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
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?