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)

Download PDF
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 .

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?