Singh v. Pooni et al

Filing 118

ORDER GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees 112 signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/5/17. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proper form of final judgment consistent with this Order within ten days.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BUTA SINGH,

12

15

v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART & DENYING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES & COSTS

HARMINDER S. POONI, RAVINDER
KAUR, and PAN-AM TRANSPORT,
INC., a KANSAS CORPORATION,

16
17

2:14-cv-02146-JAM-DB

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

Defendants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

18
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for

19
20

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs,

21

and for the reasons explained below, the Court awards Plaintiff

22

$31,037.50 in attorneys’ fees, but denies his request for costs. 1

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for March 21, 2017.
1

1

I.

2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case involves a dispute between Plaintiff Buta Singh

3

and Defendant Harminder S. Pooni over a 2005 Hummer H2 with a

4

right-hand drive conversion.

5

against Defendant 2 Pooni:

6

false pretenses; (3) breach of contract; (4) unfair business

7

practices; and (5) claim and delivery.

8

ECF No. 29, at 4—8.

9

for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, and (3) breach of the

Plaintiff brought five state claims

(1) unlawful conversion; (2) theft by

First Am. Compl. (“FAC”),

Defendant counterclaimed, suing Plaintiff

10

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

11

No. 44, at 7—10.

12

Countercl., ECF

A jury returned verdicts for Plaintiff on his first, second,

13

and third claims.

14

counterclaims, the jury again returned a verdict for Plaintiff.

15

ECF No. 111.

16

ECF No. 110.

As for Defendant’s

Following the publication of the jury verdicts,

this Court

17

returned verdicts for Plaintiff on his fourth and fifth claims

18

and ordered post-trial briefing on remedies.

19

Plaintiff filed his brief, albeit weeks late.

20

No. 116.

21

ECF No. 108.
Suppl. Br., ECF

Defendant did not file a responsive brief.

Plaintiff also moves for attorneys’ fees and costs, see ECF

22

No. 112, but Defendant opposes.

23

file a reply.

24

///

25

2

26
27
28

ECF No. 115.

Plaintiff did not

Originally, Singh sued two other defendants: Ravinder Kaur and
Pan-Am Transport, Inc. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 29, at 1.
At trial, this Court found for these defendants under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 50(a), concluding as a matter of law Singh could not
prevail against them, leaving Harminder S. Pooni the only
remaining defendant.
2

1
2
3
4

II.
A.

OPINION

Attorneys’ Fees
1.

Lodestar Method

When evaluating requests for attorneys’ fees, the court

5

begins by calculating the lodestar amount, which involves

6

multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a

7

reasonable hourly rate.

8

433 (1983).

9

calculation any “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary”

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,

A court should exclude from this initial

hours expended.

See id. at 434.

But the following Kerr factors may compel a court to adjust
the lodestar amount:
(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and
the difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the
skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;
(4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney
due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee;
(6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time
limitations imposed by the client or the
circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results
obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability
of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the
case; (11) the nature and length of the professional
relationship with the client; and (12) awards in
similar cases.

20

Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.

21

1975), abrogated on other grounds by City of Burlington v.

22

Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992).

23

often subsumed within the lodestar amount, so courts must ensure

24

they account for any potential overlap.

25

of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 487 (9th Cir. 1989).

26

These Kerr factors, however, are

See Cunningham v. Cty.

The party seeking fees should provide documentary evidence

27

showing “the number of hours spent, and how it determined the

28

hourly rate(s) requested.”

McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d
3

1

1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008).

2

specific rebuttal evidence “challenging the accuracy and

3

reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by”

4

the moving party.

5

1995).

6

2.

7

Then the opposing party must submit

Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir.

Analysis

Plaintiff requests $31,037.50 in attorneys’ fees.

8

at 3.

9

at trial.

See Mot.

It is undisputed Singh is entitled to fees for prevailing
See Cal. Penal Code § 496(c) (“Any person who has

10

been injured . . . may bring an action for . . . costs of suit,

11

and reasonable attorney’s fees.”).

12

motion based on several alleged procedural defects.

13

generally Opp’n.

14

submits two declarations and a billing sheet.

15

Decl., ECF No. 112-2; Dudensing Decl., ECF No. 112-3; Ex. 1, ECF

16

No. 112-4.

17

detail normally expected by this Court, they are minimally

18

sufficient for this Court to assess whether the amount requested

19

is reasonable.

