ failure to modify his
home loan agreement. (Doc. 1) In April 2017, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Corporation
was added as a defendant to the case, and the Defendants removed the case to federal court
in May 2017. Approximately two weeks after removal, the Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 18) The motion to dismiss was granted on March 31,
2018, and judgement was entered in favor of the Defendants. (Docs. 42, 43)
The
1
Defendants now move for an award of attorneys’ fees for successfully defending against
2
the Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 55)
3
4
II.
Analysis
A. Eligibility For Fees Under A.R.S. §12-341.01(A).
5
The Defendants move for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S.
6
§ 12-341.01(A). (Doc. 55 at 2) A.R.S. § 12–341.01 provides district courts with discretion
7
to award attorneys’ fees to the “successful party” in actions arising out of contract. Ariz.
8
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-341.01 (stating “in any contested action arising out of a contract,
9
express or implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees”);
10
Med. Protective Co. v. Pang, 740 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir. 2013). It is undisputed that
11
the Defendants were the successful party in this matter. (Doc. 61 at 8) Furthermore, the
12
Plaintiff does not contest that this lawsuit arose out of a contract between the parties, thus
13
allowing A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) to provide the statutory basis for the recovery of attorneys’
14
fees. (Doc. 61 at 5)
15
The Court must consider six factors when weighing a decision to award fees to a
16
successful party, including: (1) whether the unsuccessful party’s claim or defense was
17
meritorious; (2) whether the litigation could have been avoided or settled and the successful
18
party’s efforts were completely superfluous in achieving the result; (3) whether assessing
19
fees against the unsuccessful party would cause an extreme hardship; (4) whether the
20
successful party prevailed with respect to all of the relief sought; (5) whether the legal
21
question presented was novel and whether such claim or defense has previously been
22
adjudicated in this jurisdiction; and (6) whether the award would discourage other parties
23
with tenable claims or defenses from litigating or defending legitimate contract issues for
24
fear of incurring liability for substantial amounts of attorneys’ fees. Med. Protective Co. v.
25
Pang, 25 F. Supp. 3d 1232, 1242 (D. Ariz. 2014). No one factor is determinative, and a
26
court should consider all six factors in its analysis. Wilcox v. Waldman, 744 P.2d 444, 450
27
(Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
28
2
1
1. Whether the Unsuccessful Party’s Claim or Defense Was Meritorious.
2
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s claims lacked merit because they were
3
premised on faulty legal theories that were unable to survive the Defendants’ motion to
4
dismiss. (Doc. 55 at 7) The Plaintiff reiterates the facts supporting his claims in order to
5
argue that his claims had merit, even though he was ultimately unsuccessful. (Doc. 61 at
6
7) As evident from the Court’s Order (Doc. 42) granting the Defendants’ motion to
7
dismiss, the majority of the claims that the Plaintiff asserted against the Defendants were
8
without merit. The Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts on his breach of contract claim
9
against the Defendants because the Plaintiff failed to meet the conditions precedent to
10
qualifying for a loan modification. (Doc. 42 at 3) Furthermore, the Court found that the
11
Plaintiff’s reliance on the “Trial Period Plan Notice” as a basis for his estoppel claim
12
against the Defendants was unjustified. (Doc. 42 at 5) Accordingly, the Court finds that
13
this factor weighs heavily in favor of awarding the requested attorneys’ fees.
14
2. Whether the Litigation Could Have Been Avoided or Settled.
15
The Defendants argue that they could not have avoided this litigation because they
16
needed to defend their interests in the Plaintiff’s loan agreement. (Doc. 55 at 8) The
17
Plaintiff argues that settlement of this case was possible, but the Defendants were inflexible
18
and unwilling to provide the Plaintiff with the loan modification relief he sought prior to
19
filing the lawsuit. (Doc. 61 at 7) The Court finds that it was reasonable for the Defendants
20
to defend their interests under the loan agreement in this case, and the Defendants’ efforts
21
in quickly bringing the motion to dismiss helped efficiently expedite the resolution of the
22
case. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs slightly in favor of awarding the
23
Defendants their attorneys’ fees for their efforts in defending this case.
24
25
3. Whether Assessing Fees Against the Unsuccessful Party Would Cause an Extreme
Hardship.
26
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to
27
demonstrate that an award of the requested attorneys’ fees would cause extreme hardship.
