Alfonso S Valdovinos v. NDeX West LLC et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 30 Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NAs Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $16,999.25. (lc) Modified on 5/25/2012 (lc).

Download PDF
1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFONSO S. VALDOVINOS, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. NDEx WEST L.L.C.,a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a/k/a WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, a Division of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and f/k/a WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, successor in interest to WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 11-08767 DDP (JCGx) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES [Dkt. No. 30] 20 21 Presently before the court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA’s 22 Motion for Attorney Fees. 23 prevailing party Wells Fargo’s reasonable attorneys’ fees.1 24 Fargo seeks $19,928 in fees. 25 the parties, the court finds that Wells Fargo’s reasonable fees are Plaintiff is contractually liable for Wells Having considered the submissions of 26 27 28 1 Though represented by counsel, Plaintiff did not oppose Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. 1 $16,999.25.2 2 $16,999.25. Wells Fargo is hereby awarded attorneys’ fees of 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 Dated: May 25, 2012 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The court’s reduction is premised upon a finding of excessive billing in connection with Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Though the amended complaint raised new issues, counsel billed for an unreasonable amount of time spent on what was, at that point, Defendant’s second motion to dismiss, which incorporated several relatively standard arguments and built upon the foundation of Defendant’s first motion. 2

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?