Ringcentral, Inc. v. Quimby et al

Filing 81

ORDER RE ATTORNEY FEES. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/27/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2011)

**E-filed 5/27 /2011**

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

RINGCENTRAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 09-2693 RS
ORDER RE ATTORNEY FEES

13
14

BILL QUIMBY, et al.,

15

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
17
18

By order entered April 18, 2011, the default judgment against defendants was vacated on the

19

condition that plaintiff recover the attorney fees it incurred in obtaining that judgment. Under the

20

default judgment, plaintiff had been awarded $32,096.50 in attorney fees it incurred bringing this

21

action and obtaining judgment. The April 18th order directed plaintiff to submit a revised fee

22

request, limited to the fees incurred specifically in connection with the motion for default judgment.

23

Plaintiff’s revised fee application seeks fees in the amount of $14,637, and is supported by a

24

declaration of counsel describing the tasks performed in connection with obtaining the default

25

judgment, and asserting that upon careful review of the billing records, counsel has determined that

26

69.7 hours of attorney time were expended, at an hourly rate of $210. Defendants’ response to the

27

revised fee application states that they do not oppose the recovery of fees “in concept.” Defendants

28

complain, however, that plaintiff has provided inadequate information to evaluate the fee request.

1

Defendants argue that because it is plaintiff’s burden to establish the amount of fees reasonably

2

incurred in obtaining default judgment, the motion should be denied, or at a minimum plaintiff

3

should provide more information, to which defendants would then respond.

4

In connection with the motion for default judgment, the magistrate judge required plaintiff to

5

submit a supplemental declaration and time records to support its fee request. After reviewing those

6

materials, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the fees then requested

7

were reasonable, a conclusion the Court adopted. Accordingly, there is little difficulty in

8

concluding now that plaintiff’s claimed hourly rate remains reasonable, and that the billing practices

9

generally were appropriate. The more difficult task, however, is discerning what portion of the total
attorney time invested in the action is reasonably ascribable to obtaining the default judgment, the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

expense of which is appropriately shifted to defendants.

12

Even assuming it would not be an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff any fee recovery on

13

grounds that it did not meet its burden, the circumstances do not warrant such a result. Nor would it

14

be appropriate to require the parties to expend further fees in resolving this issue. Given the reality

15

of the expense of preparing briefing and court appearances, defendants would be unable to establish

16

that the reasonable cost of obtaining default judgment was less than a sum in the range of several

17

thousand dollars, even if they had more detailed information as to plaintiff’s claim. The dollar

18

amount potentially subject to legitimate dispute, therefore, would be no more than a few thousand

19

dollars, a sum that quickly could be eclipsed by the cost of further briefing.

20

Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the time records previously submitted and considered

21

the record as to the briefing that plaintiff filed, and the court appearances that were required, in

22

pursuit of the default judgment. It is apparent that a significant amount of attorney time was

23

incurred in an attempt to obtain lost profit damages, an effort that did not succeed. In fee-shifting

24

circumstances, it generally is appropriate to consider the degree to which the party claiming fees

25

achieved success. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983). Here, while some reduction

26

is appropriate given that the lost profit claim was not part of the judgment plaintiff was able to

27

obtain, it is not unfair for defendants to bear costs incurred even in pursuing unsuccessful theories,

28

2

1

because but for their disregard of their legal obligations, plaintiff would not have been put to the

2

task of trying to prove actual damages in the default context in the first instance.

3

Under all the circumstances, it is reasonable to shift to defendants the expense of 45 hours of

4

attorney time, at $210 per hour, incurred by plaintiff in obtaining the default judgment.

5

Accordingly, defendants shall pay to plaintiff the total sum of $9450, to be made in three equal

6

payments of $3150 each, beginning no later than July 1, 2011 and continuing monthly thereafter.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Dated: 5/27/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3