28
(Doc. 55 at 8) The Plaintiff states that his ongoing bankruptcy matter, his pre-bankruptcy
3
1
tax liability, and his ongoing spousal maintenance obligations are all factors that help to
2
demonstrate that the additional obligation of paying an award of attorneys’ fees would
3
cause extreme hardship on him as an individual. (Doc. 61 at 8) The Defendants’ requested
4
fee award is in excess of $100,000, which in most circumstances, but especially under the
5
present circumstances, would cause an individual party an extreme hardship. This finding
6
is not only based on the amount of the fees requested by the Defendants, but also the
7
Plaintiff’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, the Court finds that this factor
8
weighs against an award of attorneys’ fees.
9
4. Whether the Successful Party Prevailed with Respect to All of the Relief Sought.
10
It is undisputed that the Defendants prevailed with respect to all relief sought based
11
on successfully dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims against them. (Doc. 55 at 8; Doc. 61 at 8)
12
Therefore, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of an award of attorneys’ fees.
13
5. Whether the Legal Question Presented Was Novel.
14
It is undisputed that the legal questions presented in this case were not novel. (Doc. 55
15
at 9; Doc. 61 at 8) Therefore, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of an award
16
of attorneys’ fees.
17
6. Whether the Award Would Discourage Other Parties with Tenable Claims or
18
Defenses from Litigating or Defending Legitimate Contract Issues for Fear of Incurring
19
Liability for Substantial Amounts of Attorneys’ Fees.
20
The Defendants argue that the requested fee award would not discourage parties
21
with meritorious claims from litigating legitimate disputes in the future. (Doc. 55 at 9) The
22
Plaintiff argues that a fee award in excess of $100,000 would have a chilling effect on other
23
similarly situated homeowners seeking to challenge their loan agreements with major
24
banking institutions. (Doc. 61 at 9) The Court agrees that a large fee award levied against
25
an individual may have a slight chilling effect on parties with similar claims; however, the
26
Court does not find that the threat of a fee award would strongly discourage parties with
27
meritorious claims from pursuing their claims against similarly situated defendants.
28
Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs slightly against an award of attorneys’
4
1
fees.
2
In weighing all of the factors, the Court finds that an award of attorneys’ fees is
3
appropriate in this case. The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s claims were brought without
4
merit, and the Defendants could not have avoided or settled this litigation while
5
simultaneously protecting their interests. The Court finds that the requested fee award may
6
cause extreme hardship to the Plaintiff in this case. However, it is undisputed that the
7
Defendants were successful in dismissing all of the Plaintiff’s claims against them and the
8
issues presented in this lawsuit were not novel. Finally, the Court finds that while the
9
requested fee award may have a slight chilling effect on parties seeking to bring similar
10
claims, this mild discouragement would not unreasonably prevent parties with meritorious
11
claims from moving forward. Accordingly, the Court finds that an award of attorneys’ fees
12
under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) is proper in this case.
13
B. Reasonableness of Fees.
14
The Defendants are seeking an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of
15
$122,647.84. (Doc. 55 at 2) The Court notes that a lodestar analysis is unnecessary in this
16
case because the present request for attorneys’ fees is based on the actual hours expended
17
by defense counsel. Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 673 P.2d 927, 931 (Ct. App. 1983)
18
(stating that the lodestar method is unnecessary where the parties have agreed that payment
19
for legal services is to be made based upon an attorney’s billing rate charged for time
20
actually expended.) Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2 sets forth thirteen factors that a
21
Court may consider when reviewing a fee request for reasonableness. These factors
22
include: (1) the time and labor required of counsel; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the
23
questions presented; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the
24
preclusion of other employment by counsel because of the acceptance of the action; (5) the
25
customary fee charged in matters of the type involved; (6) whether the fee contracted
26
between the attorney and the client is fixed or contingent; (7) any time limitations imposed
27
by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount of money, or the value of the rights,
28
involved, and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of counsel;
5
1
(10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional
2
relationship between the attorney and the client; (12) awards in similar actions; and (13)
3
any other matters deemed appropriate under the circumstances. Each factor will be
4
addressed in turn.
5
1. The Time and Labor Required of Counsel.
6
The Defendants are seeking reimbursement for approximately 324.1 hours of work
7
performed by their attorneys on this case. (Doc. 55 at 11) This case was initiated in Arizona
8
state court in November 2015 against HSBC, and Wells Fargo was added as a party in
9
April 2017. (Doc. 1 at 2) From the time the case was initiated against each defendant to
10
the Court’s Order dismissing the case in late March 2018, counsel for HSBC worked on
11
this case for nearly three years and counsel for Wells Fargo worked on this case for
12
approximately ten months. (Docs. 1, 42) The Court finds that the number of hours
13
expended over the course of this litigation seems more than reasonable, considering that
14
the request could equate to multiple attorneys sharing approximately 32 hours per month
15
over the course of ten months. Accordingly, the Court finds that the number of hours
16
expended by counsel on this matter was reasonable and prudent.
