Singh et al v. Hancock Natural Resources Group, Inc. et al

Filing 103

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL 102 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Granting in Part Defendant's 81 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 06/19/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DHILLON SINGH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
v.

13
14

HANCOCK NATURAL RESOURCES
GROUP, INC., et al.,

15
Defendants.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01435 - LJO - JLT
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING IN
PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

(Doc. 102)

Defendant Goose Pond AG, Inc. seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs related to this

17
18

action, “pursuant to the attorneys’ fees clause in the Real Estate Purchase Agreement … upon which

19

Plaintiffs based their Complaint.” Doc. 81-1 at 2. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing Defendant

20

was not a prevailing party on the contract, and in the alternative, requesting that the Court reduce the

21

amount of fees awarded to Defendant. Doc. 94. The Magistrate Judge determined Defendant was

22

entitled to an award of fees and costs as the prevailing party pursuant to California Civil Code § 1717,

23

and recommended that fees be granted in the modified amount of $246,758.67. Doc. 102 at 23; see

24

also Dhaliwal v. Singh, No. CV F 13-0484, 2013 WL 5477374, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013)

25

(“[W]hen a defendant defeats recovery by the plaintiff on the only contract claim in the action, the

26

defendant is the party prevailing on the contract under section 1717 as a matter of law.”). In addition,

27

the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Defendant’s request for expert fees and costs.

28

Id.
1

1

The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendation that fees and

2

costs be awarded. Doc. 102 at 23. In addition, they were “advised that failure to file objections within

3

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” Id. at 6 (citing Martinez v.

4

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To

5

date, no objections have been filed.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United

7

School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

8

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are

9

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

11

1.

12
13

The Findings and Recommendations dated May 25, 2017 (Doc. 102) are ADOPTED
IN FULL;

2.

14

Defendant’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED in the modified amount of
$246,758.67;

15

3.

The request for expert fees is GRANTED in the amount of $15,435.00; and

16

4.

The request for costs is GRANTED in the amount of $23,478.29.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

June 19, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2