Northwest Administrators Inc v. Crown Disposal Company, Inc. et al

Filing 56

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CALCULATION OF FEES, COSTS AND INTEREST by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 9/11/2017, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded withdrawal liability in the amoun t of $1,021,074.79 and liquidated damages in the amount of $204,214.96, and directed plaintiff to submit a calculation of attorney fees, costs, and interest 51 . On 10/9/2017, plaintiff filed a brief in support of its calculation of fees, costs, and interest 52 . The Court AWARDS plaintiff $66,729.46 in attorneys' fees, $1,937.79 in costs, and $49,030.97 in interest. Plaintiff is directed to submit a proposed judgment. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV16-7328-CAS(MRWx)
Date December 22, 2017
NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC. V. CROWN DISPOSAL
COMPANY, INC. ET AL

Present: The Honorable 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

N/A 

N/A 

Connie Lee 
Deputy Clerk 

Proceedings:  

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

(IN CHAMBERS) – PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
CALCULATION OF FEES, COSTS AND INTEREST (Dkt. 52,
filed October 9, 2017)

I.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On May 31, 2016, plaintiff Northwest Administrators, Inc., the administrator and
assignee of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, filed this action in
the Western District of Washington against defendants THF Holding Co. and CR
Maintenance Services, Inc. to recover unpaid employer withdrawal liability, attorney
fees, costs, and interest pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan
Amendments Act of 1980 (“MPPAA”). Dkt. 1. The case was transferred to this Court
on September 12, 2016. Dkt. 19. On September 11, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment, awarded withdrawal liability in the amount of
$1,021,074.79 and liquidated damages in the amount of $204,214.96, and directed
plaintiff to submit a calculation of attorney fees, costs, and interest. Dkt. 51.
On October 9, 2017, plaintiff filed a brief in support of its calculation of fees, costs,
and interest. Dkt. 52 (“Brief”). On October 16, 2017, defendants filed a reply brief, dkt.
53 (“Reply”); and plaintiffs filed a response on October 23, 2017, dkt. 54 (“Resp.”).
Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, the Court finds and concludes as
follows.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under ERISA, the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to a pension plan is
mandatory in all actions to collect delinquent contributions including unpaid employer

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV16-7328-CAS(MRWx)
Date December 22, 2017
NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC. V. CROWN DISPOSAL
COMPANY, INC. ET AL

withdrawal liability. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2); Lads Trucking Co. v. Board of Trustees,
777 F.2d 1371, 1373-1374 (9th Cir. 1985). Attorneys’ fees awards in ERISA actions are
calculated using a hybrid lodestar / multiplier approach. McElwaine v. US W., Inc., 176
F.3d 1167, 1173 (9th Cir. 1999). This approach has two parts: (1) the court determines
the lodestar amount by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended in the
litigation by a reasonable hourly rate; and (2) the court may adjust the lodestar upward or
downward using a multiplier based on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation.
Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mutual Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000).
The party seeking fees bears the burden of documenting the hours expended in the
litigation and must submit evidence supporting those hours and the rates claimed.
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). In determining the lodestar, the court
may exclude from the fee request any hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise
unnecessary.” Id. at 434. The court must also determine a reasonable hourly rate,
“considering the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees.”
Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). The court must
look to the rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of
comparable skill, experience and reputation. Id. at 1210-11. There is a strong
presumption that the lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee, and a multiplier may be
used only in rare or exceptional cases where the lodestar is unreasonably low or
unreasonably high. Van Gerwen, 214 F.3d at 1045.
III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks $66,729.46 in attorneys’ fees, $1,937.79 in costs, and $49,030.97 in
interest. Brief at 2. The interest award on defendant’s unpaid withdrawal liability was
calculated in accordance with Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation regulations, 29
C.F.R. § 4219.32. Declaration of Donald Ditter ¶ 6. Defendants do not object to the
interest calculation or the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by plaintiffs’
counsel. However, defendants object to the hours plaintiffs’ counsel billed opposing the
motion to transfer venue and to the fees and costs related to plaintiffs’ counsel’s travel
from Seattle to Los Angeles. Reply at 2.
A.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The requested fee award is allocated as follows: $58,328.20 for 137.42 hours of
work by David W. Ballew (“Ballew”), $3,355.26 for 5.77 hours of work by Russell J.
Reid (“Reid”), and $5045 for 17.4 hours of work by Thomas A. Leahy (“Leahy”).

