Tahaya Misr Investment Inc. v. Helwan Cement S.A.E. et al

Filing 116

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEYS' FEES APPLICATION 115] by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Helwan's request for reasonable attorneys' fees. The Court awards Helwan a total of $445,835.69 in attorneys' fees. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

2:16-cv-01001-CAS (AFMx)

Title

TAHAYA MISR INVESTMENT INC. V. HELWAN CEMENT S.A.E. ET
AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’
January 23, 2017

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
APPLICATION (Filed December 19, 2016, Dkt. 115)

INTRODUCTION

On November 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss
this action. The background and procedural history are set forth at length in the Court’s
order granting plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint. See Dkt. 110. In
said order, the Court awarded defendant, Helwan, reasonable attorneys’ fees and ordered
defendant to submit evidence of its attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 110. On December 5, 2016,
Lorenzo Gasparetti, counsel for Helwan, filed a declaration setting forth the attorneys’
fees incurred by Helwan in this action between the time it was first filed and
subsequently dismissed. Dkt. 111. On December 8, 2016, the Court, having examined
Gasparetti’s declaration, denied defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees without prejudice.
Dkt. 113. The Court ordered Helwan to file records including the number of hours
worked, by whom, and a summary of the work performed sufficient to enable the Court
to evaluate whether defendant’s request is reasonable and calculate an appropriate
lodestar. Id.
On December 19, 2016, Gasparetti filed a second declaration regarding Helwan’s
attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 114 (“Gasparetti Decl.”). To date plaintiff has not filed any
opposition to Helwan’s requested attorneys’ fees.
Having carefully considered defendant’s submission, the Court finds and
concludes as follows.
CV-549 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

2:16-cv-01001-CAS (AFMx)

Title

TAHAYA MISR INVESTMENT INC. V. HELWAN CEMENT S.A.E. ET
AL.

II.

Date

‘O’
January 23, 2017

LEGAL STANDARD

Where fee awards are appropriate and available, “the fee applicant bears the
burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours
expended and hourly rates.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The Ninth
Circuit applies the “lodestar” method, designed to determine the basic fee for comparable
legal services in the community. See Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973,
978 (9th Cir.2008). The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours
reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Id. The Court has an
independent duty to determine whether the hours and hourly rates submitted by the fee
applicant are “reasonable,” and to reach its own “lodestar” value, which is “the number of
hours reasonably expended ... multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley, 461 U.S.
at 433. Once the lodestar has been calculated, a court may “adjust [it] upward or
downward using a ‘multiplier’ based on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation of
the lodestar.” Van Gerwen v. Guar. Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.2000).
The party seeking fees must submit evidence supporting the number of hours worked,
and the district court should exclude “hours that are not reasonably expended because
they are ‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Van Gerwen, 214 F.3d at
1045 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). “The trial court may
‘reduce the award or deny one altogether’ if the fee request ‘appears unreasonably
inflated.’” Drumm v. Morningstar, Inc., 695 F.Supp.2d 1014, 1023 (N.D.Cal.2010)
(quoting Serrano v. Unruh, 652 P.2d 985 (1982)).
III.

DISCUSSION

Helwan seeks a total of $552,467.79 in attorneys’ fees. Helwan has submitted
extensive documentation of its attorneys’ fees, including its counsel’s invoices for legal
services rendered by five attorneys and one paralegal who worked as Helwan’s defense
counsel in this action. See Gasparetti Decl. Ex. 2. The Gasparetti declaration also
explains the basis for the hourly rates charged by each member of the defense team, all of
which the Court finds to be reasonable in light of their respective levels of experience and
the local legal market. In addition to the invoices themselves, Helwan has submitted a
summary document associating hours worked with separate stages of the litigation.
Gasparetti Decl. Ex. 3. For simplicity, the Court will use the categories identified by
Helwan in its summary document.
CV-549 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

2:16-cv-01001-CAS (AFMx)

Title

TAHAYA MISR INVESTMENT INC. V. HELWAN CEMENT S.A.E. ET
AL.
A.