20
21

Yet Pooni opposes this
See

To support his requested fees, Plaintiff
See Bolanos

Although these records are not of the quality and

a.

Hourly Rate

To determine the reasonableness of the hourly rates

22

requested, a court looks to the prevailing market rates in the

23

relevant community for “similar work performed by attorneys of

24

comparable skill, experience, and reputation.”

25

465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984); Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796

26

F.2d 1205, 1210—11 (9th Cir. 1986).

27
28

Blum v. Stenson,

Plaintiff’s counsel each requests a $250 hourly rate.
Bolanos Decl. at 2; See Dudensing Decl. at 1.
4

See

Jan Dudensing was

1

admitted to the California State Bar in 2011.

2

Dudensing, The State Bar of California,

3

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/279561.

4

founded her own firm, specializing in foreclosure law, personal

5

injury, and elder abuse.

6

http://dudensingkimlaw.com/practices/.

7

Sacramento for mid-level associates ranges from $200 to $300.

8

See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., No. 04-1339, 2017 WL

9

999253, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2017) (accepting $200 hourly

Janice Dianne

She

Areas of Practice, Dudensing Kim,
The prevailing rate in

10

award for associates after recognizing $250-$300 as the

11

“prevailing Sacramento rate”); Cosby v. Autozone, Inc., No. 08-

12

505, 2016 WL 1626997, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2016) (finding

13

$300 rate reasonable for fifth-year associate).

14

therefore finds Ms. Dudensing’s $250 hourly rate reasonable

15

because it falls well within Sacramento’s prevailing rate for

16

attorneys with mid-level experience.

17

The Court

The Court also accepts Aldon Bolanos’s requested $250

18

hourly rate.

Mr. Bolanos was admitted to the California State

19

Bar in 2004.

Aldon Louis Bolanos, The State Bar of California,

20

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/233915.

21

manages his own firm, garnering experience in several practice

22

areas.

23

“business, real estate, civil rights, employment and

24

catastrophic injury law”).

25

rate falls well below Sacramento’s prevailing rate for

26

experienced attorneys.

27

2016 WL 310279, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (approving $400

28

requested rate for partners with as much as 19 years of

He also

Aldon Bolanos, http://www.aldonlaw.com/ (listing

Mr. Bolanos’s requested $250 hourly

See Estrada v. iYogi, Inc., No. 13-1989,

5

1

experience); Trulsson v. Cty. of San Joaquin Dist. Attorneys’

2

Office, No. 11-2986, 2014 WL 5472787, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28,

3

2014) (accepting $450 hourly rate for experienced attorney).

4

b.

5

Hours Expended

Plaintiff contends spending 124.15 hours on this case was

6

reasonable.

See Dudensing Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. 1 at 5.

7

disagrees primarily on several procedural grounds.

8

generally Opp’n (discussing federal and local rules).

9

(i)

10

Defendant
See

Mr. Bolanos

Mr. Bolanos spent 85.70 hours on this case.

Ex. 1 at 5.

11

He worked on the matter for three years, from its inception

12

until just before the pre-trial conference.

13

¶ 2.

14

the work performed, when he performed it, and for how long.

15

generally Ex. 1.

16

reasonable because nothing in his statement shows any hour

17

expended was “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”

18

See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434.

19

See Bolanos Decl.

His corresponding billing statement sufficiently explains
See

The Court finds the hours Mr. Bolanos expended

Defendant’s objections do not change this conclusion.

20

argues Plaintiff has not identified the statutory basis for

21

attorneys’ fees, see Opp’n at 3, but Plaintiff has.

22

2 (citing Cal. Penal Code § 496(c)).

23

Plaintiff failed to provide the specific basis on which he

24

claims to be the prevailing party.

25

quite clear Plaintiff prevailed against Defendant Pooni at

26

trial.

27

this case was reasonable.

28

///

He

See Mot. at

Defendant also contends

See Opp’n at 4.

Yet it is

In short, the Court finds the time Mr. Bolanos spent on

6

1

(ii) Ms. Dudensing

2

Ms. Dudensing spent 38.45 hours on this case.

Dudensing

3

Decl. ¶ 3.

4

trial.

5

be verified because she did not attach a billing sheet to her

6

declaration.

7

witnessed Ms. Dudensing litigate this case, and an award of her

8

attorney’s fees is certainly deserved given her successful

9

performance at trial.