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV16-7328-CAS(MRWx)
Date December 22, 2017
NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC. V. CROWN DISPOSAL
COMPANY, INC. ET AL

Declaration of David W. Ballew (“Ballew Decl.”) ¶ 12, Ex. A at 4. Plaintiff indicates
that the hourly rates of its attorneys are set by the Trustees of the Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Fund. Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Ballew, has represented Trust
Funds in ERISA matters, including withdrawal liability, delinquencies and fiduciary
breach, for more than 15 years. Id. ¶ 2. His hourly rate was $410 per hour between April
2016 and June 2017 and $440 per hour as of July 2017. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff was also
represented by Reid, an attorney with more than 40 years of experience in ERISA
matters, whose hourly rate between April 2016 and June 2017 was $575 per hour and
$605 per hour as of July 2017. Id. ¶¶ 5–6. Additional research was performed by Leahy,
an attorney with more than 10 years’ of experience in ERISA matters, whose hourly rate
as of July 2017 was $290 per hour. Id. ¶ 8.
1.

Hourly Rate

Plaintiff attaches the declaration of ERISA specialist Richard J. Birmingham
(“Birmingham”), which was previously submitted in support of an application for
attorneys’ fees approved by a district court in the Western District of Washington. Brief
at 5–6, Ballew Decl., Ex. D; Nw. Administrators, Inc. v. N. Distribution, LLC, No. 2:10cv-00507-JCC, (W.D. Wash. Feb. 15, 2011). Birmingham attests that the market rate in
2011 for an attorney who has been in practice for over 20 years and has litigated cases on
behalf of a large multi-employer trust fund for over 10 years was at least $320 per hour
and the market rate for an attorney who has represented such funds for over 25 years is
$490 per hour or above. Id., Ex. C. Plaintiff also cites to several orders from district
courts in the Northern District of California awarding attorneys’ fees at comparable or
greater rates than those sought here. Brief at 5; see, e.g., Echague v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,
69 F. Supp. 3d 990, 997 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (approving $650 hourly rate for attorney with
18 years of ERISA litigation experience).
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the rates of $410 and $440 per
hour for Ballew, $575 and $605 per hour for Reid, and $290 per hour for Leahy are
reasonable. Although the Court recognizes that the “relevant community” when
determining appropriate attorneys’ rates is generally the one in which the district court
sits, “it is appropriate to consider the declarations of attorneys in other jurisdictions
because ERISA cases involve a national standard and attorneys practicing ERISA law in
the Ninth Circuit tend to practice in different districts.” Mogck v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 289 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1191 (S.D. Cal. 2003). Defendants also do not object to the

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV16-7328-CAS(MRWx)
Date December 22, 2017
NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC. V. CROWN DISPOSAL
COMPANY, INC. ET AL

hourly rates requested by plaintiff’s attorneys. Reply at 2. Accordingly, the Court finds
that plaintiff is entitled these hourly rates.
B.

Hours Expended by Counsel and Costs

After reviewing plaintiff’s attorneys’ billing records, see Ballew Decl., Ex. B, the
Court has not identified any billed hours that were “excessive, redundant, or otherwise
unnecessary.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. However, defendants dispute $6,026.25 in fees
for hours plaintiff’s attorneys expended unsuccessfully opposing defendants’ motion to
transfer venue from the Western District of Washington to the Central District of
California, $5,940 in fees for hours Bellew expended travelling from Seattle to Los
Angeles to attend the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and $1,340.70
in related travel costs. Reply at 2–4. Defendants argue that these fees and costs “are not
properly chargeable to defendants.” Id. at 3.
As noted above, fee awards under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) are mandatory. This is
not a discretionary fee shifting provision that requires courts to consider the relative
merits of the parties’ positions. Cf. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1); Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff &
Co., 634 F.2d 446, 453 (9th Cir. 1980). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that a
plaintiff may obtain fees for time spent litigating even an unsuccessful motion to transfer
venue so long as the “work was reasonably calculated to advance plaintiff’s interest.”  
Gluck v. American Protection Industries, 619 F.2d 30, 33 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff
indicates that it opposed the motion in an effort to reduce litigation costs because, in light
of defendants’ failure to initiate arbitration, the case was already positioned for resolution
through a motion for summary judgment. Resp. at 3. Accordingly, the Court finds that
opposing the motion was reasonably calculated to advance plaintiff’s interest.
Defendants’ objection to the fees and costs incurred by Bellew in travelling to Los
Angeles to attend the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is similarly
unavailing. Fees and costs incurred litigating a successful dispositive motion are clearly
not “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the hours expended by plaintiff’s counsel litigating this
case were appropriate. Plaintiff is entitled to the requested fees, costs, and interest.

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV16-7328-CAS(MRWx)
Date December 22, 2017
NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC. V. CROWN DISPOSAL
COMPANY, INC. ET AL

IV.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court AWARDS plaintiff $66,729.46 in
attorneys’ fees, $1,937.79 in costs, and $49,030.97 in interest. Plaintiff is directed to
submit a proposed judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

: 
00 
                         CL 

00 

Page 5 of 5