Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin v. Ashot Yegiazaryan

Filing 110

ORDER APPROVING PETITIONER'S AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES by Judge Manuel L. Real: On 3/17/2016, this Court granted Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment 56 . That Order included an award of Petitioner's reasonable attorney's fees related to his Motion, in an amount to be submitted and approved by the Court. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Ashot Yegiazaryan pay Petitioner's reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $133,323.40. (gk)

Download PDF
1 CLOSED 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 VITALY IVANOVICH SMAGIN, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 16 17 18 ASHOT YEGIAZARYAN, a.k.a. ASHOT EGIAZARYAN, Respondent. ) CASE NO. CV 14-9764-R ) ) ORDER APPROVING PETITIONER’S ) AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 19 20 On March 17, 2016, this Court granted Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment 21 (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 56). That Order included an award of Petitioner’s reasonable attorney’s 22 fees related to his Motion, in an amount to be submitted and approved by the Court. The Court 23 has reviewed the Petitioner’s Statement of Attorney’s Fees, Respondent’s Opposition, and 24 Petitioner’s Response. As discussed more fully below, this Court finds that Petitioner’s requested 25 attorney’s fees in the amount of $113,323.40 is fair and reasonable. 26 Petitioner’s counsel, Bruce H. Jackson, states that his firm spent a total of 248.7 hours 27 working on Petitioner’s Motion and preparing the attorney’s fee statement. Attached to Mr. 28 Jackson’s Declaration is a table summarizing the firm’s work on both the Motion and the 1 Statement of Attorney’s Fees. The table includes information regarding who worked on the 2 matter, what type of work they performed, and the total number of hours they billed. On the 3 whole, this Court finds that the amount of hours Petitioner’s counsel billed on this matter is 4 reasonable and appropriate. The instant action is a complex case that required analysis and 5 understanding of records from diverse forums including the London Court of International 6 Arbitration, courts in England and Cyprus, and a Russian criminal prosecution. Furthermore, 7 because the case concerns legal proceedings in multiple foreign countries, it also raised 8 complicated issues of international law. The Court further finds that the requested fees for the Petitioner’s attorneys are reasonable 9 10 based on their skill, experience, and reputation. The moving party must present the court with 11 evidence that the requested hourly rate is “in line with those prevailing in the community for 12 similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum v. 13 Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96 n.11 (1984). Here, Petitioner’s counsel requests a rate of $966 per 14 hour for Edward E. Poulton, $810 per hour for Bruce H. Jackson, $590 per hour for Henry 15 Garfield, $420 per hour for Nicholas O. Kennedy, $350 per hour for Anne M. Kelts, $280 per hour 16 for Nada K. Hitti, and $270 per hour for Cesar Tamondong. Each attorney and paralegal has 17 credentials justifying such fees and the rates charged are consistent with the community standards 18 for other litigation firms of Baker & McKenzie LLP’s size in the San Francisco and London 19 markets. Plaintiff calculated the total fees as follows: (1) Edward E. Poulton 1.4 hours at $966 per 20 21 hour, (2) Bruce H. Jackson 46.1 hours at $810 per hour, (3) Henry Garfield 37.3 hours at $590 per 22 hour, (4) Nicholas O. Kennedy 6.7 hours at $420 per hour, (5) Anne M. Kelts 82.9 hours at $350 23 per hour, (5) Nada K. Hitti 73.3 hours at $280 per hour, and (6) Cesar Tamondong 1 hour at $270 24 per hour. Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded $113,323.40 in attorney’s fees. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Ashot Yegiazaryan pay Petitioner’s 2 reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $133,323.40. 3 Dated: March 22, 2017. 4 5 6 7 ___________________________________ MANUEL L. REAL 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 3

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?