Marco Crane & Rigging Company v. Greenfield Productions LLC

Filing 121

ORDER denying 110 Motion for Reconsideration and granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in preparing for and participating in the court ordered mediation in the amount of $9,029.45. Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 12/17/19. (DXD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Marco Crane & Rigging Company,

9

No. CV-17-01836-PHX-GMS

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Greenfield Productions LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Defendants Greenfield Products, LLC and Mi-Jack Products, Inc. (“Defendants”)

17

move for reconsideration of this Court’s October 9, 2019 Order (Doc. 109) granting

18

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. (Doc. 110.)1 Defendants’ motion is denied.

19

Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and

20

Costs in compliance with the Court’s October 9, 2019 Order. (Doc. 114.) The application

21

was requested to provide a basis for Plaintiff’s sanction award. For reasons discussed

22

below, Defendants’ counsel are sanctioned in the amount of $9,029.45.
DISCUSSION

23
I.

24

Motion for Reconsideration

25

A motion for reconsideration may be granted if the moving party can show: (1)

26

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3)

27

fraud or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or

28
1

The Court held oral argument on this matter on December 10, 2019.

1

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

60(b). Rule 60(b) motions should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of

3

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Such motions should not be

4

used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought

5

through–rightly or wrongly.’” Id. (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing,

6

Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A mere disagreement with a previous order is an

7

insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572,

8

1573 (D. Haw. 1988).

9

In its Order, the Court found that existing caselaw supports Plaintiff’s assertion that

10

Defendants’ failure to have a representative with full settlement authority present at the

11

court ordered mediation, coupled with Defendants refusal to listen to Plaintiff’s

12

presentation, constituted grounds for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(B). Because

13

the cases relied on by the Court2 were not cited in Plaintiff’s briefing, Defendants assert

14

that they were deprived of an opportunity to distinguish their conduct.

15

The Court held oral argument on this matter on December 10, 2019. Having heard

16

the parties’ arguments, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its order. The Court ordered

17

private mediation at the mediator’s request. The mediator required that the parties have

18

representatives actually present with sufficient authority to settle the case. Defendants did

19

not comply with this request. The representative in attendance only had the authority to

20

offer the self-insured retention to settle the case. Further the Defendants declined to hear

21

the Plaintiff’s position personally after being requested by the mediator to do so.

22

II.

Plaintiff’s Fee Application

23

In its October 9, 2019 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions in

24

the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to prepare for and participate

25

in the court ordered mediation. Plaintiff’s corresponding fee application requests an award

26

of $12,354.45. Defendants “do not take issue with the reasonableness of the hourly rates

27
28

Nick v. Morgan’s Foods Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001); Pitman v. Brinker Intern.,
Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Ariz. 2003)
2

-2-

1

charged by Plaintiff’s counsel.”3 (Doc. 118 at 2.) The only dispute with respect to

2

Plaintiff’s requested award is the inclusion of Plaintiff’s air travel time—13.3 hours billed

3

at $250 per hour ($3,325.00).

4

Air travel time is generally not compensable pursuant to LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(D).4

5

Plaintiff argues that fee awards made under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) are not subject to the

6

air travel time restriction in LRCiv 54.2. The Court, however, is awarding sanctions

7

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), not fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). Thus, the local

8

rule excluding air travel time is applicable. After deducting the fees associated with air

9

travel time, Plaintiff’s fees and costs reasonably incurred in relation to the court ordered

10

mediation total $9,029.45. Plaintiff is awarded sanctions in the amount of $9,029.45.

11

CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 110) is

12
13

DENIED.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and

15

Costs (Doc. 114) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is awarded its reasonable

16

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in preparing for and participating in the court ordered

17

mediation in the amount of $9,029.45.

18

Dated this 17th day of December, 2019.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff’s claimed attorneys’ fees include 24.4 hours by the lead counsel billed at the
hourly rate of $250.00, and 8.1 hours by a second counsel of record billed at the hourly rate
of $220.00.
3

26
27

4

28

The local rules effective December 1, 2019 have eliminated this provision. However, at
the time Defendants response was filed, November 20, 2019, the local rules did provide
that “[o]rdinarilly air travel time should not be charged.” LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(D).
-3-