Erik Ghukasyan v. BMW of North America LLC et al
Filing
47
AMENDED ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF ERIK GHUKASYAN'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, PARALEGAL FEES, AND COSTS 41 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court DENIES the Motion as untimely and lacking good cause for the failure to comply with Rule 54 and the applicable Local Rules. (lc) Modified on 4/27/2021 (lc).
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
United States District Court
Central District of California
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Case № 2:18-CV-09371-ODW (ASx)
ERIK GHUKASYAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et
al.,
AMENDED ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
PARALEGAL FEES, AND COSTS
[41]
Defendants.
17
18
I.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
19
Plaintiff Erik Ghukasyan initiated this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer
20
Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) against Defendant BMW of North America
21
(“BMWNA”). (See Notice of Removal (“Notice”) Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.)
22
BMWNA made an offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23
(“Rule”) 68, which Ghukasyan accepted. (Rule 68 Offer, ECF No. 20; Rule 68 Offer
24
& Acceptance (“Rule 68 O&A”), ECF No. 21.) Accordingly, on October 8, 2019, the
25
Court entered Judgment pursuant to the terms of the accepted Rule 68 Offer. (See J.,
26
ECF No. 30.) Nearly one year later, on October 5, 2020, Ghukasyan filed the present
27
motion for fees and costs pursuant to California Civil Code section 1794(d). (Mot. for
28
Att’ys’ Fees, Paralegal Fees, & Costs (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 41.) The
1
Motion is fully briefed. (See Opp’n to Mot., ECF No. 42; Reply, ECF No. 44.) For
2
the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Motion.1
II.
3
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES
4
As a preliminary matter, Ghukasyan asks the Court to disregard BMWNA’s
5
Opposition and grant the Motion as unopposed because BMWNA filed its Opposition
6
late. (Reply 2, 6.) Any opposition to a motion must be filed no later than twenty-one
7
days before the date set for hearing. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Local Rule 7-12 provides
8
that the “Court may decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed
9
within the deadline set by order or local rule,” and that “failure to file it within the
10
deadline[] may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” C.D. Cal.
11
L.R. 7-12. Ghukasyan noticed the Motion for hearing on November 9, 2020. (See
12
Mot. 1.)
13
October 19, 2020, which is when it was filed. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9; (see Opp’n to
14
Mot.) BMWNA’s Opposition was not late.
Therefore, BMWNA’s Opposition was due twenty-one days earlier, on
15
Ironically, Ghukasyan asks the Court to strictly enforce the Local Rules to his
16
advantage, but his Reply fails to comply with the Local Rules. This Court’s Standing
17
Order states, “Filings that do not conform to the Local Rules and this Order will not
18
be
19
https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-otis-d-wright-ii.
20
fifteen pages long and lacks tables of contents and authorities, in violation of this
21
Court’s Standing Order and the Local Rules. (See Reply); Standing Order § VII.A.3
22
(“Replies shall not exceed 12 pages.”); C.D. Cal. L.R. 11-8 (requiring tables for
23
memoranda exceeding ten pages). As Ghukasyan’s Reply fails to comply with this
24
Court’s Standing Order and the Local Rules, the Court does not consider it.
considered.”
Standing
Order,
Hon.
Otis
D.
Wright
II,
§ VII.A.3,
Ghukasyan’s Reply is
25
26
27
28
1
Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the
matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.
2
III.
1
DISCUSSION
2
A buyer who prevails in an action under Song-Beverly shall be allowed to
3
recover “as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and
4
expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the
5
court to have been reasonably incurred.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(d). Rule 54 provides
6
the procedure for requesting attorneys’ fees in federal court: “A claim for attorney’s
7
fees . . . must be made by motion,” except in circumstances not applicable here, and
8
must “be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.
9
P. 54(d)(2) (emphasis added);2 see also C.D. Cal. L.R. 54-7 (“Any motion or
10
application for attorneys’ fees shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after
11
the entry of judgment or other final order, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.”).
