Amur Equipment Finance, Inc. v. CHD Transport, Inc.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AMUR EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INC.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00416-AWI-SKO
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
CHD TRANSPORT, INC. dba SINGH
TRANSPORTATION, et al.,
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.
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.
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))).
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
16 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 19, 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?