Amur Equipment Finance, Inc. v. CHD Transport, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to Supplement Record. Plaintiff shall file the following by no later than Monday, September 25, 2017: (1) evidence-such as declarations-supporting Plaintiff's requested hourly rates for each attorney for whom Plaintiff seeks fees in its Motion; (2) an itemization of the total costs that Plaintiff requests in its Motion; and (3) a brief discussion of whether the costs Plaintiff requests are recoverable under federal law. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/19/2017. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

AMUR EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INC.,

10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00416-AWI-SKO
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
SUPPLEMENT RECORD

v.
(Doc. 22)
CHD TRANSPORT, INC. dba SINGH
TRANSPORTATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion”).

19 (Doc. 22.) The Court finds that it requires additional information from Plaintiff in order to rule on
20 the Motion.
21

First, Plaintiff provided insufficient evidence in support of its request for attorney’s fees in

22 the Motion. (See id. at 2.) In particular, Plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting the hourly
23 rates requested for each attorney and professional, such as the pertinent experience for each
24 attorney and professional. (Cf. Doc. 22-6, Declaration of Mitchell D. Cohen, Esq. (“Cohen
25 Decl.”) ¶ 7, Ex. 1 (providing the requested hourly rates for five attorneys but failing to provide
26 evidence supporting these requested rates).) The Court finds that additional evidence supporting
27 Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is necessary.
28

1

Second, Plaintiff provided insufficient information to support its request for costs in the

2 amount of $2,062.56. (See id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff must submit additional information
3 in support of this request, including an itemization and whether such costs are recoverable under
4 federal law. See generally United States v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 116 F.3d 487, at *2 (9th Cir.
5 1997) (“As a general proposition, an award of costs is governed by federal law . . . under Rule
6 54(d).” (citations omitted)); In re Merrill Lynch Relocation Mgmt., Inc., 812 F.2d 1116, 1120 n.2
7 (9th Cir. 1987) (“As a general proposition, the award of costs is governed by federal law under
8 Rule 54(d).”); United Cal. Bank v. THC Fin. Corp., 557 F.2d 1351, 1361 (9th Cir. 1977) (applying
9 federal law as to costs and California state law on the issue of attorneys’ fees); Bmo Harris Bank
10 N.A. v. Singh, Case No. 1:16-cv-00482-DAD-SAB, 2016 WL 5798841, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4,
11 2016) (“In a diversity action, federal not state law controls the issue of costs.” (citing Aceves v.
12 Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 1995))).
13

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file the following by no later than

14 Monday, September 25, 2017:
(1) evidence―such as declarations―supporting Plaintiff’s requested hourly rates for each

15

16 attorney for whom Plaintiff seeks fees in its Motion;
17

(2) an itemization of the total costs that Plaintiff requests in its Motion; and

18

(3) a brief discussion of whether the costs Plaintiff requests are recoverable under federal

19 law.
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated:
23

September 19, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2

.