Date

‘O’
January 23, 2017

Reasonable Requests

Litigation in this matter was relatively complex because it implicated legal
proceedings occurring simultaneously in Egypt, involved numerous substantive motions,
and proceeded through partial discovery before the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to
voluntarily dismiss the complaint. In relation to removal proceedings, defendant’s
motion to dismiss due to improper service, defendant’s answer and cross-claims,
scheduling, defendant’s motion for an anti-suit injunction, cross-motions to dismiss by
both plaintiff and Helwan, preparation of a joint report regarding plaintiff’s motion to
voluntarily dismiss, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Helwan presents
evidence that its defense counsel expended 507.451 hours of work between five attorneys
and a paralegal. The Court concludes that the foregoing hours were reasonably expended
and calculates the appropriate, lodestar for the foregoing proceedings as follows:
Hourly Rate
Lorenzo Gasparetti
Peter Ellis
Monica Ortiz
Mikiko Thelwell
Lizeth Sanchez
Alexa Hankard

$810
$730
$495
$330
$250
$235
TOTALS

Hours
Expended
149.145
112.136
188.07
18.3
6.8
33
507.451

Rate x Hours
$120,807.45
$81,859.28
$93,094.65
$6,039.00
$1,700.00
$7,755.00
$311,255.38

In accordance with the foregoing, Helwan is awarded $311,255.38 in fees incurred
as a result of the proceedings listed in the previous paragraph.
B.

Fact Investigation, Analysis, and File Administration

Helwan also seeks fees incurred as a result of 231.39 hours of work it claims were
expended on file administration, fact investigation, and “Case Analysis/Strategy.”
Gasparetti Decl. Ex. 3. Specifically, Helwan seeks the following additional fees:

CV-549 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 3 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

2:16-cv-01001-CAS (AFMx)

Title

TAHAYA MISR INVESTMENT INC. V. HELWAN CEMENT S.A.E. ET
AL.
Hourly Rate
Lorenzo Gasparetti
Peter Ellis
Monica Ortiz
Mikiko Thelwell
Lizeth Sanchez
Alexa Hankard

$810
$730
$495
$330
$250
$235
TOTALS

Date

‘O’

Hours
Expended
64.38
115.77
30.34
14.5
6.4
0
231.39

January 23, 2017

Rate x Hours
$52,147.80
$84,512.10
$15,018.30
$4,785.00
$1,600.00
$158,063.20

The Gasparetti declaration states that the foregoing was reasonable because
plaintiff’s claims sought more than $3 billion in damages and because the case involved
the alleged breach of a contract which required performance in Egypt and elsewhere over
a 13-year period. Defendant disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the alleged
contract and was not able to obtain the original document prior to plaintiff’s voluntary
dismissal of the action.
Helwan has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating that the foregoing hours were
reasonable. Helwan’s counsel reasonably expended many hours of work on the motions
practice in this case, which necessarily entailed factual investigation and strategy;
however, Helwan has not demonstrated that this case required uniquely complex strategic
discussions or factual investigations beyond those required for the motions practice. The
invoices offered by Helwan are so substantially redacted that the Court cannot discern
why these hours were reasonably necessary to the defense of the case. Accordingly, the
Court awards Helwan fifty percent of the billed time for these entries, $79,031.60, for a
cumulative amount of $390,286.98 thus far discussed.
C.

Discovery

Lastly, Helwan seeks $83,339.81 spent in relation to the contentious, partial
discovery in this matter. Specifically, Helwan claims to have expended the following
hours on discovery, a motion to compel discovery, and seeking sanctions when plaintiff
failed to comply with a production order:

CV-549 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 4 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

2:16-cv-01001-CAS (AFMx)

Title

TAHAYA MISR INVESTMENT INC. V. HELWAN CEMENT S.A.E. ET
AL.
Hourly Rate
Lorenzo Gasparetti
Peter Ellis
Monica Ortiz
Mikiko Thelwell
Lizeth Sanchez
Alexa Hankard

$810
$730
$495
$330
$250
$235
TOTALS

Date

‘O’

