Venice Baking Company v. Sophast Sales and Marketing LLC et al
Filing
43
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES 32 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court will award $41,999.00 in attorneys fees plus the cost of preparing the motion ($3,780.00) for a total of $45,779.00. This amount does not include the proposed cost of the reply, which was avoided by Plaintiffs nonopposition. (lc)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
United States District Court
Central District of California
7
8
9
10
VENICE BAKING COMPANY,
11
12
13
14
15
16
Case No. 2:16-cv-6136-ODW (KS)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
SOPHAST SALES AND MARKETING
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Company; and DOES 1–10, inclusive,
[32]
Defendants.
17
18
On January 26, 2017, the Court entered a judgment in Defendant’s favor. (ECF
19
No. 30.) On February 8, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for attorneys’ fees seeking
20
$41,999 in attorneys’ fees associated with its work prior to the motion, and $7,560 in
21
attorneys’ fees associated with the motion. (ECF No. 32.)
22
On February 16, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to Defendant’s
23
motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $41,999. (ECF No. 40.) In that notice of
24
nonopposition, Plaintiff stated that “[b]y not opposing [Defendant’s] fees motion, the
25
award of at least $7,560 sought by [Defendant] associated with preparing a reply brief
26
is not necessary.” (Not. of Nonopposition 1 (emphasis added).) However, Plaintiff
27
appears to have misunderstood Defendant’s motion, which asks for $7,560 in
28
1
attorneys’ fees for preparing the motion and the eventual reply to the motion. (Leff
2
Decl. ¶ 16, ECF No. 32-1.)
3
The fees already incurred in the preparation of the pending motion are $1,050
4
for Attorney Leff (2 hours x $525) and $2,730 for Attorney Russell (7 hours x $390)
5
for a total of $3,780. (Id.) Defendant estimates that fees associated with the reply will
6
also be $3,780.
7
potential $3,780 in attorneys’ fees associated with the reply unrecoverable. However,
8
Defendant is entitled to recover the attorneys’ fees associated with preparing the
9
motion itself. The attorneys’ fees associated with preparing the motion were made
10
necessary by Plaintiff’s alleged failure to stipulate to the proposed attorneys’ fees at
11
the meet and confer.
12
attorneys’ fees at the meet and confer, the fees associated with preparing the motion
13
could have been avoided. Instead, Plaintiff waited until after the motion was filed to
14
voice its acceptance of the proposed attorneys’ fees.
(Id.) The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s nonopposition makes the
(Id. ¶ 18.)
Had Plaintiff merely agreed to the proposed
15
The Court will award $41,999 in attorneys’ fees plus the cost of preparing the
16
motion ($3,780) for a total of $45,779. This amount does not include the proposed
17
cost of the reply, which was avoided by Plaintiff’s nonopposition.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
February 24, 2017
21
22
23
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
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?