10

She handled it from the pre-trial conference through

Id.

Defendant contends that Ms. Dudensing’s time cannot

See Opp’n at 5.

The Court disagrees.

The Court

In sum, Ms. Dudensing’s 38.45 hours are

reasonable.

11

c.

12

Lodestar Amount

There is a strong presumption that the lodestar amount is

13

the reasonable fee.

See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps

14

Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 406 (9th Cir. 1990).

15

therefore awards the following in attorneys’ fees:

16

Aldon Bolanos

85.70

x

$250

=

$21,425.00

17

Jan Dudensing

38.45

x

$250

=

$ 9,612.50

18

The Court

$31,037.50

19

B.

Costs

20

Plaintiff also requests $1,729.40 in costs.

Mot. at 3.

21

Defendant argues Plaintiff improperly seeks costs because

22

neither declaration references any costs incurred and because

23

Plaintiff did provide an itemized bill.

24

Court agrees with Defendant.

25

party must “file a bill of costs . . . .”

26

292(b).

27

request for costs.

28

///

See Opp’n at 5.

The

The local rule plainly states the
E.D. Cal. L.R.

Because Plaintiff did not do so, the Court denies his

7

1

C.

2

After trial, the Court ordered the parties to file

Remedies

3

supplemental briefing on remedies.

4

the appropriate remedies.

5

did not file a supplemental brief.

6

Plaintiff’s brief enumerates

See generally ECF No. 116.

Defendant

At the outset, Plaintiff requests $51,552.00 in money

7

damages.

Suppl. Br. at 2.

Yet the jury awarded him only

8

$47,664.00 in money damages.

9

conversion claim; $26,664 for theft by false pretenses claim;

ECF No. 110 ($5,000 for unlawful

10

and $16,000 for breach of contract claim).

11

does not explain why he believes he is entitled to more money

12

than the jury awarded him, the Court denies his excessive

13

request and confirms the jury award of $47,664.00 in money

14

damages.

15

Because Plaintiff

Plaintiff also requests punitive damages for his conversion

16

claim.

Suppl. Br. at 2.

This fails for two reasons.

17

Plaintiff’s request is improper because he never asked for

18

punitive damages in his FAC.

19

v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, No. 09-1173, 2009 WL 2365409, at *6

20

(E.D. Cal. July 29, 2009) (“Punitive damages are ‘available to a

21

party who can plead and prove the facts and circumstances set

22

forth in Civil Code section 3294.’”) (internal citation

23

omitted).

24

punitive damages “in noncontract actions ‘where it is proven by

25

clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty

26

of oppression . . . or malice’ . . . .”

27

135 Cal. App. 4th 1188, 1210 (2006) (citing Cal. Civ. Code

28

section 3294(a)).

See FAC at 9.

First,

See also GBTI, Inc.

Second, under California law, a court may award

See Lackner v. North,

Yet, here, at its core, this dispute involved
8

1

a contract breach.

2

damages and need not include a non-dischargeability provision.

3

See Suppl. Br. at 2 (arguing that a court order granting

4

punitive damages for a conversion claim “must include a

5

provision related to non-dischargeability”).

6

The Court therefore will not award punitive

Additionally, Plaintiff requests statutory attorneys’ fees

7

and costs for his theft by false pretenses claim.

Id.

Because

8

the Court has awarded attorneys’ fees, the Court will not award

9

additional fees because that would be duplicative.

And, for the

10

reasons explained above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request

11

for costs.

12

As to his unfair business practices claim, Plaintiff

13

requests an injunction, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

14

Id.

15

Plaintiff’s requests for costs.

16

concerned, that too would be duplicative and is therefore

17

denied.

18

Again, the Court will not award more fees and denies
As far as restitution is

Lastly, as to Plaintiff’s claim and delivery claim, the

19

Court declares that Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the

20

contested 2005 Hummer H2 and may retain possession of this

21

vehicle.
III.

22
23

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS in part

24

and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and

25

Costs.

26

but denies Plaintiff’s request for costs.

27

judgment is concerned, the Court awards Plaintiff $47,664.00 in

28

monetary damages and declares that Plaintiff is the rightful

The Court awards Plaintiff $31,037.50 in attorneys’ fees,

9

As far as the final

1

owner of this 2005 Hummer H2.

2

proper form of final judgment consistent with this Order within

3

ten days.

4
5

Plaintiff is ordered to submit a

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2017

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10