Hours
Expended
59.31
18.532
41.63
0
.8
4.1
124.372

January 23, 2017

Rate x Hours
$48,041.10
$13,528.36
$20,606.85
$200.00
$963.50
$83,339.81

On August 4, 2016, the parties filed a short stipulation to divide discovery
proceedings into two phases, the first of which would address the validity and
enforceability of the contract on which plaintiff’s claims were based. Dkt. 58. On
August 29, 2016, the parties submitted a joint stipulation setting forth a dispute regarding
plaintiff’s discovery compliance. Thereafter, defendant brought a motion to compel
production of the original wet-signature agreement and for a deposition of the plaintiffcompany’s president. Dkt. 76. On September 6, 2016, Helwan submitted a supplemental
memorandum regarding the discovery dispute. Dkt. 83.
On September 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Alexander MacKinnon granted the
motion to compel production. Dkt. 91. Judge MacKinnon ordered plaintiff to produce
the original wet-signature document and plaintiff’s president to appear for deposition on
or before September 30, 2016. Id. Plaintiff failed to comply and Helwan filed a motion
for sanctions seeking attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 98. In its motion, Helwan sought “to be
awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees of in [sic] the total amount of $20,250 incurred in
connection with these discovery proceedings.” Id. at 13. Helwan attached a declaration
from Gasparetti, explaining the basis for the fees it incurred. Dkt. 98-3. In said
declaration, Gasparetti stated that he had:
spent no less than 25 hours engaging in good faith efforts to meet and confer
with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the discovery at issue, preparing a Joint
Stipulation, Motion to Compel and supplemental brief regarding the Motion
to Compel, as well as preparing the present Motion. . . . Therefore, the

CV-549 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 5 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:16-cv-01001-CAS (AFMx)

January 23, 2017

Title

TAHAYA MISR INVESTMENT INC. V. HELWAN CEMENT S.A.E. ET
AL.
estimated total of fees incurred by Helwan from my work in connection with
these discovery proceedings is at least $20,250.00.

Id. ¶ 9.
No opposition was ever filed. Judge MacKinnon granted Helwan’s motion for
sanctions, but ordered defendant to submit additional information tailored to fees that
were “caused by Plaintiff’s failure to comply” with the production order rather than all
fees associated with the discovery proceedings. Dkt. 105 at 3. Thereafter, Gasparetti
submitted a declaration explaining that he had expended 7.4 hours preparing Helwan’s
motion for sanctions and attending the hearing on the motion. Dkt. 106. Gasparetti also
explained that Alexa Hankard had spent “no less than 4.1 hours” on legal research for the
motion for sanctions. Id. To date, Judge MacKinnon has not issued an order granting an
award of said fees to Helwan.
Defendant has not demonstrated its entitlement to $83,339.81 in attorneys’ fees
associated with discovery. There appears to be a discrepancy between Gasparetti’s initial
claim to have expended 25 hours on discovery proceedings and Gasparetti’s present
claim to have expended 59.31 hours, himself, on discovery proceedings. As with the fees
already discussed above, the Court cannot discern from the redacted invoice records
which hours were expended on discovery matters as opposed to other matters.
Accordingly, the Court awards Helwan fees for 25 hours expended by Gasparetti in
addition to the remaining hours requested. Helwan is hereby awarded $55,548.71 in fees
incurred as a result of discovery in this matter.1

Helwan is granted 14 days in which to seek any modification of this order. If
Helwan so chooses, Helwan shall submit an explanation of the discrepancy in hours
apparently worked by Gasparetti and submit appropriate documentation to enable the
Court to better evaluate the hours worked on matters relating to discovery.
1

CV-549 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 6 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

2:16-cv-01001-CAS (AFMx)

Title

TAHAYA MISR INVESTMENT INC. V. HELWAN CEMENT S.A.E. ET
AL.

IV.

Date

‘O’
January 23, 2017

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in
part Helwan’s request for reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Court awards Helwan a total
of $445,835.69 in attorneys’ fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-549 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

00
CMJ

Page 7 of 7