12
“Failure to comply with the time limit in Rule 54 is a sufficient reason to deny a
13
motion for fees absent some compelling showing of good cause.” In re Veritas
14
Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Kona Enters.,
15
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 889–90 (9th Cir. 2000)).
16
Ghukasyan’s Motion is untimely, and he does not show a compelling reason for
17
his delay. The Court entered Judgment on October 8, 2019, pursuant to Ghukasyan’s
18
acceptance of BMWNA’s Rule 68 Offer of Judgment.
19
incorporated the terms of the Rule 68 Offer, including that BMWNA “will pay
20
Plaintiff’s costs, expenses, and attorney fees, in accordance with Civil Code
21
section 1794, subdivision (d), as determined by agreement of the parties or by noticed
22
Motion.” (J. ¶ 3 (emphasis added); Rule 68 O&A Ex. B ¶ 3, ECF No. 21-2.) The
23
Court made no orders regarding the time for filing a fee motion. Therefore, Rule 54
24
and Local Rule 54-7 apply, and any fee motion was due within fourteen days of the
(See J.)
The Judgment
25
26
27
28
2
Ghukasyan cites California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 for the procedure governing
this fee motion. (Mot. 8, 19.) In this diversity action, California law determines whether Ghukasyan
is entitled to attorneys’ fees, but “the procedure for requesting an award of attorney fees is governed
by federal law.” Riordan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2009)
(emphasis added) (quoting Carnes v. Zamani, 488 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007)).
3
1
Judgment, or by October 22, 2019. See Kline v. J2 Glob., Inc., No. 2:19-c-00667-
2
SVW (AFMx), 2019 WL 4137617, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2019) (finding fee motion
3
untimely under the Federal and Local Rules where the court had made no orders
4
regarding the timing of a fee motion). Ghukasyan filed his Motion on October 5,
5
2020, nearly one year later. Thus, Ghukasyan’s Motion is untimely, and he has
6
waived his claim to attorneys’ fees. See Port of Stockton v. W. Bulk Carrier KS,
7
371 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 2004) (“By failing to file an appropriate motion within
8
the relevant time limit . . . the Port waived any claim to attorneys’ fees . . . .”).3
9
Ghukasyan has not moved to extend the time to file under Rule 6(b), nor has he
10
shown the requisite excusable neglect to merit relief under that Rule. See In re
11
Veritas, 496 F.3d at 973 (discussing that, to find excusable neglect, a court must
12
consider the (1) danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the (2) length and
13
(3) reason for the delay, and (4) the movant’s good faith) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs.
14
Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). As Ghukasyan
15
provides no justification for failing to file the Motion within the time limits of Rule 54
16
and Local Rule 54-7, he has not shown a compelling reason for the delay. See id.
17
at 972 (affirming denial of attorneys’ fees motion because it was filed fifteen days late
18
and movant did not show a compelling reason for the delay); see, e.g., Fredericksen v.
19
Ford Motor Co., No. 2:19-CV-02186-R (JPRx), 2019 WL 8060746, at *1–2
20
(C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2019) (denying untimely fee motion where plaintiff did not show
21
good cause for failure to comply with Rule 54); Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of
22
L.A., No. CV 05-08818-BRO (FMOx), 2015 WL 12659936, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4,
23
2015) (same). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion as untimely and lacking
24
good cause for the failure to comply with Rule 54 and the applicable Local Rules.4
25
26
27
28
3
Similarly, Ghukasyan’s request for costs is also untimely. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 54-2.1 (requiring an
Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs to be filed within fourteen days after “entry of judgment or
order under which costs may be claimed”); Kline, 2019 WL 4137617, at *1–2 (denying request for
costs in fee motion as untimely under Local Rule 54-2.1).
4
Nothing in the Reply alters this conclusion; it offers no legitimate basis or justification for the neartwelve-month delay. (See generally Reply.)
4
IV.
1
2
3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Ghukasyan’s Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees, Paralegal Fees, and Costs. (ECF No. 41.)
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
April 27, 2021
8
9
10
11
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?