17
2. The Novelty and Difficulty of the Questions Presented.
18
19
20
As previously discussed, it is undisputed that the legal questions present in this case
were not novel or difficult. (Doc. 55 at 9; Doc. 61 at 8)
3. The Customary Fee Charged in Matters of the Type Involved.
21
The Defendants assert that the billing rates charged by their counsel were similar to,
22
or at times far below, the rates charged by comparable law firms in the Phoenix, Arizona
23
legal market. (Doc. 55 at 12) The Plaintiff concedes that many of the Defendants’ attorneys
24
were billing at discounted rates reduced by approximately 20% to 40%. (Doc. 61 at 13)
25
26
27
28
4. Whether the Fee Contracted Between the Attorney and the Client is Fixed or
Contingent.
The billing rates for defense counsel were fixed, varying based on the experience
level of the attorney or paraprofessional performing the task. (Doc. 55 at 12)
6
1
2
5. The Amount of Money, or the Value of the Rights, Involved, and the Results
Obtained.
3
The Defendants assert that the amount owed under the Plaintiff’s loan has risen to
4
close to $2 million, up from its original $1.2 million. (Doc. 55 at 12) The Defendants
5
fought against the Plaintiff’s claims in order to protect their interests under the loan
6
agreement and were successful having all of the Plaintiff’s claims dismissed. (Doc. 55 at
7
12) The Court finds that the amount of the fee award accrued over the course of this lengthy
8
litigation was proportionate and reasonable in light of the amount of money at risk under
9
the Plaintiff’s loan agreement.
10
6. The Experience, Reputation and Ability of Counsel.
11
The Defendants assert that the financial services litigation practice group at the firm
12
of Snell & Wilmer LLP served as experienced and reputable counsel throughout this
13
litigation. (Doc. 55 at 13)
14
The Defendants fail to address (i) the skill requisite to perform the legal service
15
properly; (ii) the preclusion of other employment by counsel because of the acceptance of
16
the action; (iii) any time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (iv) the
17
“undesirability” of the case; (v) the nature and length of the professional relationship
18
between the attorney and the client; (vi) awards in similar actions; and (vii) any other
19
matters deemed appropriate under the circumstances.
20
The Plaintiff’s response to the Motion fails to address any of the aforementioned
21
factors. Instead, the Plaintiff argues that the total amount of the fees requested by the
22
Defendants is unreasonable in comparison to the fees charged by counsel to other parties
23
to the lawsuit. (Doc. 61 at 10) The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ Motion should fail
24
because the Defendants failed to attach a copy of a fee agreement to the Motion. (Doc. 61
25
at 13) Alternatively, in the event that the Court chooses to grant the Motion, the Plaintiff
26
argues that the Defendants’ fees should be discounted by $16,628.02, and any overall fee
27
award should be reduced by $30,947.30 due to the lack of information, unreasonable
28
amount of time spent, or presence of duplicative efforts by defense counsel reflected in the
7
1
time entries provided to the Court. (Doc. 61 at 12)
2
The Court finds that the Defendants complied with Local Rule of Civil Procedure
3
54.2(d) by stating that defense counsel did not have a written fee agreement with the
4
Defendants. (Doc. 55-2 at 3) The Court also finds that the discounted and non-discounted
5
hourly rates billed by defense counsel were reasonable because, as the Plaintiff points out,
6
most of the attorneys working on this matter discounted their hourly rates between
7
approximately 20% to 40%. (Doc. 61 at 13) The Court also finds that the 324.1 hours
8
billed to this matter, which was ongoing in state and federal courts for nearly three years,
9
is reasonable, and that the case realistically changed hands between attorneys with varying
10
experience levels over time. Finally, the Court finds that the time entry records provided
11
by the Defendants are sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that defense counsel acted
12
prudently and efficiently throughout their handling of this case.
13
Accordingly,
14
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 55)
15
is granted.
16
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants HSBC Bank USA NA and Wells
17
Fargo Home Mortgage Corporation collectively are awarded attorneys’ fees and non-
18
taxable expenses incurred in defending against Plaintiff’s claims in the amount of
19
$122,647.84.
20
Dated this 15th day of March, 2019.
21
22
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?