Phillips 66 Company v. California Pride, Inc., et al.
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Supplement Record. Plaintiff shall file the following by no later than Tuesday, June 13, 2017: (1) evidence-such as declarations-supporting Plaintiff's requested hourly rates for each attorney, paralegal, and legal assistant for whom Plaintiff seeks fees in its Motion; (2) a description of the "first appearance fee" that Plaintiff requests in its Motion; and (3) a brief discussion of whether "first appearance fee[s]" are recoverable costs under federal law. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/6/2017. (Timken, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01102-LJO-SKO
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
CALIFORNIA PRIDE, INC., et al.,
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion”). (Doc. 15.)
The Court finds that it requires additional information from Plaintiff in order to rule on the
First, Plaintiff provided insufficient evidence in support of its request for attorneys' fees in
the Motion. (See id., Ex. 1 at 5-6.) In particular, Plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting
the hourly rates requested for each attorney and professional, such as the pertinent experience for
each attorney and professional. (Cf. Doc. 15, Ex. 4 at 3-4 (providing the requested hourly rates for
five attorneys, a paralegal, and a legal assistant, but failing to provide evidence supporting these
requested rates).) The Court finds that additional evidence supporting Plaintiff’s request for
attorneys’ fees is necessary.
Second, Plaintiff provided insufficient information to support its request for costs―and,
2 specifically, a “first appearance fee” of $400. (See id., Ex. 1 at 5.) The Court finds that Plaintiff
3 must submit additional information in support of this request, including the exact nature of this
4 “first appearance fee” and whether such costs are recoverable. Cf. Garden City Boxing Club, Inc.
5 v. Castro, No. C 06-05640 JW, 2008 WL 697687, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2008) (“The [c]ourt . .
6 . disallows the appearance fees since they are not recoverable independently of the attorney
7 fees.”). See generally United States v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 116 F.3d 487, at *2 (9th Cir. 1997)
8 (“As a general proposition, an award of costs is governed by federal law . . . under Rule 54(d).”
9 (citations omitted)); In re Merrill Lynch Relocation Mgmt., Inc., 812 F.2d 1116, 1120 n.2 (9th Cir.
10 1987) (“As a general proposition, the award of costs is governed by federal law under Rule
11 54(d).”); United Cal. Bank v. THC Fin. Corp., 557 F.2d 1351, 1361 (9th Cir. 1977) (applying
12 federal law as to costs and California state law on the issue of attorneys’ fees); Bmo Harris Bank
13 N.A. v. Singh, Case No. 1:16-cv-00482-DAD-SAB, 2016 WL 5798841, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4,
14 2016) (“In a diversity action, federal not state law controls the issue of costs.” (citing Aceves v.
15 Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 1995))).
For these reasons, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file the following by no later than
17 Tuesday, June 13, 2017:
(1) evidence―such as declarations―supporting Plaintiff’s requested hourly rates for each
19 attorney, paralegal, and legal assistant for whom Plaintiff seeks fees in its Motion;
(2) a description of the “first appearance fee” that Plaintiff requests in its Motion; and
(3) a brief discussion of whether “first appearance fee[s]” are recoverable costs under
22 federal law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 6, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?