Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Dostel Corporation

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/21/15 DENYING 43 Motion for Attorney Fees. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

11

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT
CREDITOR’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S
FEES*

v.

12

No. 2:11-MC-0045-GEB-AC

DOSTEL CORP., ET AL.,
Defendant.

14
15
16

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Choice Hotels International

17

(“Plaintiff”) seeks “an order awarding [it] . . . $10,750.00 [in

18

attorney’s

19

consequence

of

the

20

Defendant/Judgment

Debtor

21

Mot. & Mot. Award of Atty.’s Fees, (“Not.”) 1:23-26, ECF No. 43.)

22

Although Defendant has been held in Civil Contempt of Court, the

23

Court

24

imposed on Defendant, but stated in an order filed March 23, 2015

25

that

26

sufficient to resolve the contempt citation, provided that the

has

fees,

not

contending

decided

Plaintiff’s

idea

the

fees

are]

contempt
Nilakshi

what

of

.

.

proceedings

Patel”

sanction

.

direct
against

(“Defendant”).

or

appointing

a

sanctions

a

receiver

(Not.

should

be

“appears

27
*

28

The hearing on April 27, 2015 is vacated since this matter is suitable
for decision without oral argument under E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

1

method of compensating a receiver is explained.” (Order Denying

2

Pl. Mot. Appointment of a Receiver, 2:16-8, ECF No. 44.) The

3

contempt issue is still pending.

4
5

Plaintiff argues it should be awarded attorney’s fees
as follows:

6

Here,
this
Court
has
determined
that
Defendant . . . is in civil contempt of court
. . . . [and] [a]s part of [Defendant’s
contempt sanction], Plaintiff . . . is
entitled to seek an award of reasonable
attorney’s
fees
incurred
as
a
direct
consequence of the contempt. Attorney’s fees
with a reasonable value of $10,750.00 were
reasonably
and
necessarily
incurred
in
connection with these contempt proceedings.
Said attorney’s fees should be included as
part of this Court’s sentencing order.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(Mot. Award of Atty’s Fees, 1:25-2:3, ECF No. 43.)

14

“[T]rial court[s] . . .

have discretion to analyze

15

each contempt case individually and decide whether an award of

16

[attorney’s] fees . . . is appropriate as a remedial measure.”

17

Perry v. O’Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 705 (9th Cir. 1985). Since

18

Plaintiff has not addressed the issue of whether attorney’s fees

19

are an appropriate “remedial measure” under the circumstances in

20

which they are sought here, this issue is not addressed sua

21

sponte and the court need not decide the reasonableness of the

22

fee Plaintiff seeks.

23

Dated:

Therefore, its motion is denied.

April 21, 2015

24
25
26